Simple SACD question!

[N. Abstentia]

I promise this is a simple one, and remember I do NOT have an SACD player!

I bought Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon SACD, and even though I can only listen to the hybrid part of it on a standard CD player it sounds AMAZING!

It simply kills the other versions of this album I have..vinyl, regular orginial CD pressing, MFSL Gold CD, and newer remaster. Just KILLS them.

Why is that? Does the standard hybrid track of SACD still sound that good, or was this remastered yet again? And if so, why couldn't they do it this good years ago with the other remasters?

I bought a few other SACD hybrids, and they also sound amazing but I have no other versions of them to compare to. I'm kinda scared to hear the actual SACD track whenever my player gets here :)

[markw]

It was remastered (again). The "standard" CD track of a hybrid CD is still redbook.

I find it amazing that PF is basically living off of a recorcing they made over thitry years ago. Every time an advancee in technology comes along, they drag out the master tapes, give it a remix and little re-eq and they are set for a few more years financially. Talk about the gift that keeps on giving, at least to themselves.

What SACD player are you waiting for? I'm kinda leaning towards that $180 Toshiba universal changer that's about to be released.

[kexodusc]

Gotta agree with you markw, that Toshiba looks quite impressive. Wonder if it'll be a step up from the Pioneer 563a?
I haven't come across many cheap, decent universal players...any other models you're aware of?
I had the 563a for a few months, but I didn't really like the video quality it put out compared to my older Denon, so I gave it to my folks. Now I have about 8 SACD/DVD-A's I can't listen too :(


I don't think the Floyd boys even notice the DSOTM paychecks at this point...I'm sure the studio guys and record companies love milking it for everything it's worth.
I have an original CD version that doesn't sound that great...maybe I'll have to pick up the Hybrid today...

[N. Abstentia]

Yeah the 5 disc Toshiba is the one I'm waiting for. The price is right, and I don't want a single disc player.

[krabapple]

I promise this is a simple one, and remember I do NOT have an SACD player!

I bought Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon SACD, and even though I can only listen to the hybrid part of it on a standard CD player it sounds AMAZING!

It simply kills the other versions of this album I have..vinyl, regular orginial CD pressing, MFSL Gold CD, and newer remaster. Just KILLS them.

Why is that? Does the standard hybrid track of SACD still sound that good, or was this remastered yet again? And if so, why couldn't they do it this good years ago with the other remasters?

It *was* remastered, and for the CD layer (but not the SACD layer), some compression/peak limiting was added as a bonus to make it sound extra-good! Enjoy!

Btw, shouldn't you be spelled 'N. Absentia'?

[progfan]

N. Absentia said:

"I bought Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon SACD, and even though I can only listen to the hybrid part of it on a standard CD player it sounds AMAZING!"

I've noticed this with Nektar's "Journey to the Centre of the Eye" as well. I don't have a SACD player, but when I play the CD using Pro Logic II-or even just straight stereo-it sounds incredible. The panning effects are great and it's one of the most dramatic CD remasters I've ever heard. For those who may have heard Nektar's original back catalog on CD, you know what I'm talking about ;)

[WmAx]

II bought a few other SACD hybrids, and they also sound amazing but I have no other versions of them to compare to. I'm kinda scared to hear the actual SACD track whenever my player gets here :)
You should find an audible improvement on the actual SACD tracks on many SACD releases. It seems that the CD versions are usually purposefully compromised with added dynamic compression; at least according to the few waveform analysis examples that audioholics.com did and accoriding to the admission of at least one recording engineer.

-Chris

[markw]

It *was* remastered, and for the CD layer (but not the SACD layer), some compression/peak limiting was added as a bonus to make it sound extra-good!

It's this kinda stuff that makes discussing which is a "better" format or recording useless. Unless all is equal, there is no valid comparison.

...and Pink Floyd laughs all the way to the bank...

[Woochifer]

It's this kinda stuff that makes discussing which is a "better" format or recording useless. Unless all is equal, there is no valid comparison.

...and Pink Floyd laughs all the way to the bank...

You're so right about that. The most laughable part of these format debates is that NOBODY, aside a professional recording engineer, has access to the master source material that you would need to conduct a proper and equitable listening test. If you really want to test the SACD format versus CD, you'd have to have something recorded in DSD and PCM simultaneously, and then comparably mixed and mastered. As far as I know, no source out there is available for hobbyists like us that allows for this kind of comparable evaluation. Everything is either an analog, PCM, or DSD source and then transferred and/or converted into the playback format. If you're doing a true test of the format itself, you have to eliminate the other potential variables including the format conversions, and nothing I've seen even comes close to meeting this kind of standard.

With Dark Side of the Moon, keep in mind that for that 30th anniversary hybrid disc a BRAND NEW two-channel master tape got created with the involvement of the band members and David Guthrie (who engineered several of Floyd's later albums; Alan Parsons, the original recording engineer, was not involved). This isn't even a format-related change, this is a completely different master source since they are not using the original two-track master tape that was used in the 1973 release and subsequent rereleased and remastered editions. They had an opportunity to do this because in order to create a 5.1 mix, the mixing engineer has to go all the way back to the multitrack session tapes (not just the "original master tape") and generate a completely new mixdown. This affords the opportunity to do the mixdowns without the degradations that would have occurred using the kinds of 1973-vintage analog tape machines that generated the original mix. From what I understand, the new hybrid DSOTM also made some changes in how certain sounds got mixed in (levels, imaging cues, etc.), so the end result is not necessarily comparable.

Improving upon the original CD issue would not be that difficult. In my comparisons with the Mobile Fidelity half-speed mastered LP version, it wasn't even close. The low level linearity of the CD was flawed and almost had a "fuzzy" sound, whereas the LP sounded much cleaner especially during the low level passages. Almost makes me wonder what generation master tape Capitol/EMI was using for that transfer, because the LP actually sounded quieter in my A/B comparisons.

[WmAx]

You're so right about that. The most laughable part of these format debates is that NOBODY, aside a professional recording engineer, has access to the master source material that you would need to conduct a proper and equitable listening test.
Anyone can make recordings using a variety of modern low cost high quality recording devices available for the PC. A 24/96 khz A/D D/A breakout box of high quality can be had for just a few hundred dollars. Investiment of 100 in a high quality Rolls blanced line preamp, and you can rent a high quality microphone if you such a rental store is in your area. You can purchase or make a high quality microphone. I don't know how a consumer could make DSD recordings.


If you really want to test the SACD format versus CD, you'd have to have something recorded in DSD and PCM simultaneously
Actually, since this entire debate revolves around the transparency of RBCD...I and I bet most other people that are skeptical would accept much more practical test.

-Use the anologe output of the DSD or DVD/A, etc. and feed to a high quality professional 44.1khz PCM A-D-A. Compare the straight DSD converted signal to the A-D-Aed signal. If a difference is audible on a confirmed properly operating ADA with confirmed measurements, a valid scrutinized test methodology and tested amps/speakers that do not induce specific distortion themselves with the different bandwidths; then I(and i bet most others) would accept this as a valid test. If the properly operating/functioning A-D-A imposes a degradation in audibility, then the RBCD process may be inadequate -- at least that is the way I would see it.

-Chris

[markw]

First, I started with the original vinyl pressing when it first came out. Musicaly and sonicly It was a revelation in it's day but, then again, my memories of those daze is kind of smokey.

