i got the EMI version of DSOTM on CD: CP35-3017
and it seems to be a japanese release.

is that one of the better mixes or should i buy the BR?

Just happened across the upcoming BR release of DSOTM. Is that what you were referring to JB?

Anyway, thought you PF fans would want to know.

I have it on my todo list to re-experience this album on my Axioms ever since reading this thread, just haven't had the time or the source material! I heard this album growing up by sneaking into my big brother's room when he wasn't home and (carefully for fear of my life) playing his vinyl, but haven't listened through the whole thing again in many years.

Cheers,

I hope they're release the BD as a standalone. I like PF and wouldn't mind having this album (I have Pulse on DVD and really like it) but I'm not that big of a fan to spend $130 on this box set.

yes, that's the one i was referring to.
i hope the BR version will have a jump in quality, otherwise i won't get it.

Hey that brings up a question - what is the difference between SACD and HD Audio formats anyway? Is SACD more or less equivalent to HD Audio formats (Dolby or DTS)?

Look at me replying to my own post! You should hear the amount of conversation when I'm alone in my office all day!

What I meant to ask is - Is DTS-HD or DDHD formats in any way superior to SACD? I know that DTS and DD are digital and can be carried over digital cables and that SACD (as far as I know) must be routed through analog cables to your receiver, but is one theoretically better than another? I'm a be curious.

Thanks!

I know ClubNeon isn't too impressed with SACD as a format, but he'll have to explain why. I'm still a bit too dim about the subject. I know the SACD of Dark Side of the Moon sounds amazing. I really don't know what Blu-ray would add to the sound quality, but it would make it more accessible.

SACD audio can be sent over digital connections a couple of ways. The player can either convert the DSD to PCM, or the player and receiver would both have to support DSD.

Lossless PCM (compressed or not) formats are all well know. They are easy to edit, transport, and decode. There are plenty of theories that accurately describe what to expect from a specific bit depth and sampling rate.

DSD is an odd one. It's a digital format that attempts to act like analog. It has a slew rate (i.e. it can't go from silence to maximum volume instantly). There are no easy ways to manipulate the data. Sony was pushing the format on it's recording studios. When the engineers asked for tools to perform basic mixing tasks Sony delayed, and delayed, and eventually shipped tools to convert DSD to PCM and back. So the work could be done in PCM. It is likely that very few SACDs are direct analog to DSD conversions. Instead they made a trip by high resolution PCM. PCM to DSD is a lossy process, there are valid PCM signals that can not be stored in DSD.

The math for estimating the limitations of DSD is not as clear as it is for PCM (with the work from Nyquist, et al.), but it does seem that the signal to noise ratio at the high frequency end (still in the human hearing range, though) is very poor. Worse than a well mastered CD in fact. Now, when it comes to storing bass information DSD far exceeds everything else. But for quickly changing signals it doesn't keep up.

Here's more: http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

Fascinating, thanks Chris.