Thread: Interesting answer from DG

Posts: 24
Page: prev 1 2 3 next

Post by Chris August 27, 2005 (11 of 24)
Daland said:

So would I. Virtually any SACD sounds better than its equivalent on CD. I have a huge collection of classical CDs, but hardly play any of them because the sound is so constricted and unnatural. Having grown accustomed to the silky strings of an SACD, I find the aggressive harshness of most (not all) CDs quite painful to listen to. Even XRCDs, which are very expensive, are no match for SACDs. For example, I bought an XRCD featuring Mahler's Fourth with Reiner only to discover that the string sound was far from pleasant.
It simply isn't true that only a fraction of the SACDs sound better than redbook CDs. The very opposite is the case. How could it be otherwise? After all, a CD is simply incapable of reproducing music faithfully. Before Telarc embraced SACD it was proud of its "pure digital" sound - clinical, synthetic and aggressive. Fortunately, it has changed its philosophy completely, emphasizing a warm, blooming, natural sound.
Admittedly, the CDs of some labels such as Chandos (but surely not Telarc) are more acceptable in sonic terms than others. But even so they are no substitute for the real thing.

A word about the cost factor and the popularity of CDs. I just came across a list of the best-selling classical CDs on the French FNAC web site. The two top sellers are SACDs (with Julia Fischer's Bach sonatas heading the list), and there are four SACDs among the top ten. Not too bad, I would say. Maybe DG are just a bit short-sighted. As more and more legendary recordings move into the public domain, other labels will offer them at bargain prices, so DG will be at an advantage only if they transfer the original masters to a hi-rez medium such as SACD.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on all points,and if DGG and others followed the wonderful path taken by Sony/Bmg and started releasing their Originals as DSD transfers straight from the masters and sell them at the same price as Living Stereos ie around $10 per disc.They would not only count me but many others who actually care about sound quality, among their customers again.

Post by prometheus August 27, 2005 (12 of 24)
mdt said:

I dont like the indication of being a fool. Please read carefully and THEN answer. What i'm pointing out, isn't that SA-CDs sound better per se, but that they capture the FULL quality of recording and remastering work without the losses that have now become unecessary.
How a recording sounds is determined by the musicians, the venue and the recording team. SA-CD is about not loosing any of that sound, it doesn't make the sound and i never said so.

The word is "implication" not "indication".

And the spelling is "losing", not "loosing".

And "i" requires capitalization.

The comma following "sound" in the penultimate line should be a semi-colon or even a period.

My eleven year-old daughter knows all of the above..........

I was commenting solely on Claude's defense of the sound quality of really quite a lot of RBCDs. Listening as I do--perforce--to a great deal of recorded music, of which higher-resolution discs account for no more than 20% maximum, I must reiterate: many RBCDs sound just fine to the most 'picky' of ears. The sound of many remastered RBCDs reveals that it has been the mastering of CDs that was the chief problem and little is INTRINSICALLY wrong with the medium. A/B comparisons do not ALWAYS favor the SACD--you might have replied to my point about the Coltrane. I remember "Stereophile" making a similar point about Miles's "Kind of Blue": the SACD was consigned, if I remember aright, to use as a coaster!!

Post by prometheus August 27, 2005 (13 of 24)
Daland said:

So would I. Virtually any SACD sounds better than its equivalent on CD. I have a huge collection of classical CDs, but hardly play any of them because the sound is so constricted and unnatural. Having grown accustomed to the silky strings of an SACD, I find the aggressive harshness of most (not all) CDs quite painful to listen to. Even XRCDs, which are very expensive, are no match for SACDs. For example, I bought an XRCD featuring Mahler's Fourth with Reiner only to discover that the string sound was far from pleasant.
It simply isn't true that only a fraction of the SACDs sound better than redbook CDs. The very opposite is the case. How could it be otherwise? After all, a CD is simply incapable of reproducing music faithfully. Before Telarc embraced SACD it was proud of its "pure digital" sound - clinical, synthetic and aggressive. Fortunately, it has changed its philosophy completely, emphasizing a warm, blooming, natural sound.
Admittedly, the CDs of some labels such as Chandos (but surely not Telarc) are more acceptable in sonic terms than others. But even so they are no substitute for the real thing.

A word about the cost factor and the popularity of CDs. I just came across a list of the best-selling classical CDs on the French FNAC web site. The two top sellers are SACDs (with Julia Fischer's Bach sonatas heading the list), and there are four SACDs among the top ten. Not too bad, I would say. Maybe DG are just a bit short-sighted. As more and more legendary recordings move into the public domain, other labels will offer them at bargain prices, so DG will be at an advantage only if they transfer the original masters to a hi-rez medium such as SACD.

First, I didn't say "only a fraction."

Second, your diatribe against pre-SACD Telarc seems well wide of the mark. If your point were valid, then their DSD releases on RBCD would sound dreadful--which they assuredly do not!

