AudioCircle
Industry Circles => Bryston Limited => Topic started by: James Tanner on 20 Aug 2009, 06:47 pm
-
Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback*
E. BRAD MEYER, AES Member AND DAVID R. MORAN, AES Member
(EBradMeyer@att.net) (drmoran@aol.com)
Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA 01773, USA
Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz ?bottleneck.? The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.
BACKGROUND
Since the standardization of the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD pulse-code modulation format, over 25 years ago, its quality as a recording medium has been the target of regular criticism, both in the subjective audio press and among audio professionals. The complaints typically focus on a perceived harshness, lack of depth, and/or a cold, sterile sound. However, blind comparisons of CDs against their source tapes have revealed these perceptions to be unfounded. To that extent, the CD standard was transparent, whether the original source was digital or analog. Meanwhile digital technologies evolved, and in the past several years two new high-resolution audio technologies, Super Audio CD (SACD) and DVD-Audio, have emerged as alternatives. The usefulness of the increased dynamic range afforded by longer word lengths for mixdown has never been in question. Both new systems moreover carry multiple channels, clearly a potential advantage for home playback. But these acknowledged capabilities aside, each of the high resolution audio technologies has also been claimed to offer superior-sounding playback.
As a licensor asserted in these pages [1], A long-term audiophile criticism of the CD has been that it lacks the resolution to reproduce all the detail in a musical performance. . . . High-quality audio practice now recognizes the CD channel as a ?bottleneck?. . . . Higher resolution audio promises better sound than the CD, and the potential for this has already been demonstrated in carriers that permit a wider frequency response . . . and greater dynamic range. . . . Experience shows and anecdotal evidence suggests that higher sample rates ?sound better.? Typical observation are that with higher sampling rates the sound is clearer, smoother, has improved low-frequency definition, and is more ?natural.? In the author?s experience higher sample rates can lead to better foreground/ background discrimination. ?Objects? are better separated from the acoustic and therefore sound clearer and more ?complete.? The subjective and recording-engineer magazines have also declared repeatedly that both formats offer entirely obvious sonic improvements over the CD standard.
Such assertions show no awareness of previous relevant investigative work, though all of those papers address one parameter: the possibility that high-resolution recording offers sonic improvement because of its greater potential high-frequency extension. Regardless, all conclude that CD quality is adequate, and indeed the Plenge et *Manuscript received 2006 October 19; revised 2007 April 5 and June 15. J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 55, No. 9, 2007 September 775 al. [2], at the dawn of the CD era, implied that even its bandwidth might be more than is needed.
1 THE TESTS
Despite the claims made for them, neither SACD nor DVD-A, so far as the authors know, has been subject to properly controlled blind testing of its superiority to CD audio; at least no such results have been published. With the printing of the characterizations in Stuart?s lead paper [1] in this Journal, it became clear that it was well past time to settle the matter scientifically. This engineering report, then, describes double-blind comparisons of high resolution stereo playback with the same two-channel analog signal looped through a 16/44.1 A/D/A chain (see Fig.1). Unlike the previous investigations, our tests were designed to reveal any and all possible audible differences between high-resolution and CD audio, many of which, according to published claims, occur within the commonly accepted audio bandwidth. The theoretical sonic advantages of the high-resolution signal should not survive the degrading 16/44.1 ?bottleneck,? and differences would be audible.
With the help of about 60 members of the Boston Audio Society and many other interested parties, a series of double-blind (A/B/X) listening tests were held over a period of about a year. Many types of music and voice signals were included in the sources, from classical (choral, chamber, piano, orchestral) to jazz, pop, and rock music. The subjects included men and women of widely varying ages, acuities, and levels of musical and audio experience; many were audio professionals or serious students of the art. Most of the tests were done using a pair of highly regarded, smooth-measuring full-range loudspeakers in a rural listening room with an ambient noise floor of about 19 dBA SPL, all electronics on (see Fig. 2). We also took the test setup to several other locations: a Boston-area mastering facility with very large four-way studio monitors; a local university audio facility, again with large high powered monitors in a custom designed listening space (the subjects for this test were students in the recording program); and a private high-end listening room equipped with well-reviewed electrostatic loudspeakers and very expensive electronics and cables. In all venues we performed informal tests of the subjects? upper hearing limits to see whether there was a correlation between this parameter and the audibility of differences.
SEE BELOW
-
SEE ABOVE
For the CD loop we used a well-regarded professional CD recorder with real-time monitoring. Levels in both channels were matched to within 0.1 dB using a very high-performance adjustable analog gain stage, which was always in the 16/44.1 signal path. Audio switching was handled by an ABX CS-5 double-blind comparator (see Fig. 3).
High-resolution audio offers a lower digital noise floor, so playback levels are a significant factor. Does the lower noise have any practical consequence, given modern compression techniques and existing noise floors in microphones, preamplifiers, and mixing consoles? We found that most of the SACD and DVD-A recordings produced what might be termed realistic playback (that is, the subjects heard the sources loudly and clearly, with natural timbres and appropriate scale but without discomfort) at a system gain such that a 1-kHz octave band of noise recorded at an average level of −16 dBFS produced an SPL at the listening position of 85 dB, unweighted. For some classical recordings of very wide dynamic range, listening levels 5?7 dB higher than this were used from time to time. The test signal we used to produce 85 dB SPL at our standard gain is available on the Boston Audio Society Web site. The downward frequency sweep, used at the same playback level as a quick test of high-frequency hearing limits in our subjects, can be found on the same page, at www.bostonaudiosociety.org/media.
2 THE RESULTS
The test results for the detectability of the 16/44.1 loop on SACD/DVD-A playback were the same as chance: 49.82%. There were 554 trials and 276 correct answers. The sole exceptions were for the condition of no signal and high system gain, when the difference in noise floors of the two technologies, old and new, was readily audible. As the tests progressed, we repeatedly sorted the data for correlations with age, sex, upper frequency hearing limit, or experience. No such correlations have emerged. Specifically, on music at normal levels as defined here, audiophiles and/or working recording-studio engineers got 246 correct answers in 467 trials, for 52.7% correct. Females got 18 in 48, for 37.5% correct. Those subjects able to hear tones above 15 kHz got 116 in 256 trials, for 45.3% correct; listeners aged 14?25 years old (who were, as it turned out, the same group), also got 116 correct in 256 trials, 45.3%. The ?best? listener score, achieved one single time, was 8 for 10, still short of the desired 95% confidence level. There were two 7/10 results. All other trial totals were worse than 70% correct. Furthermore, none of the more elaborate and expensive playback systems (for which the subjects were all dedicated amateur audiophiles, active students in a professional recording program, and/or experienced working professionals) revealed detectable differences on music, again at levels as defined previously.
In one brief test with two subjects we added 14 dB of gain to the reference level quoted and tested the two sources with no input signal, to see whether the noise level of the CD audio channel would prove audible. Although one of the subjects was uncertain of his ability to hear the noise, both achieved results of 10/10 in detecting the CD loop. (We have not yet determined the threshold of this effect. With gain of more than 14 dB above reference, detection of the CD chain?s higher noise floor was easy, with no uncertainty. Tests with other subjects bore this out.)
The high-resolution sources when played back at the +14-dB level were unpleasantly (often unbearably) loud, and modern, aggressively mastered CDs even more so. Room tone and/or preamplifier noise in almost all recordings masked the 16/44.1 noise floor, though we did find one or two productions in which there was a detectable difference in room tone at gain settings of +20 dB or more above the reference level. At these very high gains we could also hear subtle low-level decoding errors in all but the most expensive of the high-resolution players. From the many different recordings we used it emerged that almost no music or voice program, recording venue, instrument, or performer exceeds the capabilities of a well implemented CD-quality record/playback loop. The CD has adequate bandwidth and dynamic range for any home reproduction task, and it is a rare playback venue that is quiet enough to reveal the 16-bit noise floor of our A/D/A loop?which has no noise shaping and was therefore less than optimal in this regard?even at gains above our reference.
3 CONCLUSIONS
We have analyzed all of the test data by type of music and specific program; type of high-resolution technology; age of recording; and listener age, gender, experience, and hearing bandwidth. None of these variables have shown any correlation with the results, or any difference between the answers and coin-flip results. The previous work cited, some of it at the very beginning of the CD era and some more recent, pointed toward our result. With the momentum of widespread ?high-rez? anecdotes over the last decade, culminating in the Stuart assertions, we felt the need to go further and perform a thorough, straightforward double-blind level-matched listening test to determine whether 16/44.1 technology would audibly degrade the sound of the best high-resolution discs we could find. We used a large and varied sample of serious listeners; we conducted our tests using several different types of high-quality playback systems and rooms; and we took as much time as we felt necessary to establish the transparency of the CD standard.
Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.
4 A NOTE ON HIGH-RESOLUTION RECORDINGS
Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel audio, one trend became obvious very quickly and held up throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs? sometimes much better. Had we not ?degraded? the sound to CD quality and blind-tested for audible differences, we would have been tempted to ascribe this sonic superiority to the recording processes used to make them.
Plausible reasons for the remarkable sound quality of these recordings emerged in discussions with some of the engineers currently working on such projects. This portion of the business is a niche market in which the end users are preselected, both for their aural acuity and for their willingness to buy expensive equipment, set it up correctly, and listen carefully in a low-noise environment. Partly because these recordings have not captured a large portion of the consumer market for music, engineers and producers are being given the freedom to produce recordings that sound as good as they can make them, without having to compress or equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual listening conditions. These recordings seem to have been made with great care and manifest affection, by engineers trying to please themselves and their peers. They sound like it, label after label. High-resolution audio discs do not have the overwhelming majority of the program material crammed into the top 20 (or even 10) dB of the available dynamic range, as so many CDs today do.
Our test results indicate that all of these recordings could be released on conventional CDs with no audible difference. They would not, however, find such a reliable conduit to the homes of those with the systems and listening habits to appreciate them. The secret, for two-channel recordings at least, seems to lie not in the high-bit recording but in the high-bit market.
