Thread: Queen On SACD - DR Scores

Posts: 22
Page: prev 1 2 3 next

Post by rammiepie August 19, 2013 (11 of 22)
It will be interesting to see what transpires DR~wise, when Universal releases the Pure Audio BD~A 5.1 of Queen's A Night At The Opera based, presumably, on the DVD~A released by DTS Entertainment (probably followed also by the 5.1 BD~A of The Game also released on DVD~A by the same label.)

I have Queen's Greatest Hits Vol. I & II on SHM~SACD and the dynamic range seems appropriate as compared to Hollywood Records 2002 RBCD remaster (which included a Vol III, as well). There is simply NO comparison.....the SHM~SACDs are SUPERIOR! I am using a Meridian 808 with a Marigo HD damper for the RBCD playback and a Marantz SA11S3 for the SHM~SACD (also dampered) for the comparison.

Post by Kveld-Úlfr August 20, 2013 (12 of 22)
hooperthom said:

I just wonder how accurate the DR database really is. If it was done by one person I would trust it more.

Please see my below post regarding my personal doubts.

/showthread/103359//y?page=last

Post by Claude August 20, 2013 (13 of 22)
The DR Database is like Wikipedia. It contains errors, but most of the info is accurate and useful.

I agree with your point in the other thread that including vinyl rips in the database makes little sense.

Post by progboy August 20, 2013 (14 of 22)
Kveld-Úlfr said:

Well, this is simple plain horror. I always suspected compression in these Bob Ludwig remasters (which were basically intended for RBCD broad market anyway), and now I'm sure of it. Figures don't lie.

Thanks, Universal Japan, for using Bob Ludwig wide-commercial 96/24 remasters... a cheap opportunity to fill your pockets with someone else's work, instead of spending money for the good cause : properly remastering these discs by your own process, which never disappointed me...

Anyway, poor DR, but excellent SQ. I love these Queen SHM SA-CDs despite their flaws. Just too bad they use Bob Ludwig's remasters. It could've been perfect with a more audiophile treatment.

Wow....these are all very low DR scores...I wonder if that is a sign of the original masters or did Bob Ludwig remaster the heck out of these masters ?

Not sure I am really drinking the Queen SHM-SACD Cool-aid yet there guys.....

SQ is excellent but DR is low.....hmmmmmmmmmm for $50 each I think I'd like to have the best SQ and DR........

I just looked up the Avg DR Scores of Queen's "A Night At The Opera" to just see.....

2005 30th Anniversary Remaster RBCD DR = 9
2011 SHM SACD DR = 9

and then my RBCD from 1986 (1st CD pressing) has a DR of 11

Yikes......I think Master Bob might have altered this puppy

..But having said all this you guys have not failed me yet on your recommendations .....so I will order one and give it a whirl and compare to my vinyl and RBCD original pressings....

Thx

Post by Claude August 20, 2013 (15 of 22)
DR9 is disappointing when other CD versions had DR11, but it's not yet a compression disaster.

Compare that to reissues such as Nirvana "Nevermind": original CD = DR12, CD remaster and HDtracks 24/96 download = DR7. That difference is immediately noticeable from the first seconds after hitting Play.

Post by Kveld-Úlfr August 20, 2013 (16 of 22)
Claude said:

DR9 is disappointing when other CD versions had DR11, but it's not yet a compression disaster.

Compare that to reissues such as Nirvana "Nevermind": original CD = DR12, CD remaster and HDtracks 24/96 download = DR7. That difference is immediately noticeable from the first seconds after hitting Play.

I agree.

Post by rammiepie August 20, 2013 (17 of 22)
I have an account with HDTracks but have never ordered a 96/24 download.

Seeing some of the DR numbers for their "product" makes me confident that I made the right decision.

But the Queen DR numbers for their SHM~SACDs is equally depressing.

Which is why I carefully peruse the various review websites before ordering BD movies. At least we are getting extreme quality, for what compared to hi res music purchases, is a tiny sum.

BUYER BEWARE!

Post by Claude August 21, 2013 (18 of 22)
rammiepie said:

I have an account with HDTracks but have never ordered a 96/24 download.

Seeing some of the DR numbers for their "product" makes me confident that I made the right decision.

They have some poorly mastered albums, but most of their downloads are good. It's like with SACD.

Post by hooperthom August 21, 2013 (19 of 22)
Claude said:

They have some poorly mastered albums, but most of their downloads are good. It's like with SACD.

I have many HDtracks downloads and most are very good, especially the more recent ones. People have complained about the compressed downloads of earlier stuff but its gotten much better. like the Van Morrison Astral Weeks, DR average of 12.

Post by Mahler-fan August 21, 2013 (20 of 22)
Claude said:

It's a very good approximation.

BTW, the change in bitrate and sampling rate will not affect the DR value. If a CD and a 24/96 download use the same mastering (i.e. the CD is just downconverted from a 24/96 master, with no other changes), the DR value will be the same. I've checked that with several ECM albums available on HDtracks that had on CD.

Dynamic range that can be achieved in a PCM signal is determined by sample size and sampling frequency. For DSD it is determined by sampling frequency alone.
So a track using the complete dynamic range of a 24/96 signal cannot have same dynamic range when converted to RBCD quality.

Of course, there will be enough HiRes tracks that have dynamic range that is 'sufficiently limited' to fit on an RBCD.


Regarding the Queen SACD's.
I first ordered Greatest hits, and based on my appreciation of the sound quality, I ordered News of the World and A Night at the Opera, which seem to be the Queen albums I like most.
I'm having the Japansese RBCD of News of the World with the facsimile of the original sleeve. RBCD and SACD sounds strongly different, but there are aspects of both that I can appreciate. My wife even liked the RBCD more than the SACD. But according to DR measurement, this RBCD should be the worst you can get (http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/index.php?search_artist=queen&search_album=news+of+the). I think it is clear that DR is surely not the only parameter to be taken into account when discussing sound quality.
(Meanwhile I also ordered Greatest Hits II, which sounds somewhat better than the RBCD I have. But the difference is smaller, probably due to the digital sources: you cannot recreate what has been lost in the past.)

DR in itself is a result of the complete package: the original sound made in the studio and all aspects of recording and mastering (and also playback should not be forgotten in the appreciation while not a part of a calculation based on a PCM signal).
I think that appreciation of a DR depends much on how much clipping is in the signal. There are lots of discs with bad DR that have significant clipping (Rolling Stones a bigger bang as an example of a terrible sounding disc). In the case of clipping, you do not only have a limited DR, but also a strongly distorted signal leaving your speakers. And that is when the headaches really start in my opinion.

Page: prev 1 2 3 next

Closed