... to collect Rolling Stones cd-s?

under the boardwalk---down by the sea

These are also digitally remastered, but in better resolution format. I have both complete sets of the DSD lps and the SA CDs (both sound the same). They are MUCH better than the old cds, but you need an SA CD player to fully enjoy...unless you buy the vinyls, as they have the SA CD layer, pressed into the vinyl....

JR

Someone bought me the DSD of "Let It Bleed", and even played on my PC was closer to the sound of the original vinyl than the original CD issue.

That being said, it's still an analog recording that's been digitized.

The technology keeps getting better, and the sound on this particular recording is outstanding.

As a musician, though, it still amazes me how much processing, compression, EQing and other digital wizardry has to occur just to make an acoustic guitar sound "natural" on a CD. Ironic, isn't it?

Quite.
Without getting into the Anolog/Digital debate, Compact Disc is a woefully inadequate format.
It may be on the way out, but the damge has been done.
In the 20 or so years of it's market dominance CD has conditioned buyers of recorded music to accept a very poor and unmusical sound.
A cynical industry can now foist upon us whatever lowest common denominator it wants !
SACD is far far better [maybe crosses that line between not good enough and good enough] but it's missed the boat and is lost on the folks with modern multi media systems who'll never know what High Fidelity means !



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-21 10:43 by Spud.

Well put, Spud! This is exactly how I feel about the CD as such.

The DSD/SACD Abkco remasters do sound a lot better than the old "Dig. Rem" Abkco's (available in America and later also in Europe), BUT there were also "London" CD issues, that, in some cases were done by the MSFL factory and have a very good sound. (made approx. from 1985-1988). Also, there still are differences in STEREO vs. MONO and some Mix-differences compared to the new Abkco's that make these old "London" discs worth having....

This SACD player is a steal at its price : [www.oppodigital.com]
The picture quality of the DVD player is near top notch for many hundreds of dollars less than the more expensive DVD/SACD alternatives like the Denon 2930 or the Yamaha 1700 or 2700.

A real SACD player is far better than a DVD player able to read the SACD.

And the bandwidth is larger on a SACD/DSD than on a cd, making all the details hearable without any limitation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-21 18:10 by toomuchforme.

What do you think of the relative quality of DVD-Audio format to SACD?

toomuchforme Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A real SACD player is far better than a DVD player
> able to read the SACD.

Yeah,I'm sure that this [us.marantz.com] is far better but,how many people are going to drop $3000 on it ?

Also,if you check the specs of the $170 DV-980H model,it has 24 bit \ 192 kHz high resolution audio D/A converters and a big plus - the ability to pass DSD and PCM signals over the best type of cable for audio and/or video,the HDMI cable to a compatible HDMI A/V receiver such as the Denon 2808 or 3808 or even the JVC RX-D702B.

I'm not even sure that they still produce SACD only players anymore.If they do,they are rare and probably expensive from high end vendors.The fact (by itself) that a player can read DVD's in addition doesn't make it a worse SACD player.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-22 03:45 by Theif in the Night.

Calling Stone-relics expertice, please...
I wondered if the new DSD vinyls better sounding than the old original albums ?
I'm planning on buying some of the 60s albums on vinyl, but not sure what to go for.
Info would be appreciated..!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-22 20:39 by Erik_Snow.