“We were determined to transfer this material only once and go to three formats with it,” says Klein. “We wanted to go to half-inch, 30 ips analog tape. Then there was the PCM world, which we knew how to do. And then there was this DSD thing, which I'd heard about. We set up a chain where we could listen to all three. We played the analog against the original master as it was transferring, and it sounded okay; the PCM was better. The DSD button didn't work, because I didn't hear any difference between the source and the DSD! Then, I finally got it. The DSD sounded like it didn't work because it was exactly like the master.”Lee, you must be eating this part up!
Lee, you must be eating this part up!I was trying to be good and not bring this up
I guess it really was so close to the master tape...
Seriously, they are good questions. I wonder if they were using good analog equipment. Perhaps Lee could comment. As for PCM, I would hope they made the master at least at 24/96 and preferably 24/192. Though it could not be used for commercial release, I wonder how a 24/384 PCM master would compare to the DSD master.
How does the remastered Stones CD's sound compared to the SACD version?Collapsed, compressed but in many ways better than the earlier CD version of the same albums I have which were uniformly terrible.
Lance, if you hear the Stones in Super Audio, you will want an SACD player, pure and simple. Just wait and get the new Philips player of the $200 Sony. It's a step change over redbook CD.
If your going to do a whole catalog of a group, say The Beatles, it would be better to have them on SACD as it's much easier to deal with. It just feels more comfortable because it's like putting on a cd.Agree but there are real pro audio reasons as well. With the Sony Super Bit Mapping downcoversions to other formats from DSD are a lot easier so archiving is a real strength of the format.
