peterpan

lol - it is always a good idea to check your quotes BEFORE posting such ridiculous misinformation on the web. As to DACs .... Most DACs on the market just play back PCM files ... but those that can play back DSD source material natively use exactly the same D/A chips as used in SACD players that can play back DSD material natively. A much more relevant issue is find material that is actually pure DSD and that has not been contaminated by PCM in editing.

I have this set on SACD, along with the Starker on SACD (and many many others on CD). The Navarra was recorded in 1977/8 (when Navarra would have been around 66) which was really the heyday of analogue, when analogue was at its peak … no hiss thanks to being post-Dolby … Stunning sonics … originally recorded by Georges Kisselhof, who passed away in 2011. According to the rear cover blurb, in 2012, a set of original analogue tapes by Kisselhof was rediscovered, manually cleaned and carefully remastered, using fully analogue equipment … the results presented on this first SACD release. The SACD layer (stereo) is rich and warm and resonant and wonderful. The CD layer sounds, by comparison, bland and shabby … without the richness or warmth or resonance of the hi-res SACD layer. * On the performance side, it is very different to Starker ... I would describe it as a very personal (rather than public) performance ... as if to walk past someone's study or practise room and hear them playing it to and for themselves ... contemplative and personal. It is also not as technically perfect ... but a different experience. The quality of the performance also varies across the suites / discs. The first disc is the most successful, and the third disc is the least successful. For instance, the Sixth suite features some rather hair-raising (or ear piercing intonation issues in th Sarabande) … and the Gigue is sloppy … maybe he was getting tired towards the end of the recording session???? * On the sonics side, the sound is superb. But then so is Starker. The Starker on SACD would be my first reference recording to go for (also with a pure analog to DSD conversion). The Navarra is an outstanding collector piece, complementing the Starker release perfectly.

Nooo The key word they use is identically: "These albums reproduce identically the sound" If you think a studio master just means the same piece of music, they could be offering up Mp3s, or even someone else playing the same piece, which is so absurd as to be ridiculous. I do not see any scope for ambiguity as to what their guarantee means --- which is also why they have got themselves into the soup. And they don't need to be in the soup, so all of this seems totally unnecessary. All I can say is: If I bought a Studio Master recording from Qobuz with their guarantee that it was identical to the Studio master used in the studio, and I then found out that the real Studio Master was actually a higher resolution pure DSD file (and available on SACD), I would be furious that I had been not only misled, but that I still did not have the Studio Master, and would need to fork out more money to get it from someone else.

Yes: in mid-2011, Emil Berliner Studios moved from their old technique of using hi-res PCM (24 bit 96kHZ) to their new method of using pure DSD, for their analog master tape to digital conversions. I have tried many of both varieties on SACD. I have always found the old 24/bit96 conversions to be rather coarse and digital sounding. By contrast, the new pure DSD conversions after mid-2011 (alas quite expensive to buy) are often beautiful wonderful things -- bliss -- with the warmth and naturalness of vinyl, but without the problems of vinyl, plus all the advantages of digital. Of course, you need a good analog recording to start with. Several of them are amongst the highlights of my SACD collection. I hope they keep on releasing more and more of them.

Nooooo - Qobuz define a specific meaning to their use of the term "Studio Master" --- in particular, they claim on their page: Toute la musique en qualité Studio Masters* ... that files marketed by them as Studio Masters are such that: " These albums reproduce identically the sound from the studio console output " ... and yet they make these claims for the hundreds of titles that were actually recorded in pure DSD, but which they sell in a down sampled PCM conversion ... not the real Studio Master ... not identical to the sound from the studio console. All of which patently makes a mockery of their guarantee. Yet, they persist in making it. I don't know why they don't just fix this up. They can either: 1) remove their Studio Master tag and replace it with: This album was downsampled from the pure DSD Studio Master to PCM, or 2) change their definition of Studio Master to mean: "Pretty good, and better than CD"

This is totally confused. No-one claims that every SACD offers up the Studio Master ... which is exactly why SACD buyers are always so concerned to find out what the original recording resolution was. Was it an analog recording, or PCM (and if so, what resolution), or pure DSD?

lol - that is just such nonsense. The Qobuz "Studio Master Guarantee" is just rubbish ... their claims are sheer fabrication. They are false at best, and fraudulent at worst. The problem is not just with their fake labelling of BIS titles. They list hundreds of recordings from labels such as Channel Classics and Pentatone with a Quality Guarantee Studio Masters tag 'guaranteeing' that they are the actual Studio Masters, when the real Studio Masters are pure DSD, whereas the files that Qobuz are selling are just downsampled PCM. * Pure DSD recordings like this from Philips: Schubert: Piano Sonata D568; 6 Moments musicaux * Pure DSD recordings like this from Channel Classics: Death & Devotion - Weckman, Tunder, Buxtehude & Ritter * Pure DSD recordings like this from Pentatone: MOZART: Violin Concerto No. 5 / MENDELSSOHN: Violin Concerto in D minor There are HUNDREDS of listings like these ... all of which: * the Studio Master is actually a pure DSD recording * Qobuz is selling a downsampled PCM version of same and then fake claims the PCM downsample IS the Studio Master. Very naughty. Their guarantee isn't worth the paper it isn't written on. I find it funny - but then I'm not buying it.

Why not buy one of the new SACD/DAC combos from Marantz or other makers? Then you have all the flexibility in the world, retain your collection (which sounds cool), and get a really hi-quality DAC too for free. The market for downloads is now stagnating (streaming low quality crap is the new black), so I think that's already on the way out. Based on my buying behaviour, I seem happy to buy SACDs (and even vinyl sometimes), but I have yet to spend a $ on a download. What sort of SACDs do you have? Do you have a list for sale? I'd be very interested to pick up some of them.

I find storing them in olive oil ... just enough to fully cover them ... keeps my downloads fresh and perfect. But if in doubt, keep refrigerated once you have opened/unzipped them.

Well, all SACDs are encoded in DSD, whether the original recording was DSD or not. Irrespective of how he ripped the SACD, ... you don't need to rip the SACD to produce a spectral plot ... you can just capture the analog out from a SACD player and sample that at say 96kHz / 24 bit. And then look for truncation etc. Not sure what Alex did.... ?

Assuming you did the rip correctly, ... the two main explanations are: 1) It was placed on SACD for the multi-channel content, e.g. if the original was recorded in multi-channel, or multi-tracked, ... OR 2) If not (1), then it's a scam, with someone selling a low-rez digital recording as if it is something better ... Can also happen that it started life as a hi-rez recording, and then some nitwit went and edited the whole thing using 44.1kHz / 16 bit software. That's also a scam, in my view. What title is this? P.S. Same thing happens with vinyl: recordings made as low-res digital are placed on vinyl, and sold praising their beautiful analog sonics ... [or mastered digitally at 44.1kHz / 16 bit]

Actually, more than 8500 SACDs, from over 450 labels .. whatever you think about the numbers, it's way more than what is available in hi-rez downloads. There is so much demand for the out of print ones, they sell for HUNDREDS of $$$ on Amazon and ebay ... even second-hand. That's not a market in decline ... that's a market with way more newcomers than departers. I don't care whether they make my SACDs in the USA or in Timbuktu, as long as they make them. They don't make my iPhone or iPad in the USA either .... but they sure seem popular.

???? what?? - How can iTunes sell SACDs? I suppose you realise this site is called: computeraudiophile.com ... not computeraudio.com. It's about audiophile sound on your comp ... about the hi-res stuff. In case you didn't know ... iTunes doesn't sell hi-rez content. It has ZERO hi-rez content. It's not relevant. And if you think SACD sales are bad, how do you think the poor guys feel trying to sell hi-rez downloads, most ripped from SACD, or downsampled from DSD .. only to sell 3 copies, and find them the next day on some warez site? Now that's a market with real problems.

You are aware that essentially all the majors have returned to the SACD market in the last 2 years??? That EMI, Universal, Virgin, Warner all make SACDs again ... sometimes just in markets like Japan where SACD is really strong, ... sometimes for all markets. I know I know - you want a new people mover, and Ferrari don't make it. Tut.

No-one is comparing SACD sales to iTunes sales or even CD sales, ... just like no-one is comparing Porsche or BMW sales to ... VW / Hyundai /Toyota sales ... The fact is that Porsche is doing very nicely, so is Ferrari, and BMW ... and SACD. They might only have 1% of the market ... but they lead their segment of the market. The iTunes market is mostly irrelevant to the SACD market -- it doesn't offer hi-rez, it doesn't offer DSD, and it doesn't offer multi-channel. Why don't you check out the topsellers list at acousticsounds: Acosuticsounds Topseller List