 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that’s really odd unless the score was originally only recorded in 16 bit, which seems possible still for the late 90s. But if it’s CD quality but still 5.1 surround instead of stereo (which seems the case), could still be worth getting the SACD to have lossless surround.
Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that’s really odd unless the score was originally only recorded in 16 bit, which seems possible still for the late 90s. But if it’s CD quality but still 5.1 surround instead of stereo (which seems the case), could still be worth getting the SACD to have lossless surround.
Yavar
Well this is confusing though - it says "upsampled from 48 thousand samples per second 24bit PCM audio" - so it seems like the original source is 48kHz 24bit?
However, the concern is that the upsampling process might result in degradation that makes the audio worse than if it had just been in straight 48kHz 24bit.
This is kind of what I was mentioning in a different thread about high-def releases - without standardization it's too unreliable for a consumer to feel confident they know what they're getting in their purchase.
I was initially leaning towards the SACD but now I'm inclined to buy the CD because it's cheaper (and the artwork is pretty ridiculous) and I can reasonably assume it will be in proper, standardized, 44kHz, 16 bit audio quality.
Like, I can assume that I'll get a competent CD-quality rip from the SACD, but the mystery box of higher definition for an additional $15 seems too unreliable for the price.
And I know we're ripping into the packaging a bit, but packaging is all about consumer confidence. The SACD option kind of came out of nowhere, and given the artwork, it raises questions about quality.
I understand the phone booth concept stemmed from the trim-fold for the vinyl, but A: that concept was kind of a weird concept, and B: it's just been cropped for the CD release.
So when I'm looking for confidence that the upsampling process was done correctly, I don't have a lot to go on other than the fact that Chas Ferry is a highly experienced audio engineer.
Save us Chas!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 11, 2021 - 6:59 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
NSBulk
(Member)
|
Well this is confusing though - it says "upsampled from 48 thousand samples per second 24bit PCM audio" - so it seems like the original source is 48kHz 24bit?
However, the concern is that the upsampling process might result in degradation that makes the audio worse than if it had just been in straight 48kHz 24bit.
This is kind of what I was mentioning in a different thread about high-def releases - without standardization it's too unreliable for a consumer to feel confident they know what they're getting in their purchase.
How is Varese's statement unreliable? They told you exactly what's going on with the data. And please remember, any PCM recording released on SA-CD is going to be converted to DSD because that's the format used by SA-CD. Keeping this in mind, this leads me to your next statement...
I was initially leaning towards the SACD but now I'm inclined to buy the CD because it's cheaper (and the artwork is pretty ridiculous) and I can reasonably assume it will be in proper, standardized, 44kHz, 16 bit audio quality. Like, I can assume that I'll get a competent CD-quality rip from the SACD, but the mystery box of higher definition for an additional $15 seems too unreliable for the price.
The CD layer on a hybrid SA-CD (such as The Matrix) will be identical to the CD only release. You'll be able to rip that to your computer without issue. However, if the original files were 48/24 there will have been a conversion down to 44.1/16. That's how these things work.
In the end 48/24 converted to DSD is by its very nature higher resolution than 44.1/16. And as mentioned, the ability to hear this score in 5.1 is exciting, too. I'm sure my neighbors will love it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How is Varese's statement unreliable? They told you exactly what's going on with the data. And please remember, any PCM recording released on SA-CD is going to be converted to DSD because that's the format used by SA-CD. Keeping this in mind, this leads me to your next statement...
All of your info is helpful, thanks for the context.
The information from Varese is definitely reliable, it's more the up-conversion that I was wondering about if it introduced any degradation.
It honestly might just be consumer ignorance which is part of the challenge with high-def releases sometimes being 48kHz 24bit, or in this case the less-common (to my experience) SACD.
We're having this discussion elsewhere but the Rio Conchos remaster has a CD release AND will be getting a high-def digital release in the future. Assuming The Matrix doesn't get a digital release, that's just another difference in how high-def is delivered to the consumer.
Since a lot of this is unintuitive I think it's just a matter of the industry educating or communicating the standard shift, which right now still favors CD-quality releases.
To your point, it's definitely understandable once someone does the research but it's a lot to research - for this release for example, I had to do research to see if there would even be a playable CD-layer or not.
