Thread: Imagine no compression? - The Pure Audio releases keep coming.

Posts: 47
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 next

Post by Chalkperson November 25, 2013 (11 of 47)
fausto K said:

But let's not forget that in pop and rock compression is sometimes used for aesthetic reasons, which is entirely legit (think of the latest Tortoise album for example or Death From Above's "You're a Woman, I'm a Machine").

Dark Side of the Moon being a perfect example, excellent use of compression during the mixing stage by Chris Thomas.

Post by hiredfox November 25, 2013 (12 of 47)
AmonRa said:

Persons who not understand what High Resolution means and what is required of a high resolution disk for it to actually be high resolution (not only labeling) should not post here.

Which is what he said!

Post by AmonRa November 25, 2013 (13 of 47)
hiredfox said:

Which is what he said!

Then he should do as he preaches...

Post by Euell Neverno November 25, 2013 (14 of 47)
AmonRa said:

Then he should do as he preaches...

Considering the source, that would be an awful lot to ask. :-)

Post by steviev November 25, 2013 (15 of 47)
fausto K said:

only about pop/rock

There are plenty of compressed classical recordings from the analog/LP era. I just reviewed one a couple days ago: the Berlioz Requiem on Pentatone.

Post by AmonRa November 25, 2013 (16 of 47)
steviev said:

There are plenty of compressed classical recordings from the analog/LP era.

Analog tape does compression "automatically", or it is a choice between compression or truly bad dynamic range. LP can not accommodate neither large dynamic range nor high level low frequency signals.

16/44.1 RBCD is high resolution compared to any of these media. That is why selling old material as "high rez" because it has been put on a SACD is a scam. High rez as I hear it started with 20/44.1 in late eighties, did not exist before that.

Post by rammiepie November 25, 2013 (17 of 47)
AmonRa said:

Analog tape does compression "automatically", or it is a choice between compression or truly bad dynamic range. LP can not accommodate neither large dynamic range nor high level low frequency signals.

16/44.1 RBCD is high resolution compared to any of these media. That is why selling old material as "high rez" because it has been put on a SACD is a scam. High rez as I hear it started with 20/44.1 in late eighties, did not exist before that.

Not to sound elitist, AmonRa but perhaps you should trade in your Oppo BDP~80 for a Marantz SA11S3, Cary, Esoteric or better and really experience what high end hi res is really all about.

I was playing AF's Mono SACD of Harry Belafonte's Calypso the other night, an analogue recording from the 1950's and Harry was unmistakably in the room sounding as fresh as a cool Jamaican breeze.

Hogwash about analogue sounding compressed, restricted, etc..........on the right equipment it's a whole different (as we Yankees say) ballgame.

Post by AmonRa November 25, 2013 (18 of 47)
rammiepie said:

Hogwash about analogue sounding compressed, restricted, etc..........on the right equipment it's a whole different (as we Yankees say) ballgame.

You are not listening to analog, but analog transferred to SACD. The sound does not improve any. Tapes from fifties have 12 bit worth of DR, and frequency range is 40-16000 Hz at best, with tape compression and hiss thrown in. If you call that high rez and if on your system modern CDs do not sound better I pity you.

Might still be an enjoyable listen, no doubt.

Post by rammiepie November 26, 2013 (19 of 47)
AmonRa said:

You are not listening to analog, but analog transferred to SACD. The sound does not improve any. Tapes from fifties have 12 bit worth of DR, and frequency range is 40-16000 Hz at best, with tape compression and hiss thrown in. If you call that high rez and if on your system modern CDs do not sound better I pity you.

Might still be an enjoyable listen, no doubt.

Of course modern recordings sound better and more dynamic but miracles have been performed on older analogue tapes using modern electronics retrofitted to older analogue plackback equipment. Like some of the miracles performed with transferring older nitrate films to Blu ray.

But my point, AmonRa, was it is our responsibility to play back whatever medium in the highest fidelity possible and if you've been following my posts I prefer the SACD stereo playback of my Marantz SA11S3 to my newer OPPO BDP~105. It is a much richer fuller sound. And I do have one of the finest RBCD playback systems....the Meridian SooLoos but even then I prefer the richer fuller sound of both the Marantz and the DVD~A playback of my Meridian 800 to that of the OPPO both in DVD~A mch and RBCD playback........NO contest here. 24 bit trounces 16 bit unless the 24 bit master is sourced from a compressed or simply lackluster master.......which seems to be the case with some, but not all, of the Universal BD~As. And I'm not suggesting that my Marantz is a top eschelon SACD player but for the investment it is damn amazing.

Post by windhoek November 26, 2013 (20 of 47)
I read on another forum somone say in a CD versus vinyl shootout, they could tip the scales either way depending on which CD or LP they chose to play. I think the same applies here; some RBCDs will sound better than their hi-res counterparts and vice versa.

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 next

Closed