SEE BELOW
-
SEE ABOVE:
5 REFERENCES
[1] J. R. Stuart, ?Coding for High-Resolution Audio
Systems,? J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 52, pp. 117?144 (2004
Mar.).
[2] G. Plenge, H. Jakubowski, and P. Scho?ne, ?Which
Bandwidth Is Necessary for Optimal Sound Transmission?,?
J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 28, pp. 114?119 (1980 Mar.).
[3] T. Nishiguchi, K. Hamasaki, M. Iwaki, and A.
Ando, ?Perceptual Discrimination between Musical
Sounds with and without Very High Frequency Components,?
presented at the 115th Convention of the Audio
Engineering Society, J. Audio Eng. Soc. (Abstracts), vol.,
51, p. 1222 (2003 Dec.), convention paper 5876.
[4] D. Blech and M. Yang, ?DVD-Audio versus SACD:
Perceptual Discrimination of Digital Coding Formats,?
presented at the 116th Convention of the Audio Engineering
Society, Berlin, Germany, 2004 May 8?11, convention
paper 6086.
THE AUTHORS
E. B. Meyer D. R. Moran
Brad Meyer was born in Baltimore, MD, in 1942 and received a B.A. degree from Harvard College, Cambridge, MA. He has been recording concerts since the late 1950s and worked making measurements, calibrating instruments, reducing data, writing reports, and learning acoustics at Bolt Beranek and Newman from 1966 to 1972. He started his own company, Point One Audio, in the late 1970s. He does location recording and digital editing of classical and some folk material. Mr. Meyer has been on the executive committee of the AES Boston Section since the early 1980s and served two years as its chair. In addition to his past duties as writer and sometime editor of the Boston Audio Society Speaker newsletter and Society president, he has published audio articles for the Boston Phoenix, High Fidelity, Stereo Review, and Stereophile.
_
David Moran was born in Springfield, OH, in 1947. He studied history and literature at the University of Rochester, NY and Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, where he received a B.A. degree. He has an M.A. degree in literature from Columbia University, New York. He is a writer and editor, with particular interest in audio, music, and technology. He was audio editor (also managing editor) of the Boston Phoenix during the 1970s and worked for dbx engineering through the 1980s. He has been president of the Boston Audio Society and editor of its BAS Speaker newsletter, and has reviewed loudspeakers for CD Review, Digital Audio, Speaker Builder, Car Stereo Review, and currently for Sensible Sound magazine and the BAS Speaker. He also has annotated and produced CDs and written about music (classical and popular) for publications from the Boston Globe, Phoenix, and Herald to Stereo Review, has received two NEA fellowships for classical criticism, and recently helped edit the NPR Listeners? Encyclopedia of Classical Music. He currently works as a technical writer at BBN Technologies in Cambridge, MA.
ENGINEERING REPORTS AUDIBILITY OF CD-STANDARD A/D/A LOOP
J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 55, No. 9, 2007 Septemb
-
Do the studios use Bryston? I'd like to see a comparison between cd and vinyl.
-
Thank you,
Excellent information.
-
Very nice information James. Thank you.
I have several Rudy Van Gelder 24-bit remastered but CD (16bit 44kHz) jazz recordings that, compared to the old masterings, are far superior. Now that knowledge of recording and mastering from digital sources has advanced so much, it really is possible to get 98% of the music on CDs. Probably explains why you introduced BCD1 in the 21st century.
I doubt we will ever capture the subjective and transient truth of emoting music in rational laws of mathematics which are devoid of memories and other subtle sensations.
Brilliant article.
-
SEE ABOVE
4 A NOTE ON HIGH-RESOLUTION RECORDINGS
Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel audio, one trend became obvious very quickly and held up throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs? sometimes much better. Had we not ?degraded? the sound to CD quality and blind-tested for audible differences, we would have been tempted to ascribe this sonic superiority to the recording processes used to make them.
Plausible reasons for the remarkable sound quality of these recordings emerged in discussions with some of the engineers currently working on such projects. This portion of the business is a niche market in which the end users are preselected, both for their aural acuity and for their willingness to buy expensive equipment, set it up correctly, and listen carefully in a low-noise environment. Partly because these recordings have not captured a large portion of the consumer market for music, engineers and producers are being given the freedom to produce recordings that sound as good as they can make them, without having to compress or equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual listening conditions. These recordings seem to have been made with great care and manifest affection, by engineers trying to please themselves and their peers. They sound like it, label after label. High-resolution audio discs do not have the overwhelming majority of the program material crammed into the top 20 (or even 10) dB of the available dynamic range, as so many CDs today do.
Our test results indicate that all of these recordings could be released on conventional CDs with no audible difference. They would not, however, find such a reliable conduit to the homes of those with the systems and listening habits to appreciate them. The secret, for two-channel recordings at least, seems to lie not in the high-bit recording but in the high-bit market.
SEE BELOW
A very interesting article. I was a little confused by the quoted paragraph above. It sounded as if they were contradicting themselves at times. They mentioned that the SACD recordings sounded better than their CD counterparts. I found it interesting that the engineers seemed to be more concerned with the quality of the finished product in SACD format compared to the regular CD format.
I can understand the unwillingness of the recording industry not to produce a high quality item if its ability can not be fully utilized in audio equipment that was not designed to take advantage of this.
When I was auditioning CD players, I did not consider an SACD format at the time. It turned out that the CD player I enjoyed the most (sound, mechanical fineness and aesthetics) turned out to also have the SACD format. My current CD player (soon to be replaced) is a mechanical beast - you get that awful, annoying "clunk, clunk" when you open the CD transport.
So, at the end of the day, if the quality is better in the SACD format - why not go with it? Perhaps something to truly consider, especially if you have substantial funds invested in your systems - as most people do here.
I am looking forward to doing a blind test myself with CD/SACD format with the same artist.
Be well...
-
Hi Laundrew,
I think they were concluding that the reason SACD sounded better had nothing to do with the 'format' used but the care taken by the engineers in mastering and producing it.
So if the same care was taken with regular CD's - instead off this serverely restricted dynamic range crap we get today to satisfy pop radio and ipods - regular redbook CD's would sound every bit as good as specialty type formats like SACD and DVD-A.
james
-
I find that hi-rez recording tend to bit a bit better in the highs and low as well as the noise floor. I listened to Mark Knopfler's "Shangri-La" which is a DVD-A/CD set. The 24/96 audio just sounds better (played on a Marantz DV9600 which is excellent on DVD-A and OK on SACD but not reference by any means) vs. playing a CD. I have other things where I either can't hear tons of difference or although I like certain things about the hi-rez, the Bryston BCD-1 seems to image a bit better. So it is a mixed bag. A well engineered SACD or DVD-A sounds better. The Dave Matthews live Blu-Ray was excellent on audio. That's why I don't want to go nuts on getting something that plays hi-rez. I'm sending the Oppo BDP-83 off to Modwright in a couple of weeks and between what the player and the mods cost it is not outrageous in terms of cost. Given the number of hi-rez discs vs. what is out on CD that I want, spending tons on a player that does SACD does not make economic sense. I know audiophiles who have less than a third of the SACDs that I have (I have about 260) and have spent $6k to get a player that does SACD and they will play the same discs over and over. To each his own. I went through a similar analysis when I got into LD late. Given the fact I ended up with 130 LDs, I could not see going over a certain price point just to have the privilege to play each disc. If SACD was still being embraced by mainstream labels and being released the way it was 5 yrs. back it might be a different story. I find myself buying 8-12 SACD titles a year at this point.
-
James said:
So if the same care was taken with regular CD's - instead off this severely restricted dynamic range crap we get today to satisfy pop radio and ipods - regular redbook CD's would sound every bit as good as specialty type formats like SACD and DVD-A
That's it in a nutshell. And how can we find before a purchase, if the engineers have not constricted the dynamic range? Or that they even care past the general buying public? :(
-
Hi Laundrew,
I think they were concluding that the reason SACD sounded better had nothing to do with the 'format' used but the care taken by the engineers in mastering and producing it.
So if the same care was taken with regular CD's - instead off this serverely restricted dynamic range crap we get today to satisfy pop radio and ipods - regular redbook CD's would sound every bit as good as specialty type formats like SACD and DVD-A.
james
Hello James,
I would agree.
Would you know if any marking studies that have being completed with reference to what percentage of audio consumers purchase high end audio products and at what point is audio equipment considered as high end? I am very curious at what percentage of consumers could benefit from a higher dynamics audio format.
I do not know anything about the recording industry, is it much more expensive to produce a CD with superior dynamics over one without? Or would this sound not be very good on ipods or radio stations? I am really walking on thin ice with this one as I have no knowledge or experience with respect to this subject.
I am curious if it is more cost effective to produce a more dynamic product in SACD for a targeted consumer group instead of the same level of quality in a standard CD.
I have a box set "Dead Can Dance" on order in SACD format. What I want to do is compare the same albums I have from this group in standard CD format. I think that it will be very interesting. I will not replace all of my CDs with SACD, only a select few and again this all depends on the improvement in sound quality. It is the same with the DVD Blueray format - we still purchase standard DVDs at times and do not plan to replace our entire DVD library with Blueray.
-
great discussion (said as a real fan...oh, and the forum moderator of AC's Hirez Circle :D )
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?board=150.0
I would agree that much of Hirez's superior sonics comes from the simple things...the care and feeding of the recording as it makes its way through the mixing and mastering processes. yes, the extended word length and resolutions help at the fewquency extremes, of course. But if you've ever listened to redbook labels like Mapleshade, MA Recordings, ECM (for the most part) you'll find an overall "hirez" kind of palpability, and a dedication to non-limiting and straight wire-with-gain kinds of signal paths. Of course, when all you plan to sell to is a niche of diehard music lovers you have that freedom. Delivering non-compressed redbook to the masses seems to be a no/no...yet i've never heard MA Recordings (for example) push the limits of my iPod or car stereo into distortion. The loudness wars seem to be over something that's no longer a big issue in practice. But what to do i know....
