I'm going to stay out of this for the most part (I've made my feelings known on other threads like this) except to correct a misstatement by Loon above which I think is misleading. The Stereophile article pointed out that the Norah Jones SACD was mastered from the same 16-bit/44khz master tape as the CD, not an analog, 24-bit or DSD master, that's a big reason why it sounded the same as the CD and something Marks pointed out specifically in that article and rightly kvetched about. His point is something I've always been concerned about with SACD, which is if a record company is going to release a digital recording in multiple formats, there is no way, unless the company states it on the label (which few do), to tell if the SACD (or DVD-A, for that matter, I guess) came from a 16-bit, 24-bit or DSD master. I view the Norah Jones SACD as an absolute rip-off by the record company; I could get the same effect they produced by playing the regular CD through my Audio Logic DAC, which converts pcm to DSD internally.
sacd,vinyl, and rebook....
Just to echo some common remarks:
"sacd is like vinyl without the clicks and pops"
"sacd is a marginal improvement, if any, over redbook"
"sacd is a smoke and mirrors ht campaign designed for multi-channel use and copyright protection agendas"
at any rate...which of the above best describes this format?
"sacd is like vinyl without the clicks and pops"
"sacd is a marginal improvement, if any, over redbook"
"sacd is a smoke and mirrors ht campaign designed for multi-channel use and copyright protection agendas"
at any rate...which of the above best describes this format?