"Julian Fowler" <julian@bellevue-barn.org.uk> wrote in message
news:ovu5hvcvi4apljdjrfiokcoq7qd96lre6n@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:45:42 +0100, "Keith G" <keith_g@dsl.pipex.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Julian Fowler" <julian@bellevue-barn.org.uk> wrote in message
> >news:h5s5hv400mcbh713m0d2a3c1e52qn5tk60@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:47:33 +0100, "Keith G" <keith_g@dsl.pipex.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all
> >'digital'
> >> >music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to know
> >why
> >> >exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the
> >equivalent
> >> >CDs?
> >>
> >> They don't, if the same master is used.
> >>
> >> >Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks
out
> >> >like a chapel hatpeg....
> >>
> >> As has been pointed out numerous times, (almost) all SACD (or DVD-A,
> >> or whatever) releases have been remastered for that format
> >
> >
> >
> >Nooooo.....
> >
> >I'm talking about disks where there are both CD and SACD versions of the
> >same music. What about DSOTM - does that have differently mastered
versions
> >on it then?
>
> I believe so ... the blurb says that " The other layer includes
> high-resolution stereo and a 5.1 surround version of the recording
> that works on SACD-compatible DVD players and home theatre systems. "
> The 5:1 is not just a remaster, its a remix (and would therefore sound
> as different from the standard CD as the Quad vinyl did from the
> original LP).  Even if "standard" mastering techniques had been used
> to create the "high-resolution stereo" version, there's every reason
> to suppose that the mastering engineer took decisions based on the
> target hardware and wouldn't have sought to recreate every nuance of
> the 16/44.1 redbook version.
>
> I can't confirm, but I bet that the standard CD version is taken from
> the same master as used for the 25th anniversary edition (which, in
> turn, sounds very different from early CD releases, presumably because
> they went back to something close to the original studio master).
>
> I've only heard the 5:1 version once (and wasn't hugely impressed) -
> can anyone who owns the 30th anniversary release comment on
> differences between the three versions on that disc and the 25th
> anniversary version?



Since posting I've been told the CD version on the new hybrid is the
'traditional' CD version and the 5.1.stereo SACD versions are
remixes/remasters, as you say.

OK, that's DSOTM sorted - still leaves my original question which I will
word in a less troll-like way thus:

If even I, a self-styled 'vinyphile', who is not in the least bit discerning
when it comes to 'digital' music and for whom MP3/128 will do perfectly well
for those occasions when it is sufficient to only use digital music, can
easily tell the difference on a couple of CD/SACD stereo hybrid disks (and
thereby deem it safe to presume that everyone else can) therefore ask what
it is that makes the difference so obvious?

No good saying there is 'no' difference - a blind man could see it at
midnight, on a foggy day. (To maintain 'no audible difference' would be to
demonstrate 'denial' on the level of some severe form of pathological
neurosis.......)

Hmmm?


(How's that then? - Managed to ask a 'digital' question without using the
word 'shite' once...!!  :-)