-
Delete...duplicate post...sorry
-
James,
The results that you presented are interesting, but at odds with the results that we've experienced at the Pacific Northwest Audio Society doing various comparisons of differing formats over the last couple of years.
The results that you present cetainly confirm Nyquist's predictions and I'm assuming that was a foregone conclusion of at least some of the people involved.
I'm pretty busy right now but some of the conclusions that we've reached are as follows.
1. Analog master tapes such as The Tape Project sound better than cd-style formats.
2. Good vinyl played on good gear usually sounds better than just about any digital source.
3. Various Hi-Res digital formats, including the latest K2HD redbook recordings are better sounding than SACD.
4. Burned copies of cds, using EAC, etc., will usually sound better than the original cd from which the music was sourced. Interestingly enough, while there's some controversy, it's generally felt that black cdrs seem to sound a bit better than most (but not all) of the silver variations.
5. PC based music servers, using Hi-Res recordings and utilizing Solid State hard drives are much better than any cd-style format.
Hopefully I can get back to this thread later today or tomorrow, but these are some of the things that we've explored recently.
Best Regards,
TerryO
-
Hi Terryo,
Thanks very much for your groups input based on the testing at your end. It really is a very interesting subject and attempting to get valid and unbiased results is not an easy task as there are so many variables. I have to say I have not experienced the computer over the optical CD Player superiority you have but the tests continue. How were your tests run -double blind?
james
-
For what it's worth .......... redbook cd records have become a far greater medium than I first heard in 1988! Since about ten years ago alot of " my music " type has surpassed all hopes of accepable fidelity. Thanks to all those that are studiously analying this topic...........Redbook. :thumb: :dance: :banana piano: :wave:
-
Here a nice visual example of the "loudness" war the record company's run.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ)
I think the main culprit why hi-rez disk CAN sound better than cd is the care taken in the mastering & mixing proces.
daffy :wink:
oh and just for fun watch this one even if you don't like metallica (master of puppets) hilarious.
mastered by muppets : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPu0DKyGgZI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPu0DKyGgZI)
-
For what it's worth .......... redbook cd records have become a far greater medium than I first heard in 1988! Since about ten years ago alot of " my music " type has surpassed all hopes of accepable fidelity. Thanks to all those that are studiously analying this topic...........Redbook. :thumb: :dance: :banana piano: :wave:
Yup - i agree mostly...but it was more like 6 years ago for me that CD became acceptable (I think the modest upgrading in players rather than software the cause), but that the medium still felt short of vinyl.
However, as Ted B mentions, I've heard specialist labels (which would have been recorded and engineered with more care to their market) Mapleshade, MA Recordings, ECM, JVC XRCD, etc and found DVD-A modestly superior in frequency extremes and 'palpability'.
Like James...I've not yet heard the superiority of hard drive over a spinning disc (especially if the disc has been 'damped' a la Herbies disc or other damping film on the surface). If you are sitting long enough to play multiple discs, hard drive can certainly be more convenient if it's wirelessly fed.
Nonetheless, with advancing years (47) and the inevetible decline in hearing no matter how well you take care of yourself and so many worthy formats and choices of software.....I'm in music nirvana these days :dance:
John
-
Here a nice visual example of the "loudness" war the record company's run.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ)
I think the main culprit why hi-rez disk CAN sound better than cd is the care taken in the mastering & mixing proces.
daffy :wink:
oh and just for fun watch this one even if you don't like metallica (master of puppets) hilarious.
mastered by muppets : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPu0DKyGgZI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPu0DKyGgZI)
Hi Daffy,
Great piece- thanks for that link. I see this all the time in pop music mastering and tracking facilities.
james'
-
There is even more to making a great sounding CD than top notch recording and mastering. You need first rate replication at the CD plant as well. Check out this link to FIM: http://www.firstimpressionmusic.com/Articles.asp?ID=132 (http://www.firstimpressionmusic.com/Articles.asp?ID=132).
Chris H.
-
There is even more to making a great sounding CD than top notch recording and mastering. You need first rate replication at the CD plant as well. Check out this link to FIM: http://www.firstimpressionmusic.com/Articles.asp?ID=132 (http://www.firstimpressionmusic.com/Articles.asp?ID=132).
Chris H.
In reference to your posting above, Winston Ma the owner of FIM, is a member of the Pacific Northwest Audio Society. He played an important part in the various listening tests I previously mentioned, along with Gary Leonard Koh (Member & Owner/CEO of Genesis Advanced Technologies), Bruce Brown (Member & Owner, Puget Sound Studios) and to a much lesser extent, myself (Member & regular guy).
I should also mention Dan Schmalle (Doc Bottlehead) and Paul Stubblebine (Paul Stubblebine Mastering) for their demonstrations, especially regarding their Tape Project recordings.
Best Regards,
TerryO
-
But even if we assume that there is an audible difference, it might very well be that we cannot detect it. We listen mostly to imperfect speakers and imperfect rooms. For instance we can come close to perfect linearity in frequency with speaker X in an anechoic chamber, but if we place it in a room, we will not hear 'perfect' sound.
I don't think that the bottle-neck is the nature of the digital medium. It is, by far, overshadowed by other factors. To put it in other words: you will not tell the difference between SACD vs. CD if you can't chose the couch and can't chose where it goes."
Having said that, we would all anticipate some difference given the beating the signal takes with 44.1 KHz sampling. But there certainly be a limitation based on the law of diminishing returns. If not 16 bit, then perhaps at 20 bits; regardless, I think that with the CD format, we have come very close.
I am not sure how far we can push, but we have bigger fish to fry than trying to squeeze out a BENEFICIAL auditory experience from SACD assuming perfect equipment but imperfect listening room.
What do you think? Too pessimistic?
Given domestic set-ups and its inherent limitations, are we limiting our auditory experiences in a major fashion? And this is not even tackling mastering techniques etc..
-
But even if we assume that there is an audible difference, it might very well be that we cannot detect it. We listen mostly to imperfect speakers and imperfect rooms. For instance we can come close to perfect linearity in frequency with speaker X in an anechoic chamber, but if we place it in a room, we will not hear 'perfect' sound.
I don't think that the bottle-neck is the nature of the digital medium. It is, by far, overshadowed by other factors. To put it in other words: you will not tell the difference between SACD vs. CD if you can't chose the couch and can't chose where it goes."
Having said that, we would all anticipate some difference given the beating the signal takes with 44.1 KHz sampling. But there certainly be a limitation based on the law of diminishing returns. If not 16 bit, then perhaps at 20 bits; regardless, I think that with the CD format, we have come very close.
I am not sure how far we can push, but we have bigger fish to fry than trying to squeeze out a BENEFICIAL auditory experience from SACD assuming perfect equipment but imperfect listening room.
What do you think? Too pessimistic?
Given domestic set-ups and its inherent limitations, are we limiting our auditory experiences in a major fashion? And this is not even tackling mastering techniques etc..
I guess my experience is at odds with yours, but then, having the availability of a variety of source material at hand to conduct AB comparisons is an advantage that is not normally available to most listeners.
One such comparison we conducted was first playing an FIM CD (XRCD24?) and then the glass master that had been used to produce that CD. I can tell you for a fact, that of the approximately 20+ members that listened, not one thought they were even close to sounding the same and all agreed that the glass master was much better sounding.
It should be noted that our club system is pretty good, although many of you may actually have much better gear, and the room is in the basement of a Church. The acoustics (IMO) are not very satisfactory, but the rent is low.
It may be, as is often suggested, all ones and zeros, but they reside in an imperfect, physical world and I suppose that's where the trouble begins. Commercial CDs are stamped out and the QC of the companies vary. What this means is that some of the labels may change the "stampers" often and others don't. This is very much like LPs, where the records produced at the end of a production run using a particular "stamper" are inferior to the first ones produced. This is one of the reasons that the Direct to Disk LP recordings were often superb sounding, as the total number of records produced was limited in order to insure the quality. This is not an apple and oranges comparison, as we're addressing a physical process that includes wear and a subsequent decline in quality during production. The care taken in the production of the medium is very important and can mean the difference between an excellent CD (or LP) and a mediocre one that utilizes the same source, such as a master tape.
One thing that can sometimes give you an improvement is to wash and polish your new CD. In the manufacturing process a parting compound or release agent is used to allow separating the plastic (that is applied to the metal foil or data medium) from the press. A cloudy surface, resulting from the residue, interferes with the ability to read the disk and can produce errors.
People that are really into burning their own copies have claimed that their copies can be better than the original disk that is used as the source. Using a product such as EAC (excellent freeware) to first correct the errors in the digital domain, the data is then transferred to the disk using a quality burner that will give sharp, precise pits (remember that old worn out stamper?) that can be more easily read and allows a much reduced block error rate (BLER).
In the last two or three years a lot has happened to improve the quality of the digital reproduction of music. While vinyl is still capable of, and often does, outperform CDs, the gap has been narrowed quite a bit and the day is approaching when the promise of digital may, at long last, be realized.
This has already turned out to be longer than I intended, but I get up pretty early for work so I'm off to bed.
Best Regards,
TerryO
-
Don't know if this means anything and I most likely pointing out the obvious buy my experience from years of writing, recording (to tape and 192/24), mixing, performing, listening and writing about music is that as long as the source and mastering are spot-on, a CD can really perform. I have redbook CDs that trump the exact same title/recording on DVD-A, heavy vinyl, SACD and hard drive. A quick and dirty example of that is the old redbook of Elton John's Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, not the remastered version. Nice, open and warm disc that can be found for $4.00. It kills all other versions because whoever mastered it used a precise, gentle hand.
