Originally Posted by amirm
Originally Posted by arnyk
Note that as these recordings trickled out into the audiophile world, there was no public outcry from reviewers or audiophiles about their diminished sound quality until just lately when people started noticing the difference using technical tools.
You must have been absent during that era or are rewriting history Arny. I remember reviewers and letters to editors routinely complaining about such things from day one. Here is a quick example: http://www.stereophile.com/features/404metrics/index.html
The article is relatively unique. I clearly spoke about the absence of a trend, and this one mostly irrelevant article obviously does not make a trend. What are you trying to pull?
The article above was published in 2004, so it did not come out until years after the introduction of the SACD, and after 100's of SACDs and DVD-As had been released without much if any unfavorable comment: Per Wikipedia "Super Audio CD (SACD) is a high-resolution, read-only optical disc for audio storage. Sony and Philips Electronics jointly developed the technology, and publicized it in 1999."
The article is based on technical tests, not reliable listening tests.
The article is based primarily on a test record, and makes only fleeting reference to just a few regular musical releases.
The article is not a regular review of a musical recording.
The article does rather belatedly say:
"Something I discovered the hard way in compiling this report is that too many DVD-A and SACD releases tell you not nearly enough about the origin of their content. CD's three-letter SPARS code—which indicates which domain, analog or digital, the recording, mixing, mastering, were done in (AAD, ADD, DAD, DDD)—tells you only so much, granted, but it's more than some hi-rez releases do. Hell, one of the discs I chose didn't even include track timings, either on the tray card or in the booklet, which by any account is plain inept. You can appreciate, though, why record companies would sometimes prefer to be coy about such things. Discovering that the Alison Krauss SACD was derived from a 48kHz PCM master, for instance, makes you scratch your head in wonder. And I doubt that Reprise would be keen to concede that the Frank Sinatra track had been ineptly upsampled at some point—although that is what its spectrum clearly indicates."
The article is about a few isolated recordings, and does not reveal that a high percentage (about 50%) of all so-called hi-rez recordings had these failings.
The article defends high resolution recordings in general:
"On the positive side, I was gratified to find more than the occasional example of spectral content reaching out to beyond 40kHz. Many studio microphones have a high-frequency response that falls away beyond (or even before!) 20kHz, and this characteristic can be seen in some of the results (for example, the Friendship SACD). But some engineers are clearly making the effort to use microphones with a more extended HF capability. Whether this matters is one of the continuing uncertainties surrounding high-rate digital audio, but when the extra bandwidth capability is available, it seems at least miserly not to exploit it."
Amir, you would do well to review your posts before you claim that they criticize something that they are in fact almost totally irrelevant to. This article demonstrates more about its poor critical thinking and poor command of relevant facts than anything else.