And to further defend the heroic team of Woods-Renner, to dismiss the sound of such pre-DSD Telarc issues as Bruckner 8/9 and Mahler 9 from Lopez-Cobos, or almost anything from Robert Shaw in Atlanta, would be to put yourself outside the critical mainstream--read the unanimous Amazon reviews--and to indict the GRAMMY voters who seemed to give, on an almost annual basis, the Best Classical Recording award to Telarc.

Your posting seemed the very epitome of the "Damn the RBCDs" movement which had provoked the intervention of M. Cluade and myself in the first place. Just because--shame of shames--SACD is going belly-up, and just because one (rightly) admires the newcomer, does not mean one has to automatically villify every disc on the medium which--let's be frank--we're going to be left with. So buy your SACDs while they're on the shelves, enjoy them (forever???), and take credit that the SACD (aborted) revolution may have succeeded in permanently and irrevocably raising the RBCD quality bar--not least in mastering!

Post by zeus August 27, 2005 (14 of 24)
prometheus said:

"SACD is going belly-up"

News to me. Sure there's been some dropouts in label support, but many labels have long term release plans and new labels are still jumping on the format. As a classical listener, I can see myself enjoying great new SA-CDs for many years to come. I had hoped this forum would remain a doomsayer-free zone.

Post by prometheus August 27, 2005 (15 of 24)
zeus said:

News to me. Sure there's been some dropouts in label support, but many labels have long term release plans and new labels are still jumping on the format. As a classical listener, I can see myself enjoying great new SA-CDs for many years to come. I had hoped this forum would remain a doomsayer-free zone.

Or should that be reality-free zone?

Many companies--major and indy.--refuse to countenance the very idea of SACD. It looks increasingly probable from release data and from official company websites that the two majors who spawned the medium--Sony and Polygram/Universal--are explicitly and implicitly withdrawing. At least in the US--and my sister confirms the same to be partially true in the UK--most major retail chains have dropped the medium. The number of discs carried in the US by your contractual partner Amazon is radically down--according to correspondence with them, due to minuscule demand. Why do you think the majority of your participants seem to be ordering from German or Japanese websites? In the US, at least--which I do know is not the globe, but over recent years seems to have become the only market the non-Asian industry cares about--only Tower and some indy. shops are the only ones to care less. I call it as I see it, zeus; not for the sake of a Promethean challenge but because, as I have repeatedly said, this is a replay of the Quadpraphonic debacle. And for the same darned reason--releases in both cases should--where possible, i.e. hybrid--have been SINGLE INVENTORY. At least SACD never had to deal with the Quad. conundrum: one minute, it's Hardware but no Software; to be followed two or three years later by scads of Software but, by then, no Hardware!

While I've got your attention--to say nothing of displeasure, but then to tell it like I see it, such may be unavoidable given the number of silly reviews around saying nothing other than SACD=Wonderful Sound--may I compliment you on the best, most easily navigable site I've seen in years of websurfing.

Did you TRULY mean your last sentence--seems singularly undemocratic for the only nation on earth which has the sense to legally mandate voting? It sounded awfully like agree with me and my beliefs or **** (imperative verb) *** (preposition)

Post by azure August 27, 2005 (16 of 24)
prometheus said:

Or should that be reality-free zone?

Many companies--major and indy.--refuse to countenance the very idea of SACD. It looks increasingly probable from release data and from official company websites that the two majors who spawned the medium--Sony and Polygram/Universal--are explicitly and implicitly withdrawing. At least in the US--and my sister confirms the same to be partially true in the UK--most major retail chains have dropped the medium. The number of discs carried in the US by your contractual partner Amazon is radically down--according to correspondence with them, due to minuscule demand. Why do you think the majority of your participants seem to be ordering from German or Japanese websites? In the US, at least--which I do know is not the globe, but over recent years seems to have become the only market the non-Asian industry cares about--only Tower and some indy. shops are the only ones to care less. I call it as I see it, zeus; not for the sake of a Promethean challenge but because, as I have repeatedly said, this is a replay of the Quadpraphonic debacle. And for the same darned reason--releases in both cases should--where possible, i.e. hybrid--have been SINGLE INVENTORY. At least SACD never had to deal with the Quad. conundrum: one minute, it's Hardware but no Software; to be followed two or three years later by scads of Software but, by then, no Hardware!

While i've got your attention--to say nothing of displeasure, but then to tell it like I see it, such may be unavoidable given the number of silly reviews around saying nothing other than SACD=Wonderful Sound--may I compliment you on the best, most easily navigable site I've seen in years of websurfing.

Did you TRULY mean your last sentence--seems singularly undemocratic for the only nation on earth which has the sense to legally mandate voting? It sounded awfully like agree with me and my beliefs or **** (imperative verb) *** (preposition)

i don't know what planet your sister is on but both
the Dire straits Brothers In Arms 20th Ann
and War of the worlds hybrids have been highly successful outside the US
apparently PF are releasing Wish, Animals and the wall -all on hybrid through EMI which will sell like hotcakes
as for picking up ppl for "english" grammer - ha ha - what a joke

how about spelling "Colour" etc the correct way hey? >>big smile
hello this forum is suppose to be informal!

