akkor az az eltérő mastering miatt van - ezt megbeszéltük, hogy miért nem valószínű. < nem tudom kivel beszelted, de mar megbeszeltuk, hogy ez faszsag :) Ezer helyen kitargyaltak mar. Az, hogy ezt ignoralod, lelked rajta.
" Those who have read the JAES paper written by me and David Moran may remember that we too thought that the high-bit recordings we heard sounded, as a class, really exceptionally good. Our experiment, however, made a very good case for the theory that the reason for this lies not in the extra bits but in the market niche these recordings occupy.
Your rant against what you call square-wave recordings (i.e. ones in which the dynamic range is very heavily compressed to make the average level higher, which is a common mastering practice) is one I quite agree with, but it too has nothing to do with the number of bits in the recording. Our experiment showed that those awful-sounding things could just as easily have been issued as SACDs — and conversely that the excellent sounds we heard from our test material could have been issued in 16/44.1 without audible degradation.
Here’s how I think it works. SACDs are issued to a tiny niche market that is known to use good to excellent equipment, and to be fanatically devoted to realistic timbres and dynamics. Because the big guys in the record companies don’t care at all about such a tiny niche and are financing these SACDs because it’s the modern thing and sort of prestigious (and the other companies are doing it), they leave the engineers and producers alone, and the latter just make the stuff sound good on their own studio monitors and good home systems, and send ’em on out there.
And guess what? If a skilled engineer has as his only goal making something sound good enough to show off to his colleagues, you’re gonna think it’s pretty damn good too."
"Nem tudtad bizonyitani, hogy a te hibrid sacd-den levo trackek ekvivalensek-e." - nyilván nem, viszont te sem az ellenkezőjét (és akkor megint ott vagyunk, hogy occam's razor)
Amig ezt nem tudjuk, nincs ertelme arrol beszelni, van-e hallhato kulonbseg, mert mas a forras. Nem a formatum miatt mas, hanem a hanganyag mas.
- Ha ez így van, akkor nyilván a technológia miatt szól jobban az sacd és nem pedig az eltérő master miatt (hiszen ha az eltérően masterelt anyagot lebutítom, akkor attól az még mindig eltér, nem igaz? :))
A kerdest sem ertem, te meg, hogy mit es hogyan vizsgaltak. Ha mas hang kerul az SACD trackre, az mas. Nem attol mas, hogy SACD formatumu, hanem attol, hogy maga a hang mas. Remelem erted. Ha ezt az sacd tracket downsamplingeled 44k/16bitre nem tudod megkulonboztetni a kettot.
"Teny, hogy olyan szintre emelve a gain-t, hogy az mar kellemetlen, fajdalmas hallgatni, dither nelkul nagyobb az alapzaj, amit csak akkor hallasz ha epp nem szol semmi es a lehallgato rendszered egyebkent kisebb SNR-rel rendelkezik."
- ez megint hogy jön ide?
Ez a kulonseg 24/16 bit kozott. Nem mas. (a kiloherceket meg hagyjuk is, nem vagyunk deneverek.)