In fact, i own many DVD-As and SACDs and most are worthless. I mean, why go to the trouble to master a recording using original mixdown tapes when all the mastering engineer does is hype the EQ and compress the crap out of it? It's not sampling rates and ones and zeroes as much as it is the human touch. And D/A converters have come a long way. Master a CD well and it will even beat vinyl. That's something.
-
I am getting the impression that more care (pride) goes into the production of a SACD release than its CD counterpart. So, if this is the case - and if we do get superior audio from a SACD because of the extra care, are not these arguments now a mute point?
If you are investing money in a great sounding audio system, why not also go SACD? Should not a versatile system allow the choice of CD/SACD and vinyl options?
Perhaps something to contemplate.
On a side note, I ordered a SACD double set today and the price was only $30, this is only the second SACD I have ordered and the price seems comparable to the CD format.
Be well...
-
Before getting the BCD-1, multi-channel sacd playback was at a significantly highly level of fidelity than regular cd playback using the Sony NS9100ES. With the BCD-1 as I said before and Yamaha enhancer in multi-channel stereo I get noticeably better results.
With that new hi-tech player you're getting you may get better sacd playback than what I'm hearing. It seems to me the quality of the source equipment is the determining factor and not the format.
I'm curious to know if one could dsp sacd if it would significantly trump other formats?
-
I am getting the impression that more care (pride) goes into the production of a SACD release than its CD counterpart. So, if this is the case - and if we do get superior audio from a SACD because of the extra care, are not these arguments now a mute point?
If you are investing money in a great sounding audio system, why not also go SACD? Should not a versatile system allow the choice of CD/SACD and vinyl options?
Perhaps something to contemplate.
On a side note, I ordered a SACD double set today and the price was only $30, this is only the second SACD I have ordered and the price seems comparable to the CD format.
Be well...
Laundrew,
In your first statement you use a lot of ifs, and that's the problem, they didn't and they don't.
The new K2HD mastered CDs are in my experience much better sounding than SACD and as an added bonus can be played on a standard player.
SACD is a medium that missed the boat and is now becoming obsolete.
For the time being good vinyl is, after R2R master tapes, still the top of the heap. Digital reproduction is advancing and with developments like K2HD, some lables are already discontinuing SACD in favor of the more advanced formats.
Other than the question of vinyl, and it's pretty close anyway, I'm in agreement with Mott's posting. I wouldn't be surprised that within a couple of years or so, the choice will be whether you can find your favorite performances in a digital format or will still be using vinyl as the only available format.
SACD had great promise, was way under-utilized and now has been left behind. I wouldn't bother spending any money on the format.
Best Regards,
TerryO
-
I am getting the impression that more care (pride) goes into the production of a SACD release than its CD counterpart. So, if this is the case - and if we do get superior audio from a SACD because of the extra care, are not these arguments now a mute point?
If you are investing money in a great sounding audio system, why not also go SACD? Should not a versatile system allow the choice of CD/SACD and vinyl options?
Perhaps something to contemplate.
On a side note, I ordered a SACD double set today and the price was only $30, this is only the second SACD I have ordered and the price seems comparable to the CD format.
Be well...
Laundrew,
In your first statement you use a lot of ifs, and that's the problem, they didn't and they don't.
The new K2HD mastered CDs are in my experience much better sounding than SACD and as an added bonus can be played on a standard player.
SACD is a medium that missed the boat and is now becoming obsolete.
For the time being good vinyl is, after R2R master tapes, still the top of the heap. Digital reproduction is advancing and with developments like K2HD, some lables are already discontinuing SACD in favor of the more advanced formats.
Other than the question of vinyl, and it's pretty close anyway, I'm in agreement with Mott's posting. I wouldn't be surprised that within a couple of years or so, the choice will be whether you can find your favorite performances in a digital format or will still be using vinyl as the only available format.
SACD had great promise, was way under-utilized and now has been left behind. I wouldn't bother spending any money on the format.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Hello TerryO,
Some very interesting observations...
The K2HD mastered CDs, are these mainline production (I do not know very much about this) and if so, how do you know if they have used this in a musical release (ifs, eh? such an uncertain world!).
As for SACD, ironically, I did not consider this format when I started looking for a new system. It just happened to be in a CD player that I selected for other reasons (mechanical and electronic). When I auditioned my system, the audio store had a BCD-1 and an Esoteric X-05 (A/B) set-up into the demo system (BP-26/28B/JBL 1400) with identical cables to the CD players. I enjoyed the audio from the Esoteric over the BCD-1, and thought that the Esoteric was well worth the extra cost over the BCD-1 (to my ears anyway). I also enjoyed the SACD selections they used during the demo.
I am looking forward to comparing SACD to CD (same groups/albums) here at home. If (there I go again :oops:) I cannot hear a difference, I will be the first to say it - nothing ventured, nothing gained :wink:
Be well...
-
I am getting the impression that more care (pride) goes into the production of a SACD release than its CD counterpart. So, if this is the case - and if we do get superior audio from a SACD because of the extra care, are not these arguments now a mute point?
If you are investing money in a great sounding audio system, why not also go SACD? Should not a versatile system allow the choice of CD/SACD and vinyl options?
Perhaps something to contemplate.
On a side note, I ordered a SACD double set today and the price was only $30, this is only the second SACD I have ordered and the price seems comparable to the CD format.
Be well...
Laundrew,
In your first statement you use a lot of ifs, and that's the problem, they didn't and they don't.
The new K2HD mastered CDs are in my experience much better sounding than SACD and as an added bonus can be played on a standard player.
SACD is a medium that missed the boat and is now becoming obsolete.
For the time being good vinyl is, after R2R master tapes, still the top of the heap. Digital reproduction is advancing and with developments like K2HD, some lables are already discontinuing SACD in favor of the more advanced formats.
Other than the question of vinyl, and it's pretty close anyway, I'm in agreement with Mott's posting. I wouldn't be surprised that within a couple of years or so, the choice will be whether you can find your favorite performances in a digital format or will still be using vinyl as the only available format.
SACD had great promise, was way under-utilized and now has been left behind. I wouldn't bother spending any money on the format.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Hello TerryO,
Some very interesting observations...
The K2HD mastered CDs, are these mainline production (I do not know very much about this) and if so, how do you know if they have used this in a musical release (ifs, eh? such an uncertain world!).
As for SACD, ironically, I did not consider this format when I started looking for a new system. It just happened to be in a CD player that I selected for other reasons (mechanical and electronic). When I auditioned my system, the audio store had a BCD-1 and an Esoteric X-05 (A/B) set-up into the demo system (BP-26/28B/JBL 1400) with identical cables to the CD players. I enjoyed the audio from the Esoteric over the BCD-1, and thought that the Esoteric was well worth the extra cost over the BCD-1 (to my ears anyway). I also enjoyed the SACD selections they used during the demo.
I am looking forward to comparing SACD to CD (same groups/albums) here at home. If (there I go again :oops:) I cannot hear a difference, I will be the first to say it - nothing ventured, nothing gained :wink:
Be well...
Laundrew,
Here's a link: http://www.firstimpressionmusic.com/
You can buy the same music in several formats that are available and then decide for yourself, however the care taken by FIM with each format will probably exceed that of the same format on many of the other regular labels.
Best Regards,
TerryO
-
I am getting the impression that more care (pride) goes into the production of a SACD release than its CD counterpart. So, if this is the case - and if we do get superior audio from a SACD because of the extra care, are not these arguments now a mute point?
If you are investing money in a great sounding audio system, why not also go SACD? Should not a versatile system allow the choice of CD/SACD and vinyl options?
Perhaps something to contemplate.
On a side note, I ordered a SACD double set today and the price was only $30, this is only the second SACD I have ordered and the price seems comparable to the CD format.
Be well...
Laundrew,
In your first statement you use a lot of ifs, and that's the problem, they didn't and they don't.
The new K2HD mastered CDs are in my experience much better sounding than SACD and as an added bonus can be played on a standard player.
SACD is a medium that missed the boat and is now becoming obsolete.
For the time being good vinyl is, after R2R master tapes, still the top of the heap. Digital reproduction is advancing and with developments like K2HD, some lables are already discontinuing SACD in favor of the more advanced formats.
Other than the question of vinyl, and it's pretty close anyway, I'm in agreement with Mott's posting. I wouldn't be surprised that within a couple of years or so, the choice will be whether you can find your favorite performances in a digital format or will still be using vinyl as the only available format.
SACD had great promise, was way under-utilized and now has been left behind. I wouldn't bother spending any money on the format.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Hello TerryO,
Some very interesting observations...
The K2HD mastered CDs, are these mainline production (I do not know very much about this) and if so, how do you know if they have used this in a musical release (ifs, eh? such an uncertain world!).
As for SACD, ironically, I did not consider this format when I started looking for a new system. It just happened to be in a CD player that I selected for other reasons (mechanical and electronic). When I auditioned my system, the audio store had a BCD-1 and an Esoteric X-05 (A/B) set-up into the demo system (BP-26/28B/JBL 1400) with identical cables to the CD players. I enjoyed the audio from the Esoteric over the BCD-1, and thought that the Esoteric was well worth the extra cost over the BCD-1 (to my ears anyway). I also enjoyed the SACD selections they used during the demo.
I am looking forward to comparing SACD to CD (same groups/albums) here at home. If (there I go again :oops:) I cannot hear a difference, I will be the first to say it - nothing ventured, nothing gained :wink:
Be well...
Laundrew,
Here's a link: http://www.firstimpressionmusic.com/
You can buy the same music in several formats that are available and then decide for yourself, however the care taken by FIM with each format will probably exceed that of the same format on many of the other regular labels.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Hello again TerryO,
Thank you very much for the information :thumb:
Be well...
-
I am getting the impression that more care (pride) goes into the production of a SACD release than its CD counterpart. So, if this is the case - and if we do get superior audio from a SACD because of the extra care, are not these arguments now a mute point?
