From the discussion here it seems like it wouldn't be allowed but I thought I read mention of some somewhere...
https://www.sa-cd.net/showthread/120311/120328
https://www.sa-cd.net/showthread/120311/120328
Here are some "funny" responses to your question from the land of 2 channel sound
I would argue that in the absence of a mastering difference the normal DSD64 bit rate of a SACD ~88.2 > 44.1 of a CD.'SHM' CD and SACD is just silly snake oil. The supposed improvement is laid to the supposed more exacting manufacturing of the discs themselves.
Except, the sound on the disc really about the mastering. Not about using 'highly transparent polycarbonate originally designed for LCD screens".
That said, the above reasons for why there are no MC SHM-SACDs do not explain why existing MC SACDs aren't re-released as SHM-SACDs. The Japanese are usual very good at monetizing this sort of price-increasing audio pseudoscience, I wonder why they've missed this niche opportunity?
'SHM' CD and SACD is just silly snake oil. The supposed improvement is laid to the supposed more exacting manufacturing of the discs themselves.
Except, the sound on the disc really about the mastering. Not about using 'highly transparent polycarbonate originally designed for LCD screens".
That said, the above reasons for why there are no MC SHM-SACDs do not explain why existing MC SACDs aren't re-released as SHM-SACDs. The Japanese are usual very good at monetizing this sort of price-increasing audio pseudoscience, I wonder why they've missed this niche opportunity?
Here are some "funny" responses to your question from the land of 2 channel sound
I would argue that in the absence of a mastering difference the normal DSD64 bit rate of a SACD ~88.2 > 44.1 of a CD.
So are you going to say that this release below is no better sounding than a normal CD?
I have a few iTunes downloads that sound better than some stuff that has made it onto SACD. True I’m not comparing the same exact songs, but it does lend to your point about the quality being in the mastering.
I do have Gimme Shelter on the redbook DSD Let It Bleed and also on the Hot Rocks SACD. The song sounds marginally better on Hot Rocks SACD but that is still not an apples to apples comparison.
....not sure if there is a difference in the mastering....but I guess there is.....NOT A COMPUTER JUNKIE.....NOT YET anyways....that I'm able to compare in that way....but no matter what a computer algorithm may show.....Isn't it all in the EARS of the BEHOLDERYour argument is a joke.
Are you saying the mastering is the same but they sound different?
If so , why should that be?
If not, you aren't comparing like to like.
I especially LOVE this comment
If you go to a high-end stereo store in Japan, you will pretty much only see old-timers who have spent their whole lives pursuing 2 channel sound. They also look to be very much a classical/jazz sort of audience. The younger crowd wants mutli-channel, but only as it applies to movies and HIB systems.
The Rolling Stones were remastered and reissued as SACD. Some years later, they issued redbook CDs and called them "DSD Remastered." The labels on the discs say "DSD", but they are redbook compact discs, not SACDs.What is a 'redbook DSD'?
SACD sample rates are actually much higher than that. DSD64 SR is 2.8224 MHz. Its supposed 'equivalent' at 24 bit PCM resolution is 88.2.
But I would argue that you can't hear that sample rate difference anyway. Unless , very unfortunately, ultrasonic noise causes distortion in the audible range in your system.
No....it would state that if it were....Hope this helps
Features 5.0 multi channelNo....it would state that if it were....Hope this helps
Enter your email address to join: