X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
From: "cyble11375" <jhalpern@mac.com>
X-Originating-IP: 24.90.208.42
X-Yahoo-Profile: cyble11375
Mailing-List: list hjleak@yahoogroups.com; contact hjleak-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list hjleak@yahoogroups.com
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:hjleak-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:30:03 -0000
Subject: [hjleak] Sacd Question plus some warnings
Reply-To: hjleak@yahoogroups.com
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter poincare (http://amavis.org/)
Guys,
I worked with Mark Levinson at Red Rose Music for a while and
got some insight into SACD. SACD can sound great if it is
recorded direct to DSD. The problem is that you can not EQ in
DSD which means that 99.9% of what they are selling you is a
DSD master EQ'd in PCM and then transfered back to DSD.
What do you wind up with? A remastered CD! The only
advantage is the superior master and the ability to decode the
information through a much simpler DAC. I was able to compare
DSD masters no eq versus an uneq'd DSD master passed
through the PCM EQ upconverted back to DSD. The difference
was extreme a complete loss of that analogue like quality that
DSD can offer.What was left was a compressed harmonically
stripped still great sounding version of the original. In blind
testing we could all tell 100% of the time which had PCM or not.
I believe that one of the reasons it still sounds better than CD is
you are capturing the very high PCM sampling rate of the EQ.
Jonathan
Des commentaires ?
Frederik
PS Olivier, je n'ai pas eu le temps de prendre un proxy socks et un nouveau pseudo, merci de ne pas me bannir
)
)??