If you are investing money in a great sounding audio system, why not also go SACD? Should not a versatile system allow the choice of CD/SACD and vinyl options?
Perhaps something to contemplate.
On a side note, I ordered a SACD double set today and the price was only $30, this is only the second SACD I have ordered and the price seems comparable to the CD format.
Be well...
Laundrew,
In your first statement you use a lot of ifs, and that's the problem, they didn't and they don't.
The new K2HD mastered CDs are in my experience much better sounding than SACD and as an added bonus can be played on a standard player.
SACD is a medium that missed the boat and is now becoming obsolete.
For the time being good vinyl is, after R2R master tapes, still the top of the heap. Digital reproduction is advancing and with developments like K2HD, some lables are already discontinuing SACD in favor of the more advanced formats.
Other than the question of vinyl, and it's pretty close anyway, I'm in agreement with Mott's posting. I wouldn't be surprised that within a couple of years or so, the choice will be whether you can find your favorite performances in a digital format or will still be using vinyl as the only available format.
SACD had great promise, was way under-utilized and now has been left behind. I wouldn't bother spending any money on the format.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Interesting. My experience is quite different. I agree that FIM does indeed do some very nice work on their releases - regardless of format (CD, Gold CD, SACD, XRCD, XRCD24, K2HD). I have a number of the FIM discs from over the years in different formats.
The FIM XRCD24 and K2HD CDs are nice. But I find the SACDs from FIM to sound significantly better than the K2HD CDs from FIM.
-
I guess depending on the hardware you use, you may have opinions both ways. This person agrees with Brian's assessment:
http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=24041
?Thanks for this world-rocking new, JRA.
"K2 Super Coding", which is related to "XRCD" (eXtended Resolution CD), has been around since 1995. It was from JVC too and persumably the "HD" version is mostly an evolutionary advancement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extende...n_Compact_Disc
I have a few jazz K2's, and to me they sound good but not better (or even as good), as the SACDs or HDCDs that I own. Do we need another hi-rez format? If people cared they'd buy SACD or DVD-A (which are also multi-channel): why should buy K2HD in preference? What is most absurd is that K2HD prices are likely to run higher than these proven hi-rez media. It looks like this is just another proprietary scheme to skim more money from suckers -- of course there's definitely nothing new about that.
On the other hand, they might do OK in Japan. There's a place where the domestic market seems to suck up a bizzare range of pricey products that can't be sold elsewhere in the world.
__________________?
I personally have not heard one and although I have a BCD-1 based on the many hi-rez discs I have, given equal attention paid to mixing and mastering, I can't imagine the highs and lows being equal to plain old CD. That's not to say that I don't have SACDs in my collection that could have been lots better sonically. The problem with a label like FIM is that there is not really mainstream stuff released. I think I have 3 of their SACD titles. It's nice to have well recorded stuff but I'm not about to ditch the collection of what I like simply due to the fact the recording quality could have been better. I guess I'd be curious as to what everyone is listening on (speakers, players, etc.).
-
I guess depending on the hardware you use, you may have opinions both ways. This person agrees with Brian's assessment:
http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=24041
The equipment is always a big part of it. I've found that the quality of the analog sections in disc players varies widely. It's certainly one reason for the large differences in price between entry level and audiophile quality disc players. The sonic differences between lower end players and the higher end ones can be quite significant.
I'd also agree with you that FIM discs aren't comparable to mainstream releases. They are aimed at audio fans who are able to discern subtle differences in sound. For example, when it comes to the FIM releases, I find their XRCD/24 discs sonically superior to the earlier XRCD discs. I'm not sure that the average consumer with a low priced CD/DVD player would note the same differences.
That's one reason I was disappointed that FIM didn't go further in their XRCD/24 releases of the classic Sheffield discs. The ones that came out were very good indeed !
-
A dilemma...
I picked up a SACD a few days ago "Saint-Saens, Symphonie No 3" and the audio quality is simply awesome. Here is the kicker - I cannot compare it against a standard CD version of this album. So the jury is still, unfortunately out. I have a Dead Can Dance SACD box set on order and I will be able to a direct comparison with some of my standard Dead Can Dance CDs.
On a side note, I have had my Esoteric CD player for over a week now and its performance is outstanding, if you are in the market for a CD player - give Esoteric an audition :thumb:
Be well...
-
Just when you think that it can't get any better...
I received my SACD version of "War of the Worlds" today. This was definitely the litmus test as I also have the regular CD version.
So, is there a difference in audio quality?
Absolutely!
The audio quality bar has once again, been raised. Was the extra cost of a SACD player justifiable over a Redbook CD player?
Yes...
I realized that I may have been somewhat biased, so a small, blind, test was in order - I required a test subject. "Hon," I shouted upstairs - can you come down for a minute please? My unsuspecting test subject appeared in my room and I asked her to have a seat.
"Tell me which CD you like the best," I announced.
I played a track from the Redbook CD and I asked how she liked it - "sounds nice," she said. I then played the same track of the SACD version - The immediate grin on her face told me everything I wanted to know. So, what did you think of this CD - "It was a lot clearer," she said. I noticed that the flutes had a more hollow raspy quality on the SACD version - The instruments on a whole had more life to them.
I will now look to purchase SACDs when I can find them - end of storey.
Be well...
-
Not so fast! :flak:
Is that the re-mastered redbook version? I never purchased the sacd version cause I thought the re-mastered cd is pretty darn good.
I have/had the lp, which I played quite abit, but not so much, lately.
-
Not so fast! :flak:
Is that the re-mastered redbook version? I never purchased the sacd version cause I thought the re-mastered cd is pretty darn good.
I have/had the lp, which I played quite abit, but not so much, lately.
Hello Mag,
Do you know what date the re-mastered(?) version is? The Redbook version I have says "digitally mastered." I know that a "remake" of this CD is also out and I am trying to track it down (of course, in SACD). The re-make is susposed to have more music with it and is a different album. I am very much looking forward to my SACD "Dead Can Dance" Box set and complete another A/B test. I would also like to find the War of the Worlds LP.
To quote an awesome quote...
"The demo is everything!"
-
Not so fast! :flak:
Is that the re-mastered redbook version? I never purchased the sacd version cause I thought the re-mastered cd is pretty darn good.
I have/had the lp, which I played quite abit, but not so much, lately.
Hello Mag,
Do you know what date the re-mastered(?) version is? The Redbook version I have says "digitally mastered." I know that a "remake" of this CD is also out and I am trying to track it down (of course, in SACD). The re-make is susposed to have more music with it and is a different album. I am very much looking forward to my SACD "Dead Can Dance" Box set and complete another A/B test. I would also like to find the War of the Worlds LP.
To quote an awesome quote...
"The demo is everything!"
The version I got has the 4 bonus tracks '95 remix. Uses 20-bit Super Bit Mapping, SBM. Not sure when it was released can't read the small print. I bought it at least a year before I seen the sacd version.
Some of my lps disappeared, I have to check to see if I still have the lp.
I found with my BCD-1 that the hybrid cd quality improves significantly when transferred to cd-r. Others have commented they heard no difference with a transfer.
-
Not so fast! :flak:
Is that the re-mastered redbook version? I never purchased the sacd version cause I thought the re-mastered cd is pretty darn good.
I have/had the lp, which I played quite abit, but not so much, lately.
Hello Mag,
Do you know what date the re-mastered(?) version is? The Redbook version I have says "digitally mastered." I know that a "remake" of this CD is also out and I am trying to track it down (of course, in SACD). The re-make is susposed to have more music with it and is a different album. I am very much looking forward to my SACD "Dead Can Dance" Box set and complete another A/B test. I would also like to find the War of the Worlds LP.
To quote an awesome quote...
"The demo is everything!"
The version I got has the 4 bonus tracks '95 remix. Uses 20-bit Super Bit Mapping, SBM. Not sure when it was released can't read the small print. I bought it at least a year before I seen the sacd version.
Some of my lps disappeared, I have to check to see if I still have the lp.
I found with my BCD-1 that the hybrid cd quality improves significantly when transferred to cd-r. Others have commented they heard no difference with a transfer.
I do have a remix version "ULLA dub ULLA," but I cannot compare this to the first release as it is more of an electronic version and not the same album.
-
Oh sweet bliss… My Dead Can Dance SACD box set arrived today coinciding with the beginning of my vacation - it does not get any better than this.
Be well…
-
Oh sweet bliss… My Dead Can Dance SACD box set arrived today coinciding with the beginning of my vacation - it does not get any better than this.
Be well…
Ah yes, SACD's on the X-05. Saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaweeet :violin: :guitar: :drums:
-
The true reference for these comparisons is Vinyl. Being an excellent mastered recording to demostrate the reference.
The output of any cd deck or dac (with 16 or 24 bit rate)is considered not to be a true analogue signal. The signal is still fragmented and requires additional support from the dac to smooth out the digitized signal.
A 24 bit word lenght is better than a 16 bit length here. This is never mentioned in any of these comparisons and i believe it be the most underappreciated factor in cd playback
A full analogue recorded signal will eliminate the high freq hash and sound organic compared to a lesser cd bit playback. It will not fix any other component defiency regarding suitability in a personal system. Including noise, dyanmics, etc.
Full anologue signal, like a good TT is what cd playback is trying to approach. New generation dacs are resolving at 32 bit, I would say that 96/24 bit recording upsampled to 32 bit output is getting close to a full analogue output.
-
Ah yes, SACD's on the X-05. Saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaweeet :violin: :guitar: :drums:
So true Bill :thumb:
I am already at "Within the Realm of a Dying Sun" of the Dead Can Dance SACD box set, the music is simply haunting in this format. I have literally exhausted my cache of adjectives to accurately describe the performance of this system.
I was invited by a friend last week to go to an audition with him. He was always interested in a particular brand of audio equipment and if memory serves me correct, the price of this system was around the $40K range. When the demo started, I was truly surprised how “lifeless” this system was. I was watching my friend during the demo - he was sitting on the “comfy” leather chair located in the sweet spot and I could see by his expression that he was not enjoying the demo of his “dream system.”
When we were outside of the store, he told me that he was very disappointed with the performance of this audio equipment :(
I mentioned that the B100/BCD-1 system that I want to purchase for my wife sounded superior to what he had just auditioned and suggested an audition with Bryston was in order.
Time will tell.
Be well…
-
Laundrew,
do you know how many SACD albums are available? roundabout...
thanx,
al.
-
Laundrew,
do you know how many SACD albums are available? roundabout...
thanx,
al.
Hello al,
SACD availability will be directly related to the type of music that you enjoy. In my circumstance, I enjoy Gothic music and there is not a great selection available in SACD. I had to wait a very long time for my Dead Can Dance box set.
I am not sure about the availability of other music genres in SACD, perhaps other members can answer this question much better than I can. I do know that 95Dyna (in this circle) also enjoys SACD - perhaps he can shed more light than I can on this subject for you.
I am sorry I could not be more help to you.
:D
Be well…
-
http://www.sa-cd.net/home - about 6,300 released as of today - some things, however, are out-of-print
-
ok- thanks Laundrew and Phil.
al.
-
ok- thanks Laundrew and Phil.
al.
Hi Alex,
I am much into classical, jazz, jazz fusion, latin jazz fusion, classic rock (I grew up in the late 60's early 70's) however I like all kinds of stuff. Classical and Jazz varieties are the best populated SACD genres. I was in my mid 30's when the CD arrived en masse. I'm now laughing as to how CD was presented and sold back then as the antidote for the miseries of vinyl. The laws of physics tell me that was a crock in retrospect so I am going to buy all new analog stuff to revisit my pre CD collection and will buy new vinyl when there is something I like that is not avaialble on SACD. I am encouraged by the recent release of all the Credence Cleartwater Revival albums on SACD for a classic rock example and there are quite a few others of this genre available. Phil seems to have a handle on the total number of titles available. So, for me, it will be SACD, vinyl and a large legacy CD collection mixed in with some FM radio as my sources for now. I have to tell you that the sound of the SACD format on my Esoteric X-05 is just unbelievable especially in terms of imaging and frequency extension at both ends. It is easy to tell the difference between the SACD and the CD layer on a hybrid disc and don't get me wrong, the CD layers sound quite good too.
Bill
-
Hi Alex,
I am much into classical, jazz, jazz fusion, latin jazz fusion, classic rock (I grew up in the late 60's early 70's) however I like all kinds of stuff. Classical and Jazz varieties are the best populated SACD genres. I was in my mid 30's when the CD arrived en masse. I'm now laughing as to how CD was presented and sold back then as the antidote for the miseries of vinyl. The laws of physics tell me that was a crock in retrospect so I am going to buy all new analog stuff to revisit my pre CD collection and will buy new vinyl when there is something I like that is not avaialble on SACD. I am encouraged by the recent release of all the Credence Cleartwater Revival albums on SACD for a classic rock example and there are quite a few others of this genre available. Phil seems to have a handle on the total number of titles available. So, for me, it will be SACD, vinyl and a large legacy CD collection mixed in with some FM radio as my sources for now. I have to tell you that the sound of the SACD format on my Esoteric X-05 is just unbelievable especially in terms of imaging and frequency extension at both ends. It is easy to tell the difference between the SACD and the CD layer on a hybrid disc and don't get me wrong, the CD layers sound quite good too.
Bill
hi, Bill!
didn't know that CCR is available on SACD now. cool! i still have a Pioneer DVD player which is able to play SACD and DVD Audio. i've never tried these two formats that much due to the prices of a disc. so i finally bought only one SACD :oops:. but you are right here- the sound of a SACD is very smooth :thumb:.seems that the prices went down in the meantime. maybe i should give it another try?!
al.
-
hi, Bill!
didn't know that CCR is available on SACD now. cool! i still have a Pioneer DVD player which is able to play SACD and DVD Audio. i've never tried these two formats that much due to the prices of a disc. so i finally bought only one SACD :oops:. but you are right here- the sound of a SACD is very smooth :thumb:.seems that the prices went down in the meantime. maybe i should give it another try?!
al.
Hi al,
SACD prices seem more reasonable now. My Dead Can Dance box set of 9 SACDs was $312.00 (plus 13% sales tax).
Be well…
-
Hi al,
SACD prices seem more reasonable now. My Dead Can Dance box set of 9 SACDs was $312.00 (plus 13% sales tax).
Be well…
I bought an Esoteric produced SACD recently for $50.00 and one from Chesky Records for $15.00. They generally run in the $20-$30.00 US range. The aforementioned CCR specially packaged box set of all the original LP's on SACD is $250.00. But, as we are observing here, they are really worth a few extra bucks. No muss or fuss, you get high resolution everytime. I can feel my blood pressure go up everytime I read one of those 7 paragraph posts explaining the process someone engaged in to get to "almost but not sure " CD quality from a downloaded source. To each his own. It's not my cup of tea at the moment. My "almost but not sure" CD quality source is FM radio and it won't take me 7 paragraphs to explain how I get it there.
-
But, as we are observing here, they are really worth a few extra bucks. No muss or fuss, you get 196/24 everytime.
First, I will say again: Dunno why this SACD discussion is on a Bryston Circle and not over on (my :D ) HiRez Circle. We chat about SACD over there all the time.
Second, the above quote is inaccurate. SACD (DSD) process is not 24/192k (and not referred to as the typo 196/24 as above...196k is not a sample rate) but a one-bit process that has a sample rate of about 2.822 megahertz (i.e about 15x of 192k) and is typically PCM-downsampled (when using players that have no DSD analog or HDMi 1.2 bitstream capability) to an even integer rate like 24/88.2 or 24/176.4. But as DSD it ain't "196/24 everytime" at all.
Finally, the Steve Hoffman mastered CCR SACD's are available as individual discs, too. My fave of the collection, both musically and sonically improved, are "Willy and the Poor Boys" and "Cosmos Factory".
-
First, I will say again: Dunno why this SACD discussion is on a Bryston Circle and not over on (my :D ) HiRez Circle. We chat about SACD over there all the time.
Second, the above quote is inaccurate. SACD (DSD) process is not 24/192k (and not referred to as the typo 196/24 as above...196k is not a sample rate) but a one-bit process that has a sample rate of about 2.822 megahertz (i.e about 15x of 192k) and is typically PCM-downsampled (when using players that have no DSD analog or HDMi 1.2 bitstream capability) to an even integer rate like 24/88.2 or 24/176.4. But as DSD it ain't "196/24 everytime" at all.
Finally, the Steve Hoffman mastered CCR SACD's are available as individual discs, too. My fave of the collection, both musically and sonically improved, are "Willy and the Poor Boys" and "Cosmos Factory".
Hi Ted,
Yes, the 196 was a typo as I realize 196 is not a sample rate. I did correct it to 192 before you brought it to my attention. I'm not as knowledgeable as you are on the nits and nats of DSD so I stand corrected on the 192/24 comment. I will say, however, that the spirit of my comment was that I personally enjoy the SACD format tremendously and don't wish to get bogged down into the math and physics of how it works. It's kind of like when my wife asks me why I don't give contacs a try I reply that I don't mind wearing glasses bad enough to put up with that process daily. Again, just my personal preference as I certainly understand and appreciate that others might feel differently as even I might at some other time in the future.
The reason this thread is here is because James Tanner posted a lengthly article on the subject and it naturally spawned multiple discussions in its wake. James is now the moderator of this circle so you could take it up with him.
I was going to modify my post with that very point that the CCR SACD's are available individually much like the Beatles remasters. Cosmo's is one of my favs as well. It's hard to pick just one though, isn't it.
Thanks for bringing my error to my attention, Ted. :thumb:
Regards,
Bill
-
I managed to listen to the last SACD in my Dead Can Dance box set collection - what a wonderful experience and it was definitely worth the extra purchase price of this set.
Oh sweet bliss.
Be well…
-
I managed to listen to the last SACD in my Dead Can Dance box set collection - what a wonderful experience and it was definitely worth the extra purchase price of this set.
Oh sweet bliss.
Be well…
Hi Andy,
Did you try switching between the SACD 2 Channel and the CD play areas to see if you could detect a difference. It's quite easy to do on the X-05. So far to me the SACD has better imaging, extends the high and low frequency and just sounds fuller. I didn't have to strain to hear the differences.
Bill
-
best populated SACD genres. I was in my mid 30's when the CD arrived en masse. I'm now laughing as to how CD was presented and sold back then as the antidote for the miseries of vinyl. The laws of physics tell me that was a crock in retrospect so I am going to buy all
It was a huge improvement over the LP record. What laws of physics are you referring to?
in with some FM radio as my sources for now. I have to tell you that the sound of the SACD format on my Esoteric X-05 is just unbelievable especially in terms of imaging and frequency extension at both ends. It is easy to tell the difference between the SACD and the CD layer on a hybrid disc and don't get me wrong, the CD layers sound quite good too.
I have listened to the same recording in both formats and heard no difference. I also still know a few people in the record biz, and they assure me that no greater care is taken with SACD than with CD.
The true promise of SACD was that it would allow for multi-channel recordings so we could have a more immersive experience with more of a sense of the original room. That really hasn't happened. Instead, they have been trying to sell SACD as an improved stereo medium over CD.
-
Hi Andy,
Did you try switching between the SACD 2 Channel and the CD play areas to see if you could detect a difference. It's quite easy to do on the X-05. So far to me the SACD has better imaging, extends the high and low frequency and just sounds fuller. I didn't have to strain to hear the differences.
Bill
And you can do this without knowing which is which? In other words, during a double blind test.
-
No offense, but if you can't hear the differences between a good SACD 2 channel layer and it's redbook layer then something else in your signal chain is bottlenecking it. The differences in most 2 channel SACD is astounding; I would gladly take a $1000 double blind bet on my system.