I have compared Lp and prev Cds of Kind of Blue and the SACD which I have -and the SACD certainly tops it
Also PCM recordings do sound better on SACD than CD- check the Gould Goldberg Vars disc
The many smaller independents who want to "push the envelope" for better audio playback technology that release SACDs should be supported regardless of region.
Like Zeus, i have many fine albums -jazz in my case - in the SA-CD format and I'm not looking back
i don't expect all new titles and re-releases to be on SACD although it is "icing on the cake if it is!

Post by azure August 27, 2005 (17 of 24)
mdt said:

Today i received an answer from DG on an e-mail i had sent some time ago, i was glad to receive a direct and open answer (thanks DG) but i didn't like what i read.
I had asked why reissues were continuously being released on CD instead of SA-CD alltough they had most allways been remastered to high-res digital.
I mentioned my dissapontement with customers being deprived of the actual quality of the high res remaster.
DG's answer was, that they agree on the quality issue, but that today the cost factor had to be considered by any record company. They said, that SA-CD hadn't shown to be as popular as CD (!) but was more expensive to produce.

So everyone here, let's prove them different ! I'd really hate having to go back to that unmusical, cold, compressed CD sound for good.

ECM also quoted the cost issue as an excuse for lack of SACD releases
maybe they're getting conservative in their old age
there use to b a time when they use to push the envelope in regards to SQ
my money is going to the labels that make an effort to progress NOT Go backwards....

Post by Daland August 27, 2005 (18 of 24)
prometheus said:
The sound of many remastered RBCDs reveals that it has been the mastering of CDs that was the chief problem and little is INTRINSICALLY wrong with the medium. A/B comparisons do not ALWAYS favor the SACD--you might have replied to my point about the Coltrane. I remember "Stereophile" making a similar point about Miles's "Kind of Blue": the SACD was consigned, if I remember aright, to use as a coaster!!

It seems to me that you are much better at spelling than at logic. The specifications of an RBCD are: 16-bit technology and 44.1 kHz. This is what is INTRINSICALLY wrong with the medium. No amount of remastering can change that. To claim that the mastering of CDs was the chief problem is preposterous.

Post by prometheus August 27, 2005 (19 of 24)
azure said:

i don't know what planet your sister is on but both
the Dire straits Brothers In Arms 20th Ann
and War of the worlds hybrids have been highly successful outside the US
apparently PF are releasing Wish, Animals and the wall -all on hybrid through EMI which will sell like hotcakes
as for picking up ppl for "english" grammer - ha ha - what a joke

how about spelling "Colour" etc the correct way hey? >>big smile
hello this forum is suppose to be informal!

I have compared Lp and prev Cds of Kind of Blue and the SACD which I have -and the SACD certainly tops it
Also PCM recordings do sound better on SACD than CD- check the Gould Goldberg Vars disc
The many smaller independents who want to "push the envelope" for better audio playback technology that release SACDs should be supported regardless of region.
Like Zeus, i have many fine albums -jazz in my case - in the SA-CD format and I'm not looking back
i don't expect all new titles and re-releases to be on SACD although it is "icing on the cake if it is!

1)As my post clearly indicated,my sister is in the UK.

2)zeus was talking about 'classical'music and therefore so was I.

3)If I am being criticized, then I reserve the right--at the very least--to point out that the verbal skills of my opponent are far from perfect and may impede communication. In the real world out there, whether you like it or not, people make deductions about you based on the quality of your prose."Informal" does not have to imply 'less than perfectly literate'.

And that--if I may use ramesh's racial epithet of a couple of days ago--is quite enough "pommie" bashing from the Antipodes for one morning

Post by prometheus August 27, 2005 (20 of 24)
Daland said:

It seems to me that you are much better at spelling than at logic. The specifications of an RBCD are: 16-bit technology and 44.1 kHz. This is what is INTRINSICALLY wrong with the medium. No amount of remastering can change that. To claim that the mastering of CDs was the chief problem is preposterous.

As with all technophiles, that completely misses the point with its emphasis on dynamic range, S/N ratio and the like. There is no INTRINSIC reason why 24/96 (to take one example)MUST SOUND better than RBCD when reaching the gray matter through the ear canal and after reconversion of sound into impulses via the tympanum. Lots of research has been done in this area of psychoacoustics.....

Your research in another place into the Classical Best-Sellers at FNAC provided such astonishing conclusions that I rechecked.At 1100hrs ET (GMT-5) there were 7 SACDs in their classical top 50 but with the new medium creditably holding the top two positions. But go to the shamefully all-important US and you find the story as I related it to zeus this morning: ONE lone SACD in Amazon.com's Classical top 50. But--and reiterating my lament about single inventory, the lack of which puts off pretty much all retailers--I counted ten discs in that list which buyers could have obtained in hybrid SACD format. That is, if SACD had been made single inventory and with Living Stereo-type pricing, folk would have HAD to buy the SACD!

And if my remastering argument is so "preposterous", then why do so many remastered CDs sound marvelous? Listen to almost anything on Blue Note's RvG edition or Sony's first two batches of classical "Legacy" releases for a start.......

Page: prev 1 2 3 next

Closed