|
HI:
I still didn't listen to any Gould recording on SACD (Super Audio Compact Disc) nor on it's commercial counterpart, the DVD Audio format. Eventually, the differences between formats are REALLY unnoticeable, since they provide virtually equal sound quality, at least in terms of technical specifications. However, from scratch it must be said that DVD Audio is NOT just a DVD with no pictures. Although you can play a DVD Audio disc on DVD Video players, without the proper decodification, the extra sound information contained in the DVD Audio discs just won't come out of your speakers, simply because it is not decoded. It is the same thing that happens with HDCD remasters (High Definition Compatible Digital). It is compatible with prior CD standards, so you can play the HDCD disc on regular CD players, but the extra info is simply ignored by regular players, and read and decoded only by players with HDCD decoders. I didn't listen to SACD, but I guess that it is not an experience far away from the one you get listening to DVD Audio recordings, which I happen to listen to, on a DVD Audio player, of course. If I have to define it, it is the warmth of good old LPs, with the crystal clear precision and rich detail of the digital domain. It's been said among many audiophiles that digital technology claimed a high price for it's advantages: harmonics, sound envelopes, and those thick, rich basses were gone. Velvet turned into silk. Nice, but less "cozzy". Now, with more room to store information, DVD Audio (and SACD) don't need to cut out what initially were considered "inaudible" frequency ranges, and a disc can carry much, much more information, with a drastical reduce in the compromise of sound that's been CD's major drawback. This increase in storage capacity can be used in two different ways: a) to store more than the usual stereo two channels. b) to make those traditional two channels sound DRAMATICALLY better that ever before. In my humble opinion, the second choice is the most impressive. 5.1 systems are systems that can handle more than two audio channels. In is extremely common in movies. Dolby Digital 5.1 is a standard that, instead of two channels (let and right) can decode, and reproduce five channels of different audio signals, plus a dedicated channel just for VERY low frequency signals. So a 5.1 system is a system that can read, decode and reproduce up to six independent audio channels, namely: front left, front right, center (it is placed between the "front" ones), rear left, rear right, and the low frequency singals, that are reproduced by special speakers known as subwoofers (those ugly, unfashionable big black cubes). So with this systems, if the recording comes with 5.1 encoded channels, the listener is literally wrapped by the sound, and different sounds come from different places of the room, just like in a movie theater. I)n my opinion, this spectacular effect is not very realistic, unless you want to reproduce the sensations of one of the performers, that ARE in the orchestra. I think that in real life, most of us happen to be listeners, so being "surrounded" by the different instruments is just a incorrect scheme. Of course the effect is undoubtly spectacular, but not necesarily precise, or true. Even more. The recordings I heard on 5.1 seemed to me more "fireworks" or "see-my-new-toy" products than musically oriented recordings. To me, it is far more impressive the performance of Enhanced Stereo recordings. In this mode, you get just the usual two stereo channels, BUT, the extra storage capacity is used to hold tons of detailed sound information, radically more precise translations of the original master recordings (if they are preexisting). This leads to unprecedent frequency response, dynamic range and clarity, with all the subtleties and "body" that LP had. The result is an extremely high definition in terms of musical space, with each instrument clearly defined (you NEVER get that "sound ball" sensation that sometimes CD give). The musical scene is presented with really impressive detail and precision. I even dare to say that the quality of Enhanced Stereo is so high, that with a solid pair of speakers and an amplifier that makes justice to the DVD Audio (or SACD) machines, you won't miss a bit of the extra speakers that 5.1 needs. Regards, Pablo ----- Mensaje original ----- De: Mary Jo Watts <mwatts@RCI.RUTGERS.EDU> Para: <F_MINOR@EMAIL.RUTGERS.EDU> Enviado: Martes 2 de Abril de 2002 13:38 Asunto: GG: Super Audio CD, CDs > Sorry-- I lost the ref from whom I'm <snipping> > > > >Try the second Goldberg, it sounds amazing on 5.1 systems, as well try any > > >of the super audio CD recordings; there are three for Gould. > > I've been DYING to hear GG on a super audio CD. I'm very very interested > to hear what Philips' latest format sounds like-- remember when CDs were > the latest audio gimmick. Anyway- I'm not exactly sure how the > multi-channel system works and what it does to legacy recordings. Does > it have a surround-sound effect w/surround-sound speakers? Can an > audiophile who's heard the goods tell us in great detail??? What is a 5.1 > system? > > There is an interesting legend about how Herbert von Karajan insisted that > CDs be 12 cm so they would be able to store enough information to play > Beethoven's 9th in full. Sony's former president Morita told this story > and he also said his wife came up with the idea. Sony (on their Japanese > web site) says it was the current president's idea and that Karajan gave > some of the only positive feedback about their digital recorder in the > late 70's and encouraged Sony's nearly crestfallen engineers! > > Anyway-- what compositions would sound good or interesting if fully > expored in super audio? If GG were recording for the medium what would he > record? Would we have another Goldberg Variations? What would he do with > the radio programs if he had access to this format? > > -Mary Jo Watts > mwatts@rci.rutgers.edu > listowner, f_minor |