-
Hi Andy,
Did you try switching between the SACD 2 Channel and the CD play areas to see if you could detect a difference. It's quite easy to do on the X-05. So far to me the SACD has better imaging, extends the high and low frequency and just sounds fuller. I didn't have to strain to hear the differences.
Bill
Hello Bill,
What function did you use to do this?
Thanks.
Be well...
-
And you can do this without knowing which is which? In other words, during a double blind test.
I haven't done a blind test. It doesn't seem necessary to me.
-
I haven't done a blind test. It doesn't seem necessary to me.
So you have to know which is which to be able to tell them apart?
-
No offense, but if you can't hear the differences between a good SACD 2 channel layer and it's redbook layer then something else in your signal chain is bottlenecking it. The differences in most 2 channel SACD is astounding; I would gladly take a $1000 double blind bet on my system.
I would suggest you read the posts that started this thread.
-
First, I will say again: Dunno why this SACD discussion is on a Bryston Circle and not over on (my :D ) HiRez Circle. We chat about SACD over there all the time.
Second, the above quote is inaccurate. SACD (DSD) process is not 24/192k (and not referred to as the typo 196/24 as above...196k is not a sample rate) but a one-bit process that has a sample rate of about 2.822 megahertz (i.e about 15x of 192k) and is typically PCM-downsampled (when using players that have no DSD analog or HDMi 1.2 bitstream capability) to an even integer rate like 24/88.2 or 24/176.4. But as DSD it ain't "196/24 everytime" at all.
Finally, the Steve Hoffman mastered CCR SACD's are available as individual discs, too. My fave of the collection, both musically and sonically improved, are "Willy and the Poor Boys" and "Cosmos Factory".
Hello
I have to agree with Tedb. This is better suited discussion on his board.
-
"The differences in most 2 channel SACD is astounding..."
I would definitely agree with this statement :thumb:
Be well...
-
I would suggest you read the posts that started this thread.
:scratch: As I said earlier, I run the HiRez Circle here at AC for a reason; I am dedicated to all things hi-rez, have significant experience in it (on my 8th or 9th SACD and/or universal player since it's inception in early 1999) and of course I've read this thread. I've also asked that it be moved to my Circle where more SACD and DVD-A experiences can weight in.
I'm sorry you don't hear the differences. In a way, you're ahead of the game by not having to pay the prices. :)
-
I would suggest you read the posts that started this thread.
OK, hold on guys. This is starting to degenerate into a pissing contest. I don't care what the article at the beginning of the thread says, the technical differences between the formats or on whose circle this discussion should take place. I know what I hear and SACD in my experience with my system sounds clearly superior to CD. turkey, I'm not understanding your question "so you have to know which is which to tell them apart?" Once again, I was 100% conscious of which format I was listening to, it was not a blind comparison and I will not be doing a blind comparison because it is not necessary. I'll use the time I save to enjoy the music. :thumb:
I agree with ted B that one's system can have the effect of minimizing the differences.
-
I agree when sacd is compared to standard redbook cd in MC to MC stereo it is clearly superior. However when I apply music enhancer to MC stereo played on the BCD-1, the cd is superior to sacd in detail and harmonics.
Without having a BCD-1 I would not argue the point. 8)
-
I agree when sacd is compared to standard redbook cd in MC to MC stereo it is clearly superior. However when I apply music enhancer to MC stereo played on the BCD-1, the cd is superior to sacd in detail and harmonics.
Without having a BCD-1 I would not argue the point. 8)
What is "MC stereo"? And what is a music enhancer?
-
What is "MC stereo"? And what is a music enhancer?
I know MC means multichannel but i am not sure what the music enhancer is, I think it is a function on his Yamaha HT preamp.
-
I'm sorry you don't hear the differences. In a way, you're ahead of the game by not having to pay the prices. :)
And I'm sorry you hear differences where none exist. :)
-
I know MC means multichannel but i am not sure what the music enhancer is, I think it is a function on his Yamaha HT preamp.
This page talks about it:
http://www.yamaha.com/yec/technology/detail.html?CNTID=451121
-
And I'm sorry you hear differences where none exist. :)
You can properly say you don't hear a difference, and debate it. But you empirically cannot say "where none exist". The DSD recording process is much higher resolution, period. It's not debatable, it's a recording fact. It's math.
-
Mmm…mathematics :drool:
Be well...
-
You can properly say you don't hear a difference, and debate it. But you empirically cannot say "where none exist". The DSD recording process is much higher resolution, period. It's not debatable, it's a recording fact. It's math.
Excellent point, Ted. Now we can move the discussion as to why someone would not hear the empirically proven difference in the two formats. You have suggested one that system shortcomings can minimize the difference. It seems logical that a hi rez format would require a highly resolving system from top to bottom in order to hear its potential.
-
You can properly say you don't hear a difference, and debate it. But you empirically cannot say "where none exist". The DSD recording process is much higher resolution, period. It's not debatable, it's a recording fact. It's math.
I can say that the BCD will outperform almost all SACD at its price point and less. It blows away my Pioneer with SACD. But with pieces like the Esoteric in SACD the output is going to be hard to beat by CD.
-
You can properly say you don't hear a difference, and debate it. But you empirically cannot say "where none exist". The DSD recording process is much higher resolution, period. It's not debatable, it's a recording fact. It's math.
Yes, you're right.
However, there is nothing much happening at the listening position above maybe 10-12 KHz, so the higher resolution of DSD is meaningless. And then there's the fact that the vast majority of us don't have hearing that could take advantage of such high frequencies even if they were present.
-
Hi Guys,
Should be interesting as well when the results from this study come in as it relates to Hi-Res formats.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=72442.0
james
-
Hi Guys,
Should be interesting as well when the results from this study come in as it relates to Hi-Res formats.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=72442.0
james
Yes, it will.
-
:o "With a Bryston BDA-1 I couldn't distinguish between 16/44 and 24/192" is not exactly the tag line Bryston would want for the next ad campaign!
-
Yes, you're right.
However, there is nothing much happening at the listening position above maybe 10-12 KHz, so the higher resolution of DSD is meaningless. And then there's the fact that the vast majority of us don't have hearing that could take advantage of such high frequencies even if they were present.
turkey, I have to say that what you are engaging in here is telling people that they aren't hearing what they're hearing. It's like telling me after I have run my car into a tree that I actually didn't because the brakes in the model car I was driving were designed to stop that car 30m before the tree. The bark is off the tree and the front of my car is bashed in but there can't be anyway I hit that tree. :scratch:
-
:o "With a Bryston BDA-1 I couldn't distinguish between 16/44 and 24/192" is not exactly the tag line Bryston would want for the next ad campaign!
OK Ted, now you have me confused. Didn't you recently correct me (and I accepted your correction gracefully) on the 24/192 thing as it relates to SACD. :scratch: Good example on the BDA-1, however.
-
OK Ted, now you have me confused. Didn't you recently correct me (and I accepted your correction gracefully) on the 24/192 thing as it relates to SACD. :scratch:
I dont think he is referring to your posts Dyna
-
:o "With a Bryston BDA-1 I couldn't distinguish between 16/44 and 24/192" is not exactly the tag line Bryston would want for the next ad campaign!
I think it's important to try and differentiate between opinion and fact as best we can.
james
-
I dont think he is referring to your posts Dyna
You have to go back to yesterday's posts where I associated 24/192 with SACD when I should have just used the words hi rez in a post that at the time didn't have anything to do with what's being discussed today. Ted jumped in and advised me that I shouldn't use 24/192 when describing SACD. I didn't argue as I felt he had more knowledge on the subject than I.
-
OK Ted, now you have me confused. Didn't you recently correct me (and I accepted your correction gracefully) on the 24/192 thing as it relates to SACD. :scratch: Good example on the BDA-1, however.
The link that James just referred to is an academic exercise, using one of James' BDA-1 DACs to test perception and hearing across 16/44, 24/48, 24/88.2 yadayada up to 24/192. Nothing to do with SACD (the BDA-1 isn't a DSD DAC so SACD is not relevant in this sub-discussion). I was not referring to your post. This thread is about SACD and DVD-audio hearing, perception, etc. In the DVD-Audio world and in hirez computer files the bit depth/sample rate of 24/192 is relevant...in SACD it is not.
-
The link that James just referred to is an academic exercise, using one of James' BDA-1 DACs to test perception and hearing across 16/44, 24/48, 24/88.2 yadayada up to 24/192. Nothing to do with SACD (the BDA-1 isn't a DSD DAC so SACD is not relevant in this sub-discussion). I was not referring to your post. This thread is about SACD and DVD-audio hearing, perception, etc. In the DVD-Audio world and in hirez computer files the bit depth/sample rate of 24/192 is relevant...in SACD it is not.
Thanks Ted. I'm getting and education. Just send me your bill. :thumb:
-
Thanks Ted. I'm getting and education. Just send me your bill. :thumb:
:)
-
The link that James just referred to is an academic exercise, using one of James' BDA-1 DACs to test perception and hearing across 16/44, 24/48, 24/88.2 yadayada up to 24/192. Nothing to do with SACD (the BDA-1 isn't a DSD DAC so SACD is not relevant in this sub-discussion). I was not referring to your post. This thread is about SACD and DVD-audio hearing, perception, etc. In the DVD-Audio world and in hirez computer files the bit depth/sample rate of 24/192 is relevant...in SACD it is not.
See if we came over to your board we would know all this.... hehe 8)
-
:o "With a Bryston BDA-1 I couldn't distinguish between 16/44 and 24/192" is not exactly the tag line Bryston would want for the next ad campaign!
It is if it implies that they do both well.
They might not want that if the BDA-1 did Redbook and then there was an add-on extra-cost module for everything else.
-
turkey, I have to say that what you are engaging in here is telling people that they aren't hearing what they're hearing. It's like telling me after I have run my car into a tree that I actually didn't because the breaks in the model car I was driving were designed to stop that car 30m before the tree. The bark is off the tree and the front of my car is bashed in but there can't be anyway I hit that tree. :scratch:
I'm saying there is no proof that what you think you're hearing is actually what you're hearing.
If you ran your car into a tree there would be plenty of physical evidence that it happened.
Here's an example. I was once at this guy's house listening to his system. He had some rather goofy, but very expensive equipment, and he is very, very passionate about the products he sells. (He's a dealer.)
He was using these giant home-built speakers that were way too big for the room and just didn't sound very good. I mentioned that I thought the speakers sounded pretty harsh and over-bearing. He immediately said something like, "I know what it is! I can fix it!" So he went to these battery-powered power cords that he had, ones like firehoses, and he unplugged the power supply from one and said, "There! Listen now!"
He was very persuasive, and for a minute there I thought I heard the treble become tamed. But then I listened again and it sounded the same as it did before.
So I know that my hearing is fallible. I can hear things that are not there. Everyone is like that. Our minds often control what we hear. Without an objective, repeatable test, we simply can't trust our ears. There are too many other factors that might cause us to hear one thing as better than another when it isn't.
In addition, once you start doing real tests, you discover that much of what is "common knowledge" amongst audiophiles is simply not true.
I've done some tests that have opened my eyes. I had some friends come over and we listened to amps while my wife switched cables. We had matched levels and marked them on the preamp on masking tape. There was an Audio by Van Alstine amp, a Threshold amp, and a C-J amp. We found that we couldn't reliably tell the difference between the two SS amps. With the tube amp it was still unreliable, but we did a bit better.
We also did the same thing with a Threshold amp/preamp combo, AVA amp/preamp combo, and a Pioneer receiver. Once again, we couldn't reliably tell the difference.
Over the years I have done the same kinds of tests with wire, and had the same results.
There certainly is some equipment or wire where you can tell when it's in use. It does sound different. But I tend to think that isn't a good thing.
What I suspect is that, at this point, the designs and materials used in electronics can reliably produce equipment that is good enough in performance that it is not the limiting factor. You can build equipment that is better than needed, but you won't be able to hear the difference.
Speakers, recordings, and listening rooms are a different story. These are where the real differences are.
-
I think the biggest problem we all have in assessing our audio gear is what I refer to as --- “Seduction of Expectations”
When you remove the subjective element you will find out a lot about yourself and how gross or subtle outside influences can affect your perceptions. Even being part of a group will affect how your behavior will/can be altered.
I did an experiment once at a dealer’s where I hooked up the BDA-1 DAC and disconnected the up-sample circuit except for the light on the front panel. So people could turn the light off and on and engage or disengage the up-sample circuit (so they thought) and comment on which they preferred. Once the first person in the group said they preferred the up-sampler to be engaged the rest tended to agree and came up with comments on how the bass was better and how it had greater high frequency extension.
So we must be careful not to allow our expectations to overrule our experiences to the point where we arrive at conclusions ahead of the observed or not observed changes.
james
-
I think the biggest problem we all have in assessing our audio gear is what I refer to as --- “Seduction of Expectations”
When you remove the subjective element you will find out a lot about yourself and how gross or subtle outside influences can affect your perceptions. Even being part of a group will affect how your behavior will/can be altered.
I did an experiment once at a dealer’s where I hooked up the BDA-1 DAC and disconnected the up-sample circuit except for the light on the front panel. So people could turn the light off and on and engage or disengage the up-sample circuit (so they thought) and comment on which they preferred. Once the first person in the group said they preferred the up-sampler to be engaged the rest tended to agree and came up with comments on how the bass was better and how it had greater high frequency extension.
So we must be careful not to allow our expectations to overrule our experiences to the point where we arrive at conclusions ahead of the observed or not observed changes.
james
:lol: That is nasty..... i like it. Did you come clean and let them know of your experiment?
-
^^^
No I did not want to embarrass anyone – it was just an experiment I was running with the knowledge of the owner only.
James
-
I personally believe people don't give a shit. Its easy for them to comment on what is going on with more bass or better sound stage somehow. But it takes a lot of listening commitment and this is very much a hobby activity. Without the commitment, differences are just not apparent and its only because they really don't care to hear it. They think its high end waist of money. It stops them in their tracks down the road of high end. But somehow they still continue to make their way on to sites like these and post. :icon_lol:
-
Somehow they followed the leader. This will be pretty much the same time after time w/ unsighted opinions in a DBT or just BT as cited in this instance.
-
Somehow they followed the leader. This will be pretty much the same time after time w/ unsighted opinions in a DBT or just BT as cited in this instance.
That's why you have each person write down their findings and not discuss them until the test is over.
-
I personally believe people don't give a shit. Its easy for them to comment on what is going on with more bass or better sound stage somehow. But it takes a lot of listening commitment and this is very much a hobby activity. Without the commitment, differences are just not apparent and its only because they really don't care to hear it. They think its high end waist of money. It stops them in their tracks down the road of high end. But somehow they still continue to make their way on to sites like these and post. :icon_lol:
I know that in my case it's been a hobby for decades, but I also made a living off of my ears when I was younger and worked in live sound and also in the studio.
I've been convinced for at least a couple of decades that there wasn't much going on with wires. It was all a bunch of marketing BS and was started by that company whose name I can't mention or they'd sue. But I still thought that electronics sounded different, although I never heard the huge differences that the reviewers talk about in the magazines.
I had my suspicions about the topic after talking to a number of engineers and seeing the results of various tests. It wasn't until the last few years that I started doing some tests on my own with amps and preamps though. I quickly found out that the differences that I just _knew_ were there didn't show up reliably when I did a controlled test.
Last Fall I heard a couple of recordings that had been done simultaneously with different microphones (a pair of neumann vs. a pair of schoeps). The difference was quite noticeable. Once you knew what you were listening for, you could pick out one from the other, sight unseen. So it's not my ears that are keeping me from hearing differences between amps, nor is it the system I'm listening to. It's not the test methodology either.
-
[...]
I think they were concluding that the reason SACD sounded better had nothing to do with the 'format' used but the care taken by the engineers in mastering and producing it. [...]
IMHO it's all about the DAC processing and specifically the digital/analog filters in the player.
In the CD case, you want something like an ideal brick filter that cuts @ about 20kHz. This ideal filter is impossible to implement in practice. What we get is "close to ideal" filters that will have some kind of slope (roll-off) and will affect phase around the cut-off frequency. Unfortunately these effects are spread around the 20kHz mark and are affecting some audible frequencies too. These days we have many examples of CD players (or DACs) that will let you select from a set of predefined cut-off filters - so there's a greater chance that you'll find one acceptable to your ears.
In the SACD case, in case you bother to implement a filter, its cut-off frequency can be far away to the right of 20kHz. Thus any phase/slope effects of it would not touch the audible spectrum. In practice you will find that many different makes of SACD players sound pretty much similar on SACD discs but sound different with CDs.
In conclusion, what we really hear is the effect of the filters. I would even dare to say that for sound quality the brand of the DAC i.c. is less relevant than the quality of the filters implemented by the CD player manufacturer.
Would had Philips selected 64kHz instead of 44kHZ as sampling rate for CDs, the filter would had been implemented around 32kHZ with negligible side effects into the audible domain. And we wouldn't have much of these discussions now. We would be talking just channel separation, bass extension and definition, noise and other classical stuff.
Nap. :thumb:
-
[...]
So I know that my hearing is fallible. I can hear things that are not there. Everyone is like that. Our minds often control what we hear. Without an objective, repeatable test, we simply can't trust our ears. There are too many other factors that might cause us to hear one thing as better than another when it isn't. In addition, once you start doing real tests, you discover that much of what is "common knowledge" amongst audiophiles is simply not true.[...]
Would some hard cold measurements like oscilloscope traces convince you about what I said about filters?
Go here:
http://www.avhub.com.au/ProductReview.aspx?MagazineID=5&ProductReviewID=301 (http://www.avhub.com.au/ProductReview.aspx?MagazineID=5&ProductReviewID=301)
and download the PDF from the link there.
Nap. :thumb:
P.S. What's obvious at this point is that the CD format is a failure in the sense that in their choice of sampling frequency Phillips didn't allow enough headroom for a proper audible signal reconstruction within the limits of consumer electronics.
SACD fixed that but its benefits were poorly explained to the public. Advertising insisted on "extended frequency response" with average Joe thinking "I can't hear those high frequencies and my speakers don't reproduce them anyway".
-
For those more inclined to maths, here's a good reading:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20203269/Interpolation-filters-for-oversampled-audio-DACs (http://www.scribd.com/doc/20203269/Interpolation-filters-for-oversampled-audio-DACs)
Even if you're not math inclined, you could take a cursory look just to have an understanding on what Bryston was facing when designing their DACs.
Nap. :thumb:
-
Just found this article and I found it to be interesting in the context of this thread:
http://www.audio-ideas.com/recordings/bellingham.html (http://www.audio-ideas.com/recordings/bellingham.html)
Quote:
"Of course, this also gave us a chance to start with 44.1-kHz/16-bit monitoring, and then go to 96-kHz/24-bit playbacks. And on the second day, we used both Nagra Ds in lock (one per stereo channel) to record at 192-kHz/24-bit. After this experience, I can confidently say that any fool who can’t hear the difference between 44.1 and 96/24 should look for opportunities outside the high fidelity field; and these differences become even more pronounced when going to 192/24, which is the current state of the digital art."
And the mandatory Bryston content:
"It seemed to me that there would inevitably be a natural spatial relationship among the musicians that could be captured with the right microphone complement and their proper placement. With 4 channels of Bryston BMP-2 microphone preamplifiers I thought I could manage this, combining to 2 channels using a resistive network wired up for me by Stuart Taylor (Mr. ST), who also custom modified the preamplifiers themselves for use in live recording situations."
Nap. :thumb: