Jump to content

firedog

  • Content Count

    10359
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About firedog

  • Rank
    Masters Level Member

Recent Profile Visitors

25318 profile views
  1. I heard Jarvi and the NHK perform it a few years ago. Was very good. Hope the record is, too.
  2. It works both ways. I suspect most people preferring vinyl haven't heard properly done digital.
  3. Then you are doing it poorly. Well done needle drops are indistinguishable from the original. They sound just like vinyl. I suggest you read JA's review of the Ayre ADC from a few years ago: he said, "but there was no doubt that with a 192kHz sample rate I could not distinguish between the LP and the digital rip. And believe me, I tried. I A/B'd the two versions until blood came out of my ears". You get all the sound of vinyl, even the surface noise, tonearm induced distortion, etc.
  4. I have the CD, it's very good - but not as good as the Bernstein with the Vienna from about 8 years earlier. Since it's a 16/44.1 recording, I don't know if I'd spend the money on it just to get it on an SACD. Upsample the CD to DSD and you will get about the same thing, unless you somehow think they could have done something amazing with the remastering. I doubt it. It would be more interesting as an SACD if the original was tape and they had made an SACD from the original tape.
  5. Agree with Chris and Jud. Stream, and buy a download or disc of the stuff you really like and listen to repeatedly. If you buy and also stream the same material, the artist gets the largest payout.
  6. As the article states, they can just master at other locations belonging to Universal. Part of being a conglomerate. Interesting that they said the cutting lathes will remain in the building in a different location; so they still will be cutting lacquers, but not mastering. Sort of odd. Anything to save manpower, I guess.
  7. I mostly agree with you, but thinking the major labels will take SQ seriously is not realistic. There won't be a groudswell because only a tiny minority of even music lovers care. And those are mostly lovers of classical, jazz, and other acoustic musics that have little market impact. People interested in popular music are mostly happy with Spotify and mp3. Even many of my friends with good systems don't subscribe to Qobuz over Spotify b/c they don't hear a $5 a month value there. Most artists also don't care. They want pumped up sound, not dynamic range. For much of today's music
  8. Sorry miswrote. The 2019 remix. Rip from the Bluray, which is the best sounding version of it. Sounds fantastic.
  9. More tendentious nonsense, sorry. I don't need to "do my homework". You need to stop a silly argument based on nothing more than your personal taste, and stop falsely pretending that some monolithic/mythical group of engineers backs you up.
  10. And I could not disagree more.... "engineers know ...and will admit" ???? Which ones? how many? The engineers who prefer digital? I call this just you making a baseless claim to backup your POV. Base for the claim? As usual, this is a silly discussion. Some people like digital better, and some people like analog better. There is no one better.
  11. Yes you are correct. But many (most) players - like Roon - don't support direct .iso playback. I realize in VLC you can "mount" the iso etc, and play it back. But that isn't generally what people are looking for. That's why there's software that converts an iso file to individual DSD tracks. Per the question posed, the material on all those SACDs isn't available because the labels aren't interested in licensing it. Both making archived DSD files or turning an SACD into an iso are trivial exercises for them. It's not a technical issue. Some of those SACD masters have been conv
  12. Just put on "Abbey Road"(2019 remaster). This was my first album, back 51 years ago. I've for sure listened to it more than any other music in existence. Sounds fantastic on my system. Can hear things better than ever - more detail, more clarity - even with my old ears. My foot is tapping and I have a grin on my face.
  13. No. SACD is not downloadable. That's why it's a distribution/marketing format. It's a disc format. You need to separate the two. Just like you can't literally "download a CD". You have to change the format for it to be usable when not on the disc. That's why you have to "rip" a CD, and not just copy it, for it to be playable when off the optical disc. Wikipedia: Super Audio CD (SACD) is a read-only optical disc format for audio storage, introduced in 1999. It was developed jointly by Sony and Philips Electronics, and intended to be the successor to the Compact Disc (CD) format
  14. Comments: can you be sure they aren't converted from tape, and not directly from Redbook? I think in any case 5.1 justifies the sale of an SACD, even if it was from Redbook. But the provenance should be on the case insert. Some of those titles are available in other SACD versions which may be conversions directly from tape. That would be more acceptable to many. And of course, as you wrote, the SACD remaster, no matter the source, could be better sounding than other versions.
  15. I once actually did buy a Playboy for the articles - the 1980 issue with the interview of John and Yoko....really. And btw, no shame in listening to 1812.
×
×
  • Create New...