Steely Dan's Gaucho.... why SACD?

John Kotches · 04-23-2003, 10:05 PM

I'm curious why the choice by Universal to release Steely Dan's Gaucho title on SACD when the production work was done in 24/96K.

It seems to me, the best utilization of this would be DVD-A....

Something to ponder after reading this article from Surround Pro's website.

Rgards,

Rachael B · 04-23-2003, 10:32 PM

Well Universal did say that they aspired to put out 500 SACD's this year. I doubt they'll make it but they are keeping busy. Best wishes!

John Kotches · 04-23-2003, 10:39 PM

Nope -- I don't think 500 SACDs are viable for this year either.

Not knowing their accounting schedule, I can't say if they'd make it by the end of their fiscal year.

I just found it interesting that the work was done for this disc at 24/96K, and is being released as SACD.

Regards,

Justin Lane · 04-24-2003, 12:44 AM

Very interesting article. It makes no sense to do this as an SACD if they are working at 96kHz. Maybe Scheiner felt the 96kHz provided better audio quality then a pure DSD master, or maybe he is just more comfortable with working with that particular rig. This could mean DSD is harder to work with then advertised, and without Sony's help on releases, this could easily be a new trend developing. Of course Universal could also decide to put this disc out on DVD-A as well later in the year so they decided to only do one master.

Whatever the case may be, if a master is done originally in PCM, thats how I want to hear it. Or in this case, if a new master is being made for a SACD, do it in DSD please.

J

LanceJ · 04-24-2003, 12:54 AM

The Surround Pro article doesn't mention the reason for the 96kHz format either. In fact, I didn't see DSD mentioned anywhere for that matter either. Hmmmm.............

Maybe 96kHz is what the favored mixing equipment was limited to? There doesn't seem to be a lot of (any?) 192kHz-based post production stuff available yet.

And, I've read many times now how many people (consumers & professionals) think 192kHz is only a little better than 96kHz sampling.

Sumthin' weird is happening here

--a dual hi-res format release??

LJ

**HTF Ads**

LanceJ · 04-24-2003, 01:17 AM

Justin said:

Quote:

This could mean DSD is harder to work with then advertised,......

Here's something that might back-up this guess. "Sckott" said this in a thread over at SteveHoffman.tv:

Quote:

Lon Neumann was present at Steve's CCR sessions to insure the SACD encoding went within specs. It's damn hard work, and takes a few tries too....!

Thought provoking, eh?

LJ

Lee Scoggins · 04-24-2003, 02:17 AM

Quote:

I just found it interesting that the work was done for this disc at 24/96K, and is being released as SACD.

It is clear that Universal is testing the waters. On any pre-existing material in PCM, there will be a DSD conversion which is not as good as an original DSD source and used pure throughout the chain.

However, Chesky has found that PCM masters can sound very good in SACD. Take my album of McCoy Tyner. The SACD still is a big sonic improvement over the original CD, even the rare discs I have from the original session.

I suspect, however, that we will hear more of the master tape than previous versions. The release has two things going for it: (1) general improvements in mastering that have occurred since the last version and (2) benefits from a DSD transfer. For instance, sometimes jitter is reduced due to the SACD encoding process.

One question: Given the vintage, it seems likely that an analog master existed? do we know for sure that an analog to DSD was not done?

Lee Scoggins · 04-24-2003, 02:28 AM

Does it bother anyone else that Scheiner used the Dolby SR process for the analog transfer?

...and that he brags about it?

Dolby processes always introduce a layer of noise...

On a more positive note, the magazine talks about the new Genex recorders that can do 48 channels of DSD. Apparently the pro gear makers continue to roll out lots of DSD gear to meet demand...

John Kotches · 04-24-2003, 09:09 AM

Lee,

I have concerns as to whether you carefully read the article.

Quote:

It is clear that Universal is testing the waters. On any pre-existing material in PCM, there will be a DSD conversion which is not as good as an original DSD source and used pure throughout the chain.

Gaucho was originally an analog recording and the tapes had to be baked before using (for a 2nd time).

Quote:

I suspect, however, that we will hear more of the master tape than previous versions. The release has two things going for it: (1) general improvements in mastering that have occurred since the last version and (2) benefits from a DSD transfer. For instance, sometimes jitter is reduced due to the SACD encoding process.

Any general improvements in mastering are strictly thanks to PCM, since both 24/96K and new analog masters were created, and the 24/96K versions were used for all work. I have my doubts about hearing more of the master tape. If the analog masters were in better condition, maybe. The analog masters were being baked for a second time (previously baked for the DTS CD of Gaucho) and while the results can be very good (and they were for the DTS CD) I have valid reason for doubting the overall improvement due to increased age and a second encounter with the oven.

Quote:

One question: Given the vintage, it seems likely that an analog master existed? do we know for sure that an analog to DSD was not done?

Here's another question that indicates you haven't read very carefully the article, since it clearly states the analog masters went straight to 24/96K after baking, followed by mixdown.

Why would they bother with DSD, if they are happy with the results of PCM? They have new analog and digital masters to work with, so they could always create DSD from the analogs if they wanted to down the road.

Universal has a nice budget, and obviously could have financed the project to be done entirely in DSD, yet have made a conscious choice not to do so. That doesn't say much for DSD IMO.

It's an added and apparently unnecessary expense for the record label and/or the artist, since they have final say over what tapes exist.

It also makes me wonder how many of the Universal SACDs so far have been captured in DSD from the original analog masters or directly to DSD in studio? How many came from intermediate (or initial) PCM recordings?

It's not like Universal spells out the recording heritage on the titles.

Regards,

Felix Martinez · 04-24-2003, 09:51 AM

Quote:

It makes no sense to do this as an SACD if they are working at 96kHz. Maybe Scheiner felt the 96kHz provided better audio quality then a pure DSD master, or maybe he is just more comfortable with working with that particular rig. This could mean DSD is harder to work with then advertised

The industry standard for hi-res, multi-channel tape transfers and mixing is PCM (ProTools, Nuendo, various software plug-ins and hardware gear, etc.), so it's just more common for projects to be tackled in that format, particularly catalog titles that require some work and restoration.

Of course, there are also the numerous digital recordings made during the 80s and early 1990s, which were also PCM (mostly 16 bit and no more than 50khz).

Cheers,

Rich Malloy · 04-24-2003, 09:54 AM

I think maybe we're allowing ourselves to become caught up in issues that have little to no relevance as to why a disc is released in one format or another. The ultimate deciding factor, I'm certain, is market penetration and the degree to which a studio has already backed a particular horse. But I don't think one can rule out the possibility of dual DVD-A/SACD releases of this title considering it's coming from Universal.

My question is why 24/96? Why not 24/192? Is the added resolution simply not significant?