Wed May 16, 2007 2:26 am
Wed May 16, 2007 2:35 am
Wed May 16, 2007 3:22 am
Wed May 16, 2007 4:14 am
GERRY wrote:Dont worry new guardians of the Elvis legacy are stepping up to the plate and they care about sound quality.
Wed May 16, 2007 4:20 am
Fine is not good enough for me. Fine was the year 2000 when the processors had 1ghz of speed. A hard drive was 20Gb on average..probably less. This is a CD collectors and nothing wrong with wanting improvement. And because of us sound nitpickers we have "fine" sound today. Believe it or not..they listen..pretend not to..but they do. EP in 68 about sound "the engineers have certainly improved" ...PS. Sinatra sounds not only fine in the new boxset from Las Vegas but GREAT!! Is that too much to ask of EP live recordings?woodleyjohn wrote:JerryNodak wrote:I enjoy good sound. But I don't dissect it. I don't sit there and wish the drums were here and the lead guitar was there. Or the backgrond singers were over here. Or that the overall mix was more like this instead of that. I'd never enjoy anything I listened to if I did that.
In short, my ears are satisfied with cd sound. I won't invest in SACD just because it has "better" sound. Next year there will something new with still "better" sound. I'm through playing that game.
I agree Jerry. I can't understand this on going quest for better sound when what we have is fine.
Wed May 16, 2007 4:28 am
2 Questions...
1... Why are You still here.
2... Don't You ever sleep?
Wed May 16, 2007 4:30 am
Wed May 16, 2007 4:33 am
GERRY wrote:2 Questions...
1... Why are You still here.
2... Don't You ever sleep?
Answer
What has it got to do with you?
Wed May 16, 2007 5:27 am
Nothing wrong with having the option available..thats all. Thanks for posting Jerry.JerryNodak wrote:Juan Luis: I'm not against SACD. If Sony/BMG wants to release Elvis in SACD fine. But I'm not going to make the investment in hardware or software because I am FINE with what I have. You and others are free to do as you wish.
Wed May 16, 2007 1:27 pm
woodleyjohn wrote:.... Wanting to see the Pied Piper of Cleveland however is another matter entirely.
Wed May 16, 2007 4:23 pm
woodleyjohn wrote:That'll be filed next to your complete version of Flaming Star then???
Wed May 16, 2007 9:32 pm
healy wrote:That's good to know.
Budd and the DSD re-masters are fantastic.
And the kicker is, they sound great on cd.
Man, it would be GREAT to hear them on sacd.
Maybe someday...
Wed May 16, 2007 9:47 pm
I am proud to say that with all the gear I have now...I do not need to read what someone thinks and actually listen for myself. He is talking btw about upsampling which does make rock a little less edgy BUT how would you like to hear AYLT??LOL!! I also have been transfering analog tape to 96khz 24bit and believe me it retains original sound much more than straight to 48khz DAT or even wav 44.1 16bit...Trust me! If some of you noticed sound improvement in my last dozen posts or so it was because of that...BTW..some bootlegers have followed suit!!!LOOOOOOOOL! Am I GOOD or WHAT?!!thenexte wrote:healy wrote:That's good to know.
Budd and the DSD re-masters are fantastic.
And the kicker is, they sound great on cd.
Man, it would be GREAT to hear them on sacd.
Maybe someday...
For anybody that believes higher resolution automatically equals better sound quality you might find this recent interview with audio mastering engineer Art Sayecki quite interesting. The issue is actually not as black-and-white as some people might think it is:
http://musicindustrynewswire.com/2007/0 ... 158_212834
G-Man: How do you feel about 44.1kHz vs. 96kHz or higher?
Art Sayecki: In theory, the higher the sampling rate the better the quality. However I have heard some rock and pop mixes that sounded more interesting when mixed at 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz rather than at 192 kHz. It’s a little surprising and even counter-intuitive, but when you realize that switching the sampling rate in a converter is technologically quite complex and involves not just the switching of clocking frequency but also combing filters, cut-off filters and other algorithms and circuits, then you can easily see that in some cases this may cause certain variations in how the material is reproduced.
Thu May 17, 2007 1:18 am
Thu May 17, 2007 1:58 am
KiwiAlan wrote:Just found this...note comments re 3 track!
RCA LIVING STEREO SACD SET 7 (5 x HYBRID SACD)
Set Number Seven from the RCA Living Stereo Vault!
All Five of the 7th Edition of RCA's extremley popular Living Stereo SACDs for one low price!
This series of SACD’s has been a labor of love for RCA. Using 21st century technology to present the most sought-after 20th century classical recordings was a monumental undertaking. Finally, a major label has gotten it right; the multi-channel mixes are only employed on the original three-track recordings and only presented in a 3.0 Mix (utilizing only the front left, right and center channels). No “forced” pseudo rear-channel engineering!
All the discs in this series have a dedicated stereo mix and the multi-channel mix is either also in two-channel or in three-channel ("front only” surround layer) when available. (All discs have a stereo and multi-channel layer, but some discs have the same two-channel stereo program on both layers.) Our Highest Recommendation!
Thu May 17, 2007 3:45 am
I HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT ALL ALONG! You are going to give me a heart attack!KiwiAlan wrote:Just found this...note comments re 3 track!
RCA LIVING STEREO SACD SET 7 (5 x HYBRID SACD)
Set Number Seven from the RCA Living Stereo Vault!
All Five of the 7th Edition of RCA's extremley popular Living Stereo SACDs for one low price!
This series of SACD’s has been a labor of love for RCA. Using 21st century technology to present the most sought-after 20th century classical recordings was a monumental undertaking. Finally, a major label has gotten it right; the multi-channel mixes are only employed on the original three-track recordings and only presented in a 3.0 Mix (utilizing only the front left, right and center channels). No “forced” pseudo rear-channel engineering!
All the discs in this series have a dedicated stereo mix and the multi-channel mix is either also in two-channel or in three-channel ("front only” surround layer) when available. (All discs have a stereo and multi-channel layer, but some discs have the same two-channel stereo program on both layers.) Our Highest Recommendation!
PS> MY VAN CLIBURN SACD<CD
Thu May 17, 2007 2:37 pm
Thu May 17, 2007 4:49 pm
I personally want to get as close to the original sound as possible
Thu May 17, 2007 5:57 pm
Yes.Jamie wrote:for me if we can hear Elvis in high resolution audio whether that's SACD, DVD A (or PCM Stereo/5.1) then why not? I personally want to get as close to the original sound as possible (I don't mean the mix as such) just the actual sound of a live voice/instrument. High Resolution gets you closer. I have recently got Springteen and Neil Young albums which are on DVD's using high resolution PCM stereo/5.1. They sound great and better than the accompanying CD. So in short I think Elvis deserves the best. If people want to stick with CD thats fine but we should have the choice.
The same goes for HD TV/Video - I want to see Elvis and the soundtracks produced in HD assuming decent improvements can be made which is not always the case. But this format also carries HD Audio as well so again why shouldn't we get the option.?
cheers Jamie
Hosted by ElviCities