2. digital
  3. 1024581968

SACD finally taking-off? non-classical listeners

It looks like SACD might finally lift-off this fall with the Rolling Stones releases. The engineer claims the SACD revisions sound 40% better than the standard on these hybrids.(Ice Magazine)
Meanwhile, there are some interesting releases on DVD-A that are too interesting to forego; Fleetwood Mac "Rumours", and "Crowded House". Both redbook versions of these discs are non-listenable with good equipment.
What is the answer for a "2-Channel Person" who wants great sound without the "snap, crackle, and pop" of the LP?
Is there confidence that both of these formats will exist in two years?
Is the purchase of a dual SACD/DVD-A player foolish, or the only answer?

Please advise,
CB
cbucki
marakanetz's avatar
marakanetz
5,473 posts
 
Albert, I agree with you on digital vinyls. I personally possess 80% of ECM (vinyl)catalogue along with WATT. I luve these masterings and so CDs aren't bad as well.
albertporter's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
albertporter
4,927 posts
 
Great for us to evolve into a discussion of ECM and thinking about the music again. I have about 70 Watt and ECM records, and maybe only 15 CD's of same.
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
4,163 posts
 
Just as an aside, it's a common practice in the pop/rock production world to mix digitally (ProTools), but to then generate a final 2 channel mix on analog tape (1/2 inch). This is then delivered to the mastering studio where it is converted back to a digital format. People comment that the analog tape gives the music a greater cohesiveness than if left in the original digital format.

Also, it's not uncommon that once a master "tape" has left the mastering studio that the sound is degraded in the duplication factories.

Getting high quality sound mass produced is not a trivial task.
marakanetz's avatar
marakanetz
5,473 posts
 
Onhwy61, There is a logical conclusion that you cannot get away from analogue unless you're mastering directly to the neccessary format wheather it's CD or SACD with bit-to-bit sample-to-sample correspondence.

Why would we realy need to record digitally on the first place if we still have to mix it into the analogue in the most cases? Isn't it more expences and time involved there?
twl
3,251 posts
 
Marakanetz, the recording companies record to digital "multitrack" in order to do their editing. While the sound quality may not be up to analog, the editing capability of digital is much more versatile. This gives cleaner edits and other manipulations of the recording. Also, time coding of each track can be more precise when locking up the tracks. Other advantages as well.
More to discover