Then, along came the Mo Fi vinyl. Now, that I liked! Even without the smokey haze it was a definite improvement over the original vinyl. Of course, the original was well played by that time. Even on the Miracord 50H/ADC XLM combo, you could tell it was well played.

Then CD hit. I picked up the original CD reissue. Played it twice...

Finally, Mo Fi did their Gold CD. Got that. Quite an improvment over the first CD but I still prefer the Mo Fi vinyl, which is played on a NAD 533/Goldring 1042 combo these days.

I don't see a need to enrich these boys any more than I already have. I've already bought the same music four times... Maybe if I go multi channel but, even then, I dunno...

[ronning]

Yeah the 5 disc Toshiba is the one I'm waiting for. The price is right, and I don't want a single disc player.

I bought the Toshiba player for $170 about 4 weeks ago and after 2 weeks of using it, returned it. Here's why:

- Excrutiatingly slow UI / remote response time
- Most standard audio features (such as sacd/cd layer change, shuffle, etc) require GUI access, and thus require extra steps and the TV to be on (extremely irritating for just music listening)
- Video performance was decent, but it's hard for me to tell as my TV is not that great. However, a thorough test I found online (I can look up the link of you want...) gave it poor video scores
- the SACD audio output sounded "compressed" and harsh. (I am suspicious that it may convert the DSD stream to PCM before output)
- Bass management only applies to DD/DTS output, *not* SACD
- The remote is poorly designed and incredibly irritating to use, even with video playback (who decided that the "up" arrow should also double as the play/pause button??)
- Toshiba even admitted on their website that many of the early models have a manufacturing defect (although it is fixable via a free firmware update)

After a *lot* of research, I finally found the Philips 795SA (a discontinued model) which i am very happy with. Excellent sound, direct-access to audio features, an interesting cd-upsamlping feature, better overall functionality and design. It has the *exact* same guts as the Yamaha DVD-C940 (except the Yammie ads a Faroudja dcdi deinterlacer).
*however* it does NOT play DVD-A or WMA. (not important to me)

Hope that helps.

You're welcome to try out the Toshiba, it might suit your needs. It just didn't work for me.

[markw]

Ronning, thanks for the update. I think I'll hold out for a sale on the Denon 2200.

[N. Abstentia]

I went ahead and got the Marantz DV-6400, I liked it far better than the Denon. Even though Marantz and Denon are owned by the same company, I just liked the quality of the Marantz better. The Denon did not impress me at all.

[Woochifer]

Anyone can make recordings using a variety of modern low cost high quality recording devices available for the PC. A 24/96 khz A/D D/A breakout box of high quality can be had for just a few hundred dollars. Investiment of 100 in a high quality Rolls blanced line preamp, and you can rent a high quality microphone if you such a rental store is in your area. You can purchase or make a high quality microphone. I don't know how a consumer could make DSD recordings.

And I presume that you've actually done all this before? "A few hundred dollars" will buy me a decent universal player, and given a choice between that and a PC sound card, I'd rather go with something that will actually add to my norma listening enjoyment. If you can't make a DSD recording, then you have no basis for evaluating the actual format, because all other methods require a conversion from PCM or analog and therefore introduce other causal variables into the recording/playback chain.

My point is that no truly comparable comparison discs are available to consumers, so any comparisons based on the what's most readily available to consumers will have any number of known and unknown variables associated with it.


Actually, since this entire debate revolves around the transparency of RBCD...I and I bet most other people that are skeptical would accept much more practical test.

-Use the anologe output of the DSD or DVD/A, etc. and feed to a high quality professional 44.1khz PCM A-D-A. Compare the straight DSD converted signal to the A-D-Aed signal. If a difference is audible on a confirmed properly operating ADA with confirmed measurements, a valid scrutinized test methodology and tested amps/speakers that do not induce specific distortion themselves with the different bandwidths; then I(and i bet most others) would accept this as a valid test. If the properly operating/functioning A-D-A imposes a degradation in audibility, then the RBCD process may be inadequate -- at least that is the way I would see it.

-Chris

Again, you're not eliminating the signal conversion of the original source. If you want to isolate format/bandwidth as the causal variables, then you have to make sure that both sources are optimal.

And if you're talking about a "practical" test, I hardly regard the need to acquire a "high quality professional 44.1 PCM A/D/A" converter as practical.

[WmAx]

And I presume that you've actually done all this before? "A few hundred dollars" will buy me a decent universal player, and given a choice between that and a PC sound card, I'd rather go with something that will actually add to my norma listening enjoyment.That's a given. But you are the one that claimed only a professional sound engineer had to access to any suitable equipment. That may be laregely true for DSD, but not hi res PCM.



If you can't make a DSD recording, then you have no basis for evaluating the actual format, because all other methods require a conversion from PCM or analog and therefore introduce other causal variables into the recording/playback chain.

I will address this in the proceding quote/response....




Again, you're not eliminating the signal conversion of the original source. If you want to isolate format/bandwidth as the causal variables, then you have to make sure that both sources are optimal.
It seems you missed the point. Digital sampling theory and known perceptual limits associated with the capabilities, confined to 44.1khz sample rate PCM, suggest that a properly operating A-D-A chain will take any signal that is audible, convert to digital, back to analog with no perceptible difference. If the ADA creates a percievable(in a proper blind test, protocol, scrutinized) difference then the ADA chain is not optimal. You have to convert the DSD to analogue to HEAR it. Take this analogue stream and feed it to the ADA......

Since the DSD is supposed to be so good according to many, then surely the ADA will make an audible difference, eh? This would prove that 44.1 is not optimal for playback, if adible degradation occurs in the process. If no audible degradation occurs, then why? The answer is obvious.

-Chris

[BillB]

Woochifer noted what is probably most important when comparing the DSOTM SACD/CD package with other DSOTM issues...it used different master tapes than ever before which could explain some of the difference you're hearing.

As far as true comparisons for SACD vs. CD, PCM vs. DSD, had anyone checked out the new Musical Fidelity Hybrid SACD produced by John Atkinson, K622??

It's a first of it's kind in that on the SACD layer tracks 1-3 are pure DSD and tracks 4-6 are the same tracks recorded with analog equipment and converted to DSD (similar to many of the SACD reissues).

On the CD layer, tracks 1-3 are recorded with DSD and downsampled to PCM. Tracks 4-6 are recorded with analog equipment again and converted to PCM.

They've even released it on 180g vinyl. More info can be found at the Stereophile website. If only they'd done a DVD-A version...

Bill

[Woochifer]

That's a given. But you are the one that claimed only a professional sound engineer had to access to any suitable equipment. That may be laregely true for DSD, but not hi res PCM.

And you're the one who claims that it's easy to do these kinds of comparisons, yet you're expecting a hobbyist to acquire professional level equipment. I assume that you've tried this for yourself? And the inquiry had to do with SACD, and the only way to properly compare that with high res PCM and downconverted PCM is to use original master sources that have been simultaneously encoded into both DSD and PCM. To my knowledge, no such sources are available to end users.


It seems you missed the point. Digital sampling theory and known perceptual limits associated with the capabilities, confined to 44.1khz sample rate PCM, suggest that a properly operating A-D-A chain will take any signal that is audible, convert to digital, back to analog with no perceptible difference. If the ADA creates a percievable(in a proper blind test, protocol, scrutinized) difference then the ADA chain is not optimal. You have to convert the DSD to analogue to HEAR it. Take this analogue stream and feed it to the ADA......

Since the DSD is supposed to be so good according to many, then surely the ADA will make an audible difference, eh? This would prove that 44.1 is not optimal for playback, if adible degradation occurs in the process. If no audible degradation occurs, then why? The answer is obvious.

-Chris

Your statements are theoretical, and since you're so into proposing practical approaches for testing the theory, I'm simply noting that your approach still leaves variables unaccounted for. If you use a DSD master source and convert it to 44.1/16, then you're introducing a new variable into the chain. If you use a PCM or analog source, how are you going to get it into the SACD format if the tools aren't available to consumers?

[WmAx]

And you're the one who claims that it's easy to do these kinds of comparisons, yet you're expecting a hobbyist to acquire professional level equipment. I assume that you've tried this for yourself?
I did not claim it was easy to do the actual tests(a proper perceptual test that will survive peer review is anything but easy). I was pointing out that some of the equipment(hi res pcm in this case) is not nescarrily an out of reach item. I am not a recording engineer, yet I have such equipment that could be used to do hi-res PCM recordings accurately --- my use though is for acoustics analysis/measurement in relation to loudspeaker design---not recording music.



And the inquiry had to do with SACD,


This is true -- I lost track of the specific scope of the original poster.




Your statements are theoretical, and since you're so into proposing practical approaches for testing the theory, I'm simply noting that your approach still leaves variables unaccounted for. If you use a DSD master source and convert it to 44.1/16, then you're introducing a new variable into the chain. If you use a PCM or analog source, how are you going to get it into the SACD format if the tools aren't available to consumers?

The issue is if 44.1 can retain the audibly relevant information that SACD can retain. THis does not entail converiting PCM to SACD, since SACD is the one that is being claimed as superior(not by you, but a general claim that is common and the premise of this conversation form my perspective). If a PCM 44.1 A-D-A process does not produce audibly decreased audio quality confirmable with controlled testing, then the SACD format is not audibly better. How SACD be audibly superior if a 44.1khz ADA process does not cause audible degradation?

-Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Anyone can make recordings using a variety of modern low cost high quality recording devices available for the PC. A 24/96 khz A/D D/A breakout box of high quality can be had for just a few hundred dollars. Investiment of 100 in a high quality Rolls blanced line preamp, and you can rent a high quality microphone if you such a rental store is in your area. You can purchase or make a high quality microphone. I don't know how a consumer could make DSD recordings.

PC based recording has its problems, but also has its place. I would not use PC based recording on classical or Jazz music. You have to have a PC that is specially made for audio work as it must have the processing power, and VERY well shielded analog and digital stages. This is not cheap, and sometimes takes several processors daisey chained together to accomplish this goal. The sonic quality of PC based audio mixing and editing software is all over the place, and the plugin's are often very noisy. The Rolls microphone preamp is a noisy product. I wouldn't dare use on a 24/96khz recording(iunless it was a recording of limited dynamic range which would make using 24/96khz unncessary except to archive), and I certainly would NOT use it with a high quality microphone.



Actually, since this entire debate revolves around the transparency of RBCD...I and I bet most other people that are skeptical would accept much more practical test.

-Use the anologe output of the DSD or DVD/A, etc. and feed to a high quality professional 44.1khz PCM A-D-A. Compare the straight DSD converted signal to the A-D-Aed signal. If a difference is audible on a confirmed properly operating ADA with confirmed measurements, a valid scrutinized test methodology and tested amps/speakers that do not induce specific distortion themselves with the different bandwidths; then I(and i bet most others) would accept this as a valid test. If the properly operating/functioning A-D-A imposes a degradation in audibility, then the RBCD process may be inadequate -- at least that is the way I would see it.

-Chris

I am sorry Chris, but I would prefer the test that Wooch proposes. Straight feeds from both a DSD decoder, and from the A/D-D-A stages of the 44.1khz. When it comes to getting signal transparency, less is more. The fewer times you convert from analog to digital and the reverse, the better off you are. At some point in the test you propose, the quality of the conversion is more of the focus rather than the formats themself

I did not claim it was easy to do the actual tests(a proper perceptual test that will survive peer review is anything but easy).

Yet but you ask audio angineers to do this on the clients dime just to validate a point for you. Hmmmm.....


I was pointing out that some of the equipment(hi res pcm in this case) is not nescarrily an out of reach item

If you talking garage/basement recording, you are correct. In those conditions there is no need for 24/96khz except for archiving. If you are talking about a high quality recording of something on the lines of jazz or classical music, that kind of equipment is still out of reach of most consumers. I doesn't cost much money to get into high rez, but it does cost money to do it well.


If a PCM 44.1 A-D-A process does not produce audibly decreased audio quality confirmable with controlled testing, then the SACD format is not audibly better

Now here is were I get confused. How do you test the QUALITY of the audio? Isn't the idea of sound quality purely subjective? What sounds good enough to you, may not to me(in this case redbook CD). You hear differently than I do, somebody else hears differently than you. What if nobody in the testing panel can hear any higher than 13khz, and I can hear up to 18khz? What if many in the panel had mismatch frequency response in each ear? How would that represent what I hear if I don't, or mine is not as acute? There are certain key things to listen for when comparing redbook to high rez, what if I knew what they were, and nobody else did? I think a test can be conducted to reveal differences(to a certain degree), but sound QAULITY is too subjective to be made objective enough to formally test, and be submitted for peer review.

Two things I would like to clear up. I never said it was FACT that SACD sounds better than redbook. I said IMO it does. Secondly, you can stop saying that I said the higher bandwidth is the reason that high rez sounds better than RBCD. I never said that was the reason, I said it was one of the beliefs that have been expoused.


It seems you missed the point. Digital sampling theory and known perceptual limits associated with the capabilities, confined to 44.1khz sample rate PCM, suggest that a properly operating A-D-A chain will take any signal that is audible, convert to digital, back to analog with no perceptible difference

There is a problem with this theory. In reality its not possible. This would mean that the delta sigma modulator(s), decimation filter, interpolation filter, and the analog low pass filter would have to operate perfectly, with absolutely no loss or audible distortion whatsoever. That just doesn't happen in real life. None of these stages operate with perfect transparency. And since components come at different price points, the best of these filters cannot be put in every player. Every conversion process degrades the signal to a degree(audible or not).

[WmAx]

You have to have a PC that is specially made for audio work as it must have the processing power, and VERY well shielded analog and digital stages. This is why a specified a break-out box type AD, DA, to avoid noise that may be induced on internal sound cards. I recognize this problem.


The sonic quality of PC based audio mixing and editing software is all over the place, and the plugin's are often very noisy. I was not suggesting full scale music production. I was suggesting using the device for 2 channel recording/playback use.


The Rolls microphone preamp is a noisy productWell I have to ask, noisy compred to what? It's seems to be considered one of the quietest units for the price(under $100) on the market on the newsgroups according to Arny Kreugar, and thus extremely popular for measurement systems, etc.. Though I don't personally make any claim to it's 'noise' level one way or the other. I mean the Rolls MP13. It's probably not as quiet as a very high quality professional device but at a point the noise floor is only usefully low. It is not as if a non professional is likely to have access to an isolated sound room that is structurally and acoustically shielded that has a low noise floor. Though, I suppose some very die-hard hobbyists may have built such a thing in their basement. But, I don't knw the actual noise floor of the MP13 product. I can not trust a manufacturer published specification -- so that spec does not count. It's definately not worth measuring the unit myself just to get a precise value for this conversation. But again, if I did, what would I compare these numbers too? You would need an objective 3rd party measurement of the units you wished to compare.



I am sorry Chris, but I would prefer the test that Wooch proposes.Well, I would prefer that test too if properly created....but the issue in this case was practicality of testing transparency without having a DSD recording system.


Yet but you ask audio angineers to do this on the clients dime just to validate a point for you. Hmmmm.....Because I asked for substantiation at that point. I asked for reference to a valid perceptual test that could establish if hi-resolution audio was any better for playback quality audibly in response to your statements that were made as absolute claims/facts. But maybe you did not mean too state in this manner....refer to [1]


Now here is were I get confused. How do you test the QUALITY of the audio?Well, quality can be established for statistical value. I actually did not mean to use teh word quality. I meant to refer to difference. My error.


What if nobody in the testing panel can hear any higher than 13khz, and I can hear up to 18khz? What if many in the panel had mismatch frequency response in each ear? Most valiated listening tests to this point have used 15 or more trained listeners, usually audio experts, etc that have varying listening abilities in order to aquire more meaningful restults.


There are certain key things to listen for when comparing redbook to high rez, what if I knew what they were, and nobody else did?In validated listening tests, the test subjects are given ample time to review the test samples under sighted conditions in order to become familiar.


I think a test can be conducted to reveal differences(to a certain degree), but sound QAULITY is too subjective to be made objective enough to formally test, and be submitted for peer review.I did not mean to bring up quality. However, quality can be determined for a statistical value. CRC in coordination with Mirage labs performed a huge study a few years back to determine the preferred polar resonse and frequency response of loudspeakers under controlled test conditions. The overwhelming majority preferred a single example. True this does not cover every single person, but an overall quality could be established. But, as I stated earlier I did not itend to refer to 'quality'.

[1]

Two things I would like to clear up. I never said it was FACT that SACD sounds better than redbook. I said IMO it does. Let's examine some quotes from the thread you refer:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=38718&postcount=75

Sir Terrence: "The true benefit of using a higher sampling rate comes from more in band sampling of the voltage of analog waveform. The more times you sample the waveform, the more precise the imaging, the better the tonal quality, and the higher the resolution of the audible signal."

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=39100&postcount=99

Sire Terrence: "Does the sample rate make a difference in sould quality? Definately. Why? I know it improves imaging, and the sound is cleaner and more distinct to the ear, but otherwise I don't know. Does bitrate matter? Only in recording and post production. I'll let the scientist figure the other crap out"

Those are some pretty solid statements, with no IMO or too my perception, etc. contained. In this search I found a reference that you did say at one point everything you sated was 'IMO':

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=40094&postcount=129

Terrence: "I never stated anything as FACT(that's what you gathered), its is a broad based opinion. While you are quick to dimiss it, I am not."

If this is a standing qualifiacation that is to apply to everything you stated in regards to audbility of hi-res audio, then it looks like most of that 400+ post thread was teh result of statement errors. I take things quite literal, when a new statement is made without the qualification in this exampel of IMO, it is taken as a fact/claim by me. If you had been careful to state all of your opinions of hi-rez as opinions; of course I would have had no argument. Everyone is entitled to which ever opinion they desire.


Secondly, you can stop saying that I said the higher bandwidth is the reason that high rez sounds better than RBCD. I never said that was the reason, I said it was one of the beliefs that have been expoused. Huh? I don't remember referrint to you in this thread whatsoever until this very reply. Where did this come from?


There is a problem with this theory. In reality its not possible. This would mean that the delta sigma modulator(s), decimation filter, interpolation filter, and the analog low pass filter would have to operate perfectly, with absolutely no loss or audible distortion whatsoever. That just doesn't happen in real life. The frequency response, phase response, jitter and distortion levels present in hi quality moderan A-D-A process are below known human auditory thresholds for these parameters as determined by peer reviwed percetual tests. How will it have an audible effect? Specifically which parameter is within human thresholds of audibility?

-Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This is why a specified a break-out box type AD, DA, to avoid noise that may be induced on internal sound cards. I recognize this problem.

Your problem does not stop at the sound card. Is my hard drive large enough to handle my needs? Do I have the right interfaces to handle data transfer and processing? How much of my CPU is used during processing, and is there enough to multi-task? You will need two monitors because audio application take up alot of screen space, and you need one as a track monitor, and the other as your mixer. You will need to install a dual video card system(not cheap) to handle your monitoring system. You need a good power supply, and a good fan system to cool it. I could go on and on and this is just to do basic recording. In the end it is not so cheap to do PC based recording. You cannot just use any PC for the task, and it certainly cannot be a cheap one at that.



I was not suggesting full scale music production. I was suggesting using the device for 2 channel recording/playback use.

See my response above


Well I have to ask, noisy compred to what?

Compared to other preamps in the $100 and below catagory. In all honesty, that is not saying very much, because all of the preamps at this price point are pretty noisy.






It's seems to be considered one of the quietest units for the price(under $100) on the market on the newsgroups according to Arny Kreugar, and thus extremely popular for measurement systems, etc.

If this thing is used in measurement systems, I would highly doubt the accuracy of those measurements unless this preamps noise levels are taken into consideration.


. Though I don't personally make any claim to it's 'noise' level one way or the other. I mean the Rolls MP13. It's probably not as quiet as a very high quality professional device but at a point the noise floor is only usefully low. It is not as if a non professional is likely to have access to an isolated sound room that is structurally and acoustically shielded that has a low noise floor. Though, I suppose some very die-hard hobbyists may have built such a thing in their basement. But, I don't knw the actual noise floor of the MP13 product. I can not trust a manufacturer published specification -- so that spec does not count. It's definately not worth measuring the unit myself just to get a precise value for this conversation. But again, if I did, what would I compare these numbers too? You would need an objective 3rd party measurement of the units you wished to compare.

You don't even have to do a comparison with anything. I was asked to clean up a recording of a cover band's performance to use as a demo. The vocals were recorded with this preamps in the signal chain. As long as the levels stayed up, no problem. The preamps noise was hidden by the program material. Once the levels dropped, the preamps gain produced a very noticeable hiss. The hiss was so objectionable, that the bands leader decided to ditch the tracks it was the worse on. My second encounter with this preamp came in the form of a gospel video I was doing the sound on. Once again the Rolls was on the vocal microphone. This time the recording engineer was gain riding, and the hiss rose and fell with the level. For doing live sound and no recording, the preamp would probably be okay. But for recordings, you get what you pay for IMO.



Well, I would prefer that test too if properly created....but the issue in this case was practicality of testing transparency without having a DSD recording system.

In the absence of a DSD recording system, I would use source to 176.4 or 88.2khz, and source to 44.1khz. No downsampling, no downconversion, no dither, no processing in the chain whatsoever.


Because I asked for substantiation at that point. I asked for reference to a valid perceptual test that could establish if hi-resolution audio was any better for playback quality audibly in response to your statements that were made as absolute claims/facts. But maybe you did not mean too state in this manner....refer to [1]

You can't really substantiate that point. Once again sound quality is subjective, not objective. As long as individual have varying tastes, and different perceptions of what sounds good, then there is no way to test sound quality. What sounds good to me may not sound good to you, and visa versa. So from that perspective, and to a individual with experience in both high rez and redbook sound, it might be a fact that high rez sounds better to them. And if they have had enough experience, and continue to hear the same things then their opinion does become absolute. So within this context, absolute claims/facts are personal, and allowed can be expoused as such.

As far as stating that SACD sounds better, to me its a fact that it sounds better than redbook CD. Prove it, impossible! Without 15 people with the exact same ears, head and brain as I do, this would be impossible. And 15 people without the same ears, head and brains cannot speak for me.



Well, quality can be established for statistical value. I actually did not mean to use teh word quality. I meant to refer to difference. My error.

Differences can be tested, but quality cannot. Too many variables amoung the panel.


Most valiated listening tests to this point have used 15 or more trained listeners, usually audio experts, etc that have varying listening abilities in order to aquire more meaningful restults.

This may be okay if you are trying to study objective qualities, but sound quality is not one of them. Varying listening abilities in a sound quality test would produce varying results and would tell you nothing. Even you could tell differences in this panel, they still would have a terrible time trying to ascertain which is better.


In validated listening tests, the test subjects are given ample time to review the test samples under sighted conditions in order to become familiar.

Since I have participated in several Dts vs DD DBT I am VERY familiar with this.


I did not mean to bring up quality. However, quality can be determined for a statistical value. CRC in coordination with Mirage labs performed a huge study a few years back to determine the preferred polar resonse and frequency response of loudspeakers under controlled test conditions. The overwhelming majority preferred a single example. True this does not cover every single person, but an overall quality could be established. But, as I stated earlier I did not itend to refer to 'quality'.

This doesn't really address "quality", it just addresses what sounds more like a live event if we are talking about the same listening test.



[1]
Let's examine some quotes from the thread you refer:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=38718&postcount=75

Sir Terrence: "The true benefit of using a higher sampling rate comes from more in band sampling of the voltage of analog waveform. The more times you sample the waveform, the more precise the imaging, the better the tonal quality, and the higher the resolution of the audible signal."

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=39100&postcount=99

Sire Terrence: "Does the sample rate make a difference in sould quality? Definately. Why? I know it improves imaging, and the sound is cleaner and more distinct to the ear, but otherwise I don't know. Does bitrate matter? Only in recording and post production. I'll let the scientist figure the other crap out"

Those are some pretty solid statements, with no IMO or too my perception, etc. contained. In this search I found a reference that you did say at one point everything you sated was 'IMO':

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=40094&postcount=129

Terrence: "I never stated anything as FACT(that's what you gathered), its is a broad based opinion. While you are quick to dimiss it, I am not."

If this is a standing qualifiacation that is to apply to everything you stated in regards to audbility of hi-res audio, then it looks like most of that 400+ post thread was teh result of statement errors. I take things quite literal, when a new statement is made without the qualification in this exampel of IMO, it is taken as a fact/claim by me. If you had been careful to state all of your opinions of hi-rez as opinions; of course I would have had no argument. Everyone is entitled to which ever opinion they desire.

I do believe you jumped the gun just a bit. I cannot speak for the masses, just like they cannot speak for me. So no statement I make here can has to be my opinion only, because as we have seen here taste vary from person to person. However, when my opinions mirror the opinions of quite a few other(especially some very trained ears) I am going to take pause and listen. Do I need DBT, yes for my clients, but not necessarily for myself. When I hear a improvement, I relish in it. If I wanted to find out why, then I would leave that to testing. But if I went to DBT for everything under the sun, that would me I have no faith in my ears, and should probably get out of the business I am in.


Huh? I don't remember referrint to you in this thread whatsoever until this very reply. Where did this come from?

This is for your general understanding.

The frequency response, phase response, jitter and distortion levels present in hi quality moderan A-D-A process are below known human auditory thresholds for these parameters as determined by peer reviwed percetual tests. How will it have an audible effect? Specifically which parameter is within human thresholds of audibility?
-Chris[/QUOTE]

This statement is meaningless because they don't put high quality parts in every CD or DVD player, or in every digital recorder. The quality of the A/D-D/A is all based on price points. So you are going to get varying and subtle degrees of distortion and any point in that chain whether it comes from the recording equipment, or the playback. Stanley Blackman tested 23 high end and budget CD and DVD players, and found all of them aliasing in varying degrees of amplitude. The anti-aliasing filters were letting small amounts of high frequency information leak through to the converters. Some of the distortions were audible(on the budget CD players) and some were not. I have used digital recorders with very questionable A/D-D/A converters, and the results left me cold. I have used DAW who's connections caused very audible jitter. So to make a blanket statement without testing every component every made, ones made now, and the one that will be made in the future, is insane, and IMO misinformation. Digital is no perfect ride.

The Nyquist theorum is flawless and has never been challenged. But Nyquist never said it would be easy to implement. That is the weak point IMO

[WmAx]

Your problem does not stop at the sound card. Is my hard drive large enough to handle my needs? Do I have the right interfaces to handle data transfer and processing? How much of my CPU is used during processing, and is there enough to multi-task? You will need two monitors because audio application take up alot of screen space, and you need one as a track monitor, and the other as your mixer. You will need to install a dual video card system(not cheap) to handle your monitoring system. You need a good power supply, and a good fan system to cool it. I could go on and on and this is just to do basic recording. In the end it is not so cheap to do PC based recording. You cannot just use any PC for the task, and it certainly cannot be a cheap one at that.
1st, one does not need two monitors to do basic recording. 2nd, most of the things you are mentioning here aer basics that I see no reason to cover in this thread. Hard drive size? Jeez. Well I suppose someone could be stupid enough to not realize they have to have disk space to record onto.


Compared to other preamps in the $100 and below catagory. In all honesty, that is not saying very much, because all of the preamps at this price point are pretty noisy.
Do you ahve third party measurements of the preamp? 'pretty' noisy does not tell me anything.



If this thing is used in measurement systems, I would highly doubt the accuracy of those measurements unless this preamps noise levels are taken into consideration.

Again, what is your definition of noisy? What -db value do you cnsider quiet?



You don't even have to do a comparison with anything. I was asked to clean up a recording of a cover band's performance to use as a demo. The vocals were recorded with this preamps in the signal chain. As long as the levels stayed up, no problem
How do I know that it was used properly or what otehr possible noisy equipment was in teh chain or that their mic was not noisy?

This is a testimonial and does not establish anything. You realize testimonials are not worth much, right?

Also, this is a tangent that is just not the main point of the conversation. I'm going to shorten these replies as much as possible from this point. Though it's tough to cut much out considering the original size.



In the absence of a DSD recording system, I would use source to 176.4 or 88.2khz, and source to 44.1khz. No downsampling, no downconversion, no dither, no processing in the chain whatsoever.

Good.



You can't really substantiate that point.
Ok. So, you also can not substantiat what level of THD is audible among a statistically relefvant test group, or IMD or SPL detection thresholds, or etc.. Yeah, sure. Keep belieiving what you like. I know you stated previously you don't believe in audiophile snake-oil stuff, but this is one of their pinnacles of belief and it is not rational perspective.


So from that perspective, and to a individual with experience in both high rez and redbook sound, it might be a fact that high rez sounds better to them. And if they have had enough experience, and continue to hear the same things then their opinion does become absolute. So within this context, absolute claims/facts are personal, and allowed can be expoused as such.
If you just change that to 'percieved by them as better', I'll be glad to agree. Otherwise no dice.



As far as stating that SACD sounds better, to me its a fact that it sounds better than redbook CD. Prove it, impossible! Without 15 people with the exact same ears, head and brain as I do, this would be impossible. And 15 people without the same ears, head and brains cannot speak for me.

I don't have to prove anything; it's you making the claim. If you can not back it up, why would I or anyone else belileve it as a fact?


Differences can be tested, but quality cannot. Too many variables amoung the panel.
Sorry, but large sample groups have established various 'qualities' previously, such as teh NRC - Mirage study on speaker response issues.


This doesn't really address "quality", it just addresses what sounds more like a live event if we are talking about the same listening test.
I am referring to the NRC/mirage labs test that Ian Paisley headed, that analysed 2000 people in DBT speaker testing, from a pool of over 300 speakers, with smoething like 95% of the people preferred the same small group of similar response speakers(that all had the same basis frequency and polar response as compared to all of the others). I can not recollect the specific reference paper at the moment. It demonstrated that 'a' specific quality can be determined as 'better' by a majority of people. I never claimed that it covers absolutely 'everyone' if that's what you inferred.


do believe you jumped the gun just a bit. I cannot speak for the masses, just like they cannot speak for me
Sure you can. I can state with reasonable certainty that no one can identify 0.05% harmonic distortion. No one has ever proven that they could. Why should I believe that their is someone that is likely to hear it? The same goes for anything else that has been tested for properly. In these cases such as visual and audio perception, y ou can research the subject into the depths of physiological basics that actually dictate perception limits among humans based on the construction of the parts. Tell me what person can see gamma rays? What person can hear 50kHz? It's just beyond the physiological limits.



When I hear a improvement, I relish in it. If I wanted to find out why, then I would leave that to testing. But if I went to DBT for everything under the sun, that would me I have no faith in my ears, and should probably get out of the business I am in.

Good for you. It's probably the most efficient method for your situation. I don't doubt that. However, don't try to force your unproven opinions as facts on others. If you dont' mean to do that, word your statements more carefully and specify it's your perception or opinion. IS this do difficult?


This statement is meaningless because they don't put high quality parts in every CD or DVD player, or in every digital recorder. The quality of the A/D-D/A is all based on price points.
Frankly, I'm not responsible for 'poor design examples' that can not remain at suitable distortion levels. It's not rocket science, and high quality ADA chips from TI(burr brown) are cheap and mass produced today. Their are standing examples on how to design the circuits to remain free of audible distortions. I can not think of a single component internally th tis prohvibitive in cost to produce transparent device at low prices -- not today. BUt I've noticed what appeared to be extremely poor design of any given product you can concieve -- so it's not beyond possiblity that a very low price CD player from a no name brand company would not be 'transparent'.


So you are going to get varying and subtle degrees of distortion and any point in that chain whether it comes from the recording equipment, or the playback. Stanley Blackman tested 23 high end and budget CD and DVD players, and found all of them aliasing in varying degrees of amplitude.
What levels? Proven audible by knowln correlation to JNDs or by DBT testing?


The anti-aliasing filters were letting small amounts of high frequency information leak through to the converters.
Must be some poor design work, extensive documentation exists on proper anti-alias filter topology construction as well as perceptual studies on what filter slopes/types are not deterimental to audible sound quality.


Some of the distortions were audible(on the budget CD players) and some were not
NOt suprising. However, I would still require the detaile measurements and/or the DBT results to confirm the claims on any specific model. I would actually love to read this article. Do you have the reference for this meaurement set? link? magazine issue number? etc.? It would be appreciated.


So to make a blanket statement without testing every component every made, ones made now, and the one that will be made in the future, is insane, and IMO misinformation. Digital is no perfect ride.
Tell me, at what point did i ever state that EVERY AD or DA ever made would be below audible thresholds? I never did. Where does this come from?

-Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

1st, one does not need two monitors to do basic recording. 2nd, most of the things you are mentioning here aer basics that I see no reason to cover in this thread. Hard drive size? Jeez. Well I suppose someone could be stupid enough to not realize they have to have disk space to record onto.

Have you ever done basic recording off a computer system? So you are making this statement from first hand experience I take it. Probably not. If you have, then you would understand that the graphics take up alot of screen area. So it is practically impossible to move faders and monitor levels at the same time.

You would be surprised how many people use computer based DAW and have run out of disk space. So it is kind of naive of you to think everyone is well schooled on the use of computer based DAW. You have a penchant for glossing over detail, maybe its a good thing you are not a audio engineer.



Do you ahve third party measurements of the preamp? 'pretty' noisy does not tell me anything.

Didn't need 3rd party measurements to tell me this component was noisy. You could plainly hear it. I think you would have to be pretty simple to have to ask someone else to confirm something that was that obvious. If you are looking for a specific figure, well that would be variable. Depends highly on how much gain is used.

I didn't know you have trouble with the english language. Noisy= a sound, or sounds that is loud and unpleasant according to websters.


Again, what is your definition of noisy? What -db value do you cnsider quiet?

See above for my defination of noisy. What I consider quiet is something that cannot be heard distinctly. I do not look for numbers like you do, that is irrelevant in a recording situation. What is important is that no extraneous noise should enter your mix.


How do I know that it was used properly or what otehr possible noisy equipment was in teh chain or that their mic was not noisy?

You may not know anything, but I was with the live recording engineer, and he knew for a FACT it was the preamp. When it was bypassed out of the system, the noise disappeared. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out were the problem was.


This is a testimonial and does not establish anything. You realize testimonials are not worth much, right?

Chris for YOUR benefit and convience, you can call it whatever you desire to make it easier for you to dismiss. But your recommendation of this component was just as worthless!!


Also, this is a tangent that is just not the main point of the conversation. I'm going to shorten these replies as much as possible from this point. Though it's tough to cut much out considering the original size.

Once again, if it makes it easier for you to dismiss, call it whatever you desire.


Good.




Ok. So, you also can not substantiat what level of THD is audible among a statistically relefvant test group, or IMD or SPL detection thresholds, or etc.. Yeah, sure. Keep belieiving what you like. I know you stated previously you don't believe in audiophile snake-oil stuff, but this is one of their pinnacles of belief and it is not rational perspective.

I did not say that did you really read what I said???? I said sound QUALITY CANNOT BE DBT TESTED. Everyone has their own idea of what sounds good, so their is no objective means to determine something as subjective as that. As far as the other perimeters you mention, I never said that DBT was not useful to determine any detection levels. Your response to this is overly emotional and out of context



If you just change that to 'percieved by them as better', I'll be glad to agree. Otherwise no dice.

Whether it is no dice to you is irrelevant. If one believes that something sounds better than something else, that is a fact to them. Maybe not to a naysayer like yourself, but who cares, you don't run the world.



I don't have to prove anything; it's you making the claim. If you can not back it up, why would I or anyone else belileve it as a fact?

Who said this has to be about you? You seem to believe that someone has to prove something to you. Chris the world doesn't revolve around you and your demands to prove everything under the sun. I suppose you will be asking to prove that I went to the restroom 2 minutes ago!



Sorry, but large sample groups have established various 'qualities' previously, such as teh NRC - Mirage study on speaker response issues.

That study was not designed to be objective, it was subjective in nature. It results were based on listener PREFERENCES(a subjective perimeter). They used DBT to obtain a sujective result.



I am referring to the NRC/mirage labs test that Ian Paisley headed, that analysed 2000 people in DBT speaker testing, from a pool of over 300 speakers, with smoething like 95% of the people preferred the same small group of similar response speakers(that all had the same basis frequency and polar response as compared to all of the others). I can not recollect the specific reference paper at the moment. It demonstrated that 'a' specific quality can be determined as 'better' by a majority of people. I never claimed that it covers absolutely 'everyone' if that's what you inferred.

They used 3000 people and it was based on a PREFERENCE, not something like the detection threshold of the A/D-D/A stages in a given digital component. The panel was asked to grade speakers based on their sound qualities(subjective). Those speakers that received a good grade were group together, measured, and the results of the measurement provided the werewithall to produce a good sounding speaker. What they were looking for was opinions(something you completely reject) and not some antiseptic result that you constantly pursue. They did exactly what was done at Surround 2003. I A-B identical musical passages DB, and was asked which I though(subjective) sounded better. I did the test 4 times, and all four times I choose SACD over redbook. This test was given to 122 people over two days. On the last day the results were told to us. 95 people chose SACD, and the remainder chose redbook. Using the NRC model the results speak for themselves. All of this is purely subjective.



Sure you can. I can state with reasonable certainty that no one can identify 0.05% harmonic distortion.

The only thing that you can say with any certainty is that you have not tested 6 billion people, and that conclusion is based on studies involving a tiny fraction of that amount. Until you have tested everyone on this planet, your certainty is tenative and incomplete.





No one has ever proven that they could. Why should I believe that their is someone that is likely to hear it?

Because not everyone in the world has been tested. And that is based on objective criteria, not something subjective as sound quality.


The same goes for anything else that has been tested for properly. In these cases such as visual and audio perception, y ou can research the subject into the depths of physiological basics that actually dictate perception limits among humans based on the construction of the parts. Tell me what person can see gamma rays? What person can hear 50kHz? It's just beyond the physiological limits.

This is mudding the waters(you really like to do this) and has nothing to do with sound quality or any other subjective issue.



Good for you. It's probably the most efficient method for your situation. I don't doubt that. However, don't try to force your unproven opinions as facts on others. If you dont' mean to do that, word your statements more carefully and specify it's your perception or opinion. IS this do difficult?

No one is forcing anything on you(another overly emotional response), you have a right to accept or reject any opinion. Perhaps rather than telling me how to word my posts, you should check your interpretation skills. Perhaps in your rush to oppose me you interepreted the meaning, and the spirit of my post incorrectly. Especially when it was already stated as my opinion. This is what happens when you gloss over details like you have done in so many of your responses.



Frankly, I'm not responsible for 'poor design examples' that can not remain at suitable distortion levels. It's not rocket science, and high quality ADA chips from TI(burr brown) are cheap and mass produced today.

Your thinking is VERY compartimentalized. Burr Brown makes many different types of chips all with varying degrees of quality to meet certain price points. Not every computer can use pentium chips and meet certain price points. Some have to use Celerons(which is not that great of a performer) to meet that price point. With price points of electronics being pushed down at every hand, Burr Brown chips cannot be used with all DVD or CD players. By the way, cheap is relative just like good sound quality.



Their are standing examples on how to design the circuits to remain free of audible distortions. I can not think of a single component internally th tis prohvibitive in cost to produce transparent device at low prices -- not today.

Yes, the standing examples usually have the best parts to begin with, implemented in the most logical, and simplistic way. These products are usually high end products that do not have a price point. That is not representative of the masses. If its so easy to do, then why isn't it done in every DVD and CD player on the market, budget and high end? It apparently isn't as easy as you are trying to tell us, or it would be done.



BUt I've noticed what appeared to be extremely poor design of any given product you can concieve -- so it's not beyond possiblity that a very low price CD player from a no name brand company would not be 'transparent'.

Its not just low price players from a no name brand company, but apparently mid and high end players from major brand names.



What levels? Proven audible by knowln correlation to JNDs or by DBT testing?

I know based on measurements, but I am not entirely sure if it was DBT or JND.



Must be some poor design work, extensive documentation exists on proper anti-alias filter topology construction as well as perceptual studies on what filter slopes/types are not deterimental to audible sound quality.

Yes but does this documentation teach you how to apply this topology in a wide variety of players, that cover varying price points? I do not think so.



NOt suprising. However, I would still require the detaile measurements and/or the DBT results to confirm the claims on any specific model. I would actually love to read this article. Do you have the reference for this meaurement set? link? magazine issue number? etc.? It would be appreciated.

This paper was passed around at Surround 2003. He was submitting it to AES, but wanted a 2nd party to test the same players to verify his results. I am sure you will see it once it is published.


Tell me, at what point did i ever state that EVERY AD or DA ever made would be below audible thresholds? I never did. Where does this come from?

-Chris

You expouse theory like the signal and processing chain is transparent always. You never take into consideration real world realities in regards to what is practical, and cost effective. Its just pure theory with you. That is not rational or particularly realistic. You make alot of assumptions based on theory that in the field are cumbersome, inefficient, time consuming, not to mention labor intensive and unnecesary. This is what relying on theory(without any experience)alone will get you. In the field everything that is possible to do may not always yield good sonic results. Experience teaches you that.

[WmAx]

Have you ever done basic recording off a computer system? So you are making this statement from first hand experience I take it. Probably not. If you have, then you would understand that the graphics take up alot of screen area.
didn't know you have trouble with the english language. Noisy= a sound, or sounds that is loud and unpleasant according to websters. Without a specific value, this is a testament/speculation.You are funny. Accusing me of having problems with english language here,yet not long ago you could not even manage to demonstrate basic comprehension, and foolishy claiming the non-existance of a sampling standard that you could at any time check on the listed standards on the standards page of the AES, nor understand or read what I did offer you in such thread, as evidenced by your rediculous replies then and now.


You may not know anything, but I was with the live recording engineer, and he knew for a FACT it was the preamp. When it was bypassed out of the system, the noise disappeared. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out were the problem was.Again, testimonial. If I wanted to submit testimonial, I would submit one such as from Arny Kreugar from the newsgroups whom recommends this device often(and why I took notice of the product originally), who extensively measures every device before recommendation. So what? It's a testimonial too, since he has not documented this item on his website yet. However, considering his history of objectifying his recomendations instead of merely offering a worthless testimonial on his opinion of how it sounded; it should not be difficult to see why I give him much more weight then the testimonials you offer.


Chris for YOUR benefit and convience, you can call it whatever you desire to make it easier for you to dismiss. But your recommendation of this component was just as worthless!!My recommendation was clearly stated that ' I made no claims of audibility'. I clearly stated that i was recommended by someone else as being a good unit for the price. Difference is, you are trying to establish your testimonials as evidence..again. I mentioned Kruegar's name because anyone who is familiar with him know how he goes about suggesting equipment.


