Originally Posted by Martinf
Chris, John Haghighi made a statement about the DSOTM SACD having more dynamic range than the DVD-A. That's plain wrong.
I was just stating fact.
b.t.w. Guthrie can add compression and present the mix as 'wide-stereo' if he wants to (and has done). It's a known fact that compression makes a recording sound more palatable on systems (and radio broadcast) with poor dynamic range, and thus brings it line with a wider audience (most folks have systems with poor dynamic range).
But if you have large power-amp(s) like I do, then compression and peak limiting are certainly not what I want to hear.
Without getting into a debate about dynamic range (maybe that wasn't the correct term from an engineer's perspective), SACD vs. DVD-A, let's assume that the the recording engineer is correct.
Not sure how this translates into sound perception. Listening to both versions, my ears hear better fidelity with SACD.
Could be my equipment (doubt it), could be the recording, who knows. Like I said I prefer both versions for different reasons. But the DVD-A version for DSOTM does not "sound" better to me, and I prefer MLP over SACD for most recordings.
I agree that compressed formats and what a recording engineer can do with it can significantly affect what one hears, there are sereral DTS 96/24 recordings that sound better than the MLP counterparts. Perhaps the SACD version od DSTOM is sweetened up for the effect, and the MLP version is true to the orginal recording. I can believe that, isn't that the point of the release? It still doesn't sound better to me.