|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I have for the first time, had a chance to compare ,directly the RBCD and DVD-A of a recording .I have listened the Naxos' Elgar-Payne 3rd in both formats via Sennheiser HD 650 headphones and the Musical Fidelity X-Can V3 tubed headphone amp.
My initial impressions were, that there wasn't really that much difference, between the two.But repeated hearings have revealed quite obvious differences.
The RBCD sounds closer ,more upfront and might therefore mistakenly IMO,be thought of as better.Many pop-rock listeners would probably prefer the RBCD, if they were to listen to real, acoustic music, for a change.
But when you start listening to, and compare the way individual instruments actually sound,the DVD-A sounds more realistic,has more air ,longer reverberation , more natural timbre,and individual instruments are more clearly defined in space than on the RBCD.The DVD-A simply sounds more realistic to me.
THe DVD-A stereo layer is only delivered at 24 bit linear but still sounds more high res than the RBCD IMO.The differences I hear are similar to what I also hear between good SACDs and the RBCD layer on hybrid discs.
I quess the bits count even at a lower sampling rate?
As a pro photographer, I do know for sure, that the higher the resolution ,the finer the grain is on you film ,the clearer ,the sharper, your final image will be.And maybe it would not be completely wrong to assume that a higher sampling rate would be similar to moving up from say, Velvia on 35m/m film to Velvia on medium format ?
The recording itself is actually very good and has been engineered by Tony Faulkner at the original sampling rate of 176 Khz.
I hope they go back to the original sampling rate for the SACD version.This recording might make an interesting comparison between DVD-A and SACD.
But as things stand now, this is quite a good introduction to DVD-A for classical listeners IMO.And the music is absolutely stunning.
But in all honesty I must say that I have many old LPs that sound even more realistic than this DVD-A.
Follow Ups:
and did you use the same player for CD playback?Just curious
Bit depth in audio is fairly meaningless beyond 20-bit as very few recordings even have that dynamic range and your DAC certainly hasn't. Sampling rate is more important. What's the sample rate of the Naxos disc?I'd suggest trying a DVD-Audio/CD A/B of something that's available at 192kHz on DVD-Audio and has come from a high-res digital source or analogue tape, such as 'Hotel California' or the new Steely Dan.
Of course, a CD can't do surround, so there's not much competition in that area. :-)
176.4/24 stereo mix; clearly a difference between CD and 176.4 sampling rate. "Take Me Down to Your house..., whatever its called. You have never heard such lifelike vocals. Personally, the boost from 44.1 to 88.2 was crucial, and made all the difference.
is quite spectacular IMO, and since everyone knows the old vinyl, the CD version (+ recent Deluxe remasters), the difference is quite telling. There's a world of new information and feelings in this high-resolution version.Highly recommended
Eric
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: