In Reply to: Re: SACD ultrasonic noise irrelevant... posted by Christine Tham on September 14, 2005 at 14:44:22:
"We make all our recordings in PCM. And we try to fit them into a very short total time because the problem is if you make more than 65 minutes on a hybrid SACD you have a problem with the dynamics. And that is the reason why we try to reduce the total time. Then it is possible to make a good sound in SACD.You must know that the DSD signal is very bad. They say you have a frequency response up to 100kHz. But the problem is when you come over 40kHz you have a lot of distortion, and it is not possible to cut this distortion. You must take it onto the SACD disc itself. And when you have a lot of dynamics, and a lot of total playing time, then you don’t have enough room on the SACD. So you must reduce the dynamics. And this is the reason why you find a lot of SACDs that are poor in dynamics. And that is very bad. And therefore the SACD is a big big technical problem. But when you make a PCM recording and when the playing time is not too long, you can realise a good result.
The reason why we have DSD is that they have the license for the CD. But this ability to earn money stopped two years ago, because the 25 years was over. And this is the reason why they think, ‘well, what can we do to get more money?’ And the reason is DSD, but DSD is a very problematic and a difficult format.
And when you read the instructions for recording they say that DSD is only a ‘consumer’ format, i.e. you should make PCM recordings, and when you bring it on a disc, you can use DSD. But most of the record companies don’t speak about it. It is not a good format, but the problem is that the marketing for the SACD was very good. They spent more than 50million euros for the labels to make recordings on SACD. They started to buy recordings. They went to all the independents saying: "Well, we spend the money for three or five recordings and you make it, we pay it." After three years they stopped it — at the end of last year."
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- A very frank discussion from a record label re DSD . . . - Martin419 10:10:27 09/15/05 (7)
- DSD is dead signal... very dead signal... LOL!!! - SF tech 12:48:12 09/16/05 (2)
- Re: DSD is dead signal... very dead signal... LOL!!! - Martin419 02:01:45 09/19/05 (1)
- OK... But I still think the assessment is way off the mark. (nt) - SF tech 08:03:56 09/21/05 (0)
- eloquent indeed - tunenut 22:37:51 09/15/05 (1)
- Re: eloquent indeed - Martin419 04:10:11 09/16/05 (0)
- Can you please attribute the quote? Otherwise worthless. - meisterkleef 13:13:49 09/15/05 (1)
- It was "off the record" . . . - Martin419 13:44:37 09/15/05 (0)