Originally Posted by pepar
I am all about the best sounding
version! And there are usually technical reasons why different versions sound differently. Where I lose interest is in spending time and money in finding incremental differences that may only be revealed on über-state-of-the-art systems. This is at the root of my disenchantment with remastered stereo SACDs of originally analog-recorded titles; I find them to be incremental. Mix that in with not having a printing press for cash and a healthy dose of cynical consumerism and well ... I pass.
That doesn't change the fact that I am impressed by the detailed discussions - deep in the weeds - that takes place around these versions and the ... versionistas.
I often think that it doesn't really get down to whether or not a title is SACD. Redbook CD's can sound absolutely wonderful ("can" is the key word), and my prime interest in sacd is for multichannel playback. I suppose to say that a high rate of theoretical resolution is not really as
important to me as to the mastering job that was done on the title in question. There's a lot of talk about the $50 Japan SHM-SACD's, but - I think it still gets down to how they were mastered, and what kind of source was used. There are some noteable SACD's that were converted to DSD from a 16/44.1 source (not from the original tape), and in those cases - they sound no different than the cd. Also
, some music simply does not carry enough dynamic range or resolution (i.e. a .lot of old rock records) to really take advantage of the SACD/DVD-A format. And, again, can sound incredible with a quality mastering engineer and a good source tape on redbook cd.
But, you are correct that much of the discussion and debate about the merits of different versions can get down to absolute minutiae. And many will pay big dollars to gain that advantage.Edited by bo130 - 7/2/13 at 10:48pm