Again, we have the info to research - but it's not yet quick to understand or rely on information to determine which is the best quality version to get.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 11, 2021 - 11:20 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
BryonDavis
(Member)
|
How is Varese's statement unreliable? They told you exactly what's going on with the data. And please remember, any PCM recording released on SA-CD is going to be converted to DSD because that's the format used by SA-CD. Keeping this in mind, this leads me to your next statement...
All of your info is helpful, thanks for the context.
The information from Varese is definitely reliable, it's more the up-conversion that I was wondering about if it introduced any degradation.
It honestly might just be consumer ignorance which is part of the challenge with high-def releases sometimes being 48kHz 24bit, or in this case the less-common (to my experience) SACD.
We're having this discussion elsewhere but the Rio Conchos remaster has a CD release AND will be getting a high-def digital release in the future. Assuming The Matrix doesn't get a digital release, that's just another difference in how high-def is delivered to the consumer.
Since a lot of this is unintuitive I think it's just a matter of the industry educating or communicating the standard shift, which right now still favors CD-quality releases.
To your point, it's definitely understandable once someone does the research but it's a lot to research - for this release for example, I had to do research to see if there would even be a playable CD-layer or not.
Again, we have the info to research - but it's not yet quick to understand or rely on information to determine which is the best quality version to get.
As somebody who worked on this project here is a fact: The files we got from Don Davis' studio were 24 bit, 5.1 mix.
The whole conversion thing you are reading has to do with how a WAV file to DSD. Nothing is degraded, nothing is changed. To hire an engineer to mix and convert to DSD is not a cheap option and why you won't see a lot of SACDs outside of the big name pop or rock release or the bigger classical title. So hope this helps.
Some info about DSD:
DSD – DSD is the true audiophile digital format, created by Philips and Sony for use in SACDs. The DSD format benefits listeners because the sampling rates go up to an incredible 2.8MHz or 5.6MHz and 11.2Mhz, which is 64 or 128 and 256 times greater than the rate of a standard audio CD, respectively. However, it does so at 1-bit depth, rather than the up-to-24-bit rate you’ll get in some of the other formats listed below. So every time it captures audio data, it captures less, but it does so with astonishing regularity. We offer all formats: single DSD 64, 128, and 256.?? DSD64: 2.8 MHz sampling rate & DSD128: 5.6MHz sampling rate - Direct Stream Digital (DSD) has been around for a while, but it has been so married to a physical medium, SACD, that it has yet to receive the attention from audiophiles that it deserves. It is only recently with the growing interest in downloading high-resolution audio via the Internet that DSD surged to the surface of news coverage. The compelling reasons that existed over ten years ago to use this encoding scheme for SACD have now become convenient truths for the new era of high-resolution Internet audio. The DSD64 and DSD128 formats are only playable on compatible hardware and software.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As somebody who worked on this project here is a fact: The files we got from Don Davis' studio were 24 bit, 5.1 mix.
The whole conversion thing you are reading has to do with how a WAV file to DSD. Nothing is degraded, nothing is changed. To hire an engineer to mix and convert to DSD is not a cheap option and why you won't see a lot of SACDs outside of the big name pop or rock release or the bigger classical title. So hope this helps.
Some info about DSD...
Thank you both Neil and Bryon.
For the degradation, I was referring to the upsampling to higher res, not downsampling for CD - I think Bryon you answered that question here by basically saying there is no degradation/change in the upsampling process.
From the DSD description you provide, I do agree that the SACD physical medium does make it confusing - and it sounds like DSD could potentially develop into more of standard in the coming years.
I appreciate both of your responses - I'm a smart person and technologically aware, but even then I think I have the basic human decision-making response of "I don't completely understand this, it seems complicated, this is creating doubt, how do I know I'm getting the correct quality" so then I'm inclined to go with what is familiar, aka the CD.
Once Varese, LLL and Intrada begin to go down a route of high-res releases / digital downloads and that becomes more commonplace (if ever), then I'm sure this will all seem like no big deal at that point.
Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that cover art is something else, but thankfully it's not an important component. And we've got some really talented folks in our Custom Cover thread who will put something magnificent together (if they haven't already).
As for the SACD option, I knew so little about the technical aspects of it until reading these comments. I went from doubtful that I would purchase this more expensive version to most likely getting it, although I'm pretty sure I don't have the equipment (at the moment) to play that audio. Still, I want to support that hi res audio option if it opens up other possible releases getting the same treatment.
Having said all of that, I, admittedly, don't have a clue how much of a difference I would hear between the standard CD audio layer and that higher resolution audio. Is it that significant of a difference?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
