Thread: Info on DSD recordings

Posts: 6

Post by JackC February 12, 2004 (1 of 6)
In looking at the information on SACDs provided on this site, I note that often there is no indication given as to whether the SACD is an original DSD recording, a PCM recording being issued on SACD or, for analogue recordings, whether the SACD was made from the original analogue source or master tape, or from a prior PCM digital remastering. Is there any place where this info is available for all SACDs?

Post by zeus February 12, 2004 (2 of 6)
JackC said:

Is there any place where this info is available for all SACDs?

In short, no. This information is difficult to come by, sometimes even if you have the disc in your hands. I'll update any entry here with concrete information on the recording provenance (use "report errors" at the end of the title details).

In my opinion, reviews are a more reliable indicator of sonic quality. There's too many variables in the recording/mastering chain to base an assessment solely on the recording type.

Stephen

Post by mdt February 13, 2004 (3 of 6)
zeus said:

In short, no. This information is difficult to come by, sometimes even if you have the disc in your hands. I'll update any entry here with concrete information on the recording provenance (use "report errors" at the end of the title details).

In my opinion, reviews are a more reliable indicator of sonic quality. There's too many variables in the recording/mastering chain to base an assessment solely on the recording type.

Stephen

I agree completely with Zeus,the sonic quality is based above all on what happens before the signal reaches the storage medium.As Zeus has said this means the entire recording/mastering chain and even more important the work of the envolved engineer (choice of recording venue, mike set-up,post-production,etc.).
The only thing the storage medium can doe is to store and replay the input signal with as little alteration as possible.
Therefore it can only be said which medium HAS THE BEST POTENTIAL to deliever sonic quality based on its capability to faithfully store complex musical information.
I think it very important to communicate this to consumers,statements like "DSD allways offers the best sound" or "Mch is better than stereo per se" will lead to false judgements when people whose expectations were set high by such advertising are dissapointed by a bad recording and assign it to the format itself.
Allready with the CD this simplified aproach made people run for DDD recordings only, thereby bypassing many sonically superior recording based on an analog source.

Post by JackC February 13, 2004 (4 of 6)
mdt said:

I agree completely with Zeus,the sonic quality is based above all on what happens before the signal reaches the storage medium.As Zeus has said this means the entire recording/mastering chain and even more important the work of the envolved engineer (choice of recording venue, mike set-up,post-production,etc.).
The only thing the storage medium can doe is to store and replay the input signal with as little alteration as possible.
Therefore it can only be said which medium HAS THE BEST POTENTIAL to deliever sonic quality based on its capability to faithfully store complex musical information.
I think it very important to communicate this to consumers,statements like "DSD allways offers the best sound" or "Mch is better than stereo per se" will lead to false judgements when people whose expectations were set high by such advertising are dissapointed by a bad recording and assign it to the format itself.
Allready with the CD this simplified aproach made people run for DDD recordings only, thereby bypassing many sonically superior recording based on an analog source.

I don't disagree that what you said, but it doesn't really have anything to do with my point. The fact is that "which medium HAS THE BEST POTENTIAL to deliever sonic quality based on its capability to faithfully store complex musical information" is important. I presume that most here agree or I wouldn't see the point of a website about SACD.

DSD is an important part of SACD. Whether an SACD was produced, either originally or when making a copy of a analogue master, with the DSD process without going through as "lower rez" digital process is a piece of information that I would like to have.

I for one don't think review are all that helpful. Just look at this site, what sounds good to one person, sounds bad to another. One has to know the perferences of the reviewer and how they comapre to one's own. That info is very difficult to obtain.

Post by mdt February 13, 2004 (5 of 6)
JackC said:

I don't disagree that what you said, but it doesn't really have anything to do with my point. The fact is that "which medium HAS THE BEST POTENTIAL to deliever sonic quality based on its capability to faithfully store complex musical information" is important. I presume that most here agree or I wouldn't see the point of a website about SACD.

DSD is an important part of SACD. Whether an SACD was produced, either originally or when making a copy of a analogue master, with the DSD process without going through as "lower rez" digital process is a piece of information that I would like to have.

I for one don't think review are all that helpful. Just look at this site, what sounds good to one person, sounds bad to another. One has to know the perferences of the reviewer and how they comapre to one's own. That info is very difficult to obtain.

I believe Zeus has sufficiently answered your question.So i picked up his aditional remark about soundquality, alltough it does'nt directly relate to your question, because i believe its an important point and i often hear precisely the mentioned kind of unjust criticism by people not knowing about the recording process and all its variables.
For example i have often heard multichannel being called something silly and enerving because in a concert music comes at you from the front and not from behind you.This statement only comes from people not knowing what Mch means, naimly 6 individual channels with which the producer can do what ever he wants.This can be music from all sides but it can also be reproduction of ambience.
It's possible that people reading this thread know about this because they have special interest in SA-CD and keep themselves informed.But the large public on the interrest of which SA-CD depends has no kind of knowledge about recording and simply goes by what the advertising campaigns are saying.

Post by zeus February 13, 2004 (6 of 6)
JackC said:

I don't disagree that what you said, but it doesn't really have anything to do with my point. The fact is that "which medium HAS THE BEST POTENTIAL to deliever sonic quality based on its capability to faithfully store complex musical information" is important. I presume that most here agree or I wouldn't see the point of a website about SACD.

The absolute best SACDs for sonics that I have all come from DSD recordings and with minimal fiddling. I also have great sounding SACDs from analogue and PCM sources ... definitely worth seeking out over the CD equivalent. But I have lesser recordings from analogue, PCM *and* DSD masters which can be put down to any number of reasons. Picking good sounding SACDs is a learning process. You can go by recording engineer, label whatever.

Because of the subjective nature of everyone's experiences, equipment etc, feedback from other people can vary a lot, but there's a wealth of knowledge contained in the reviews here. If a dozen people were universally happy with their purchase, there's a good chance you will be as well.

That said, there's the "DSD Recordings" list (accessible from the home page) with over 400 titles listed. This is incomplete ... for the reasons stated ... but I believe still the most comprehensive you'll find anywhere.

Closed