I did not say that did you really read what I said???? I said sound QUALITY CANNOT BE DBT TESTED. Everyone has their own idea of what sounds good, so their is no objective means to determine something as subjective as that. As far as the other perimeters you mention, I never said that DBT was not useful to determine any detection levels. Your response to this is overly emotional and out of contextYou implied that hi-rez vs. redbook was a quality issue. In direct reply to reference to the debate in the other thread, you said:

"You can't really substantiate that point. Once again sound quality is subjective, not objective. As long as individual have varying tastes, and different perceptions of what sounds good, then there is no way to test sound quality. What sounds good to me may not sound good to you, and visa versa. So from that perspective, and to a individual with experience in both high rez and redbook sound, it might be a fact that high rez sounds better to them. And if they have had enough experience, and continue to hear the same things then their opinion does become absolute."

First you have to determine if their is any audible difference before determining quality. Step one has yet to be verified.



Whether it is no dice to you is irrelevant. If one believes that something sounds better than something else, that is a fact to them. Maybe not to a naysayer like yourself, but who cares, you don't run the world.
I don't care about one's personal believe as long as they don't attempt to spread it around as if it's fact when it has not been substantiated.



Who said this has to be about you? You seem to believe that someone has to prove something to you. Chris the world doesn't revolve around you and your demands to prove everything under the sun. I suppose you will be asking to prove that I went to the restroom 2 minutes ago!
If it was a relevant issue in the conversation, they yes, I would require verification. :-)




That study was not designed to be objective, it was subjective in nature. It results were based on listener PREFERENCES(a subjective perimeter). They used DBT to obtain a sujective result.
Now you are confusing the paritcular aim of different tests. Hey, not all tests are designed to just find difference. A controlled test can be organized for just about any perceptual study. Objectivity is prevalent in this test. Indeed, this test did it's best to actually objectify/quantify a specific combination of parameters that would elicit a common response in subjects. The hypothesis of such a test is that a correlation between specific parameters and percieved quality amoung most or all subjects can be observed. Now, to prove the theory...
Now, how do you go about this? The actual scope of this study was the perceptions, themselves, to confirm or deny a commonality that was theorized may exist. All irrelevant stimuli were removed, leaving the only relvant ones to be judged.
While this test's scope was the 'subjective perceptions' of quality. This was by no means a subjective test, as in an uncontrolled test scenario(just listening to various items, under sighted conditions, etc.)taht may be typicaly associated with the 'subjective' term if one is used to associating the words in that manner, as is common in audio forums. In the end, this test demonstrates that in fact, quality can be objectified/quantified for the overwhelming majority. The entire point of test: to objectify perceptual response.



They used 3000 people and it was based on a PREFERENCE, not something like the detection threshold of the A/D-D/A stages in a given digital component. The panel was asked to grade speakers based on their sound qualities(subjective). Those speakers that received a good grade were group together, measured, and the results of the measurement provided the werewithall to produce a good sounding speakerBecause, lumped preference was teh objective of the test.



. What they were looking for was opinions(something you completely reject) and not some antiseptic result that you constantly pursue. You are incorrect. In the proper scope, I value opinions. In this case, the entire objective was to find a correlation of opinion vs. a real sound difference. As many variables as possible were removed that would otherwise contaminat the test. That's why it was DBT.


They did exactly what was done at Surround 2003. I A-B identical musical passages DB, and was asked which I though(subjective) sounded better. I did the test 4 times, and all four times I choose SACD over redbook. Except that noone has even verified that SACD has any audible sound differences as opposed to RBCD...


This test was given to 122 people over two days. On the last day the results were told to us. 95 people chose SACD, and the remainder chose redbook. Something sounds suspicous. What steps were taken to verify the results were not due to test error, signal distortion, etc.?


Using the NRC model the results speak for themselves. All of this is purely subjective. The NRC model tested a known, real audible difference set. However, other then that, it sounds similar.


The only thing that you can say with any certainty is that you have not tested 6 billion people, and that conclusion is based on studies involving a tiny fraction of that amount. Until you have tested everyone on this planet, your certainty is tenative and incompleteSuch presumption. That's the point. You have to provide substantiation IT IS an issue in the first place. Verificatino of claims. It's simple. Maybe someone has real psychic powers? No one has demonstrated this, either, in scientifically valid tests. But should I asumme they do exist? The issue is that certain abilities ahve been demonstrated, and it's not logical to assume that abilities beyond these are real until they ahve been verified to exist.



No one is forcing anything on you(another overly emotional response), you have a right to accept or reject any opinion. Perhaps rather than telling me how to word my posts, you should check your interpretation skills. Perhaps in your rush to oppose me you interepreted the meaning, and the spirit of my post incorrectly. Especially when it was already stated as my opinion. This is what happens when you gloss over details like you have done in so many of your responses.
When you state someting new in a fashion that is made as absolute, how else do you expect me to take it? If you want to state once and for all that these are your opinions but dont want to make this clear in your text, as anyone should, then add it to your sig line. At least, then, it's very clear and renewed qualification for every new post. Until then, everytime you make a new post that is stated as absolute/fact, I can only take it in that manner.



Your thinking is VERY compartimentalized. Burr Brown makes many different types of chips all with varying degrees of quality to meet certain price points. Not every computer can use pentium chips and meet certain price points. Some have to use Celerons(which is not that great of a performer) to meet that price point. With price points of electronics being pushed down at every hand, Burr Brown chips cannot be used with all DVD or CD players. By the way, cheap is relative just like good sound quality.
Burr brown is not the only competant chip maker. It was given as an example. As for price points, I don't even have reason to believe a cheap CD player by RCA is of inferior sonic quality. David Clark(of The Audio Critic -- the hardlined objectivist publication) performed and alysis a few years back on components used in varying price points of modern electronics, and found no valid claims to be plausibel as to why 'hi-end' equipment would be audibly superior. Even the cheap modern parts were more then satisfactory for remaining under human JNDs.


Yes, the standing examples usually have the best parts to begin with, implemented in the most logical, and simplistic way. These products are usually high end products that do not have a price point. Yet, hi-end consumer equipment has not exclusively shown to be superir in tests vs. normal grade consumer audio equipment in any controlled tests or by way of measurments correlating with JNDs.


Its not just low price players from a no name brand company, but apparently mid and high end players from major brand names. Now, I am aware of some hiend DACs that have no anti alias filter, such as some made by AUdio Note. I'm actually more surprised to find, say, an RCA that has audible levels of distortion in the output.


I know based on measurements, but I am not entirely sure if it was DBT or JND. Well, this is a very important thing for this conversation.


Yes but does this documentation teach you how to apply this topology in a wide variety of players, that cover varying price points? I do not think so. Again, I have not seen any plausible excuse for any normal quality product to have audible problems. The filter topology, itself, is not realy a price consideration. The filter order/topology is essentially whatever the engineer chooses. He chooses the cutoff point and slope rate, as well as filter Q.


This paper was passed around at Surround 2003. He was submitting it to AES, but wanted a 2nd party to test the same players to verify his results. I am sure you will see it once it is published. I'll look for a preprint under his name. Maybe it's avaialble now.


You expouse theory like the signal and processing chain is transparent always.No, I don't. Always is a strong word. I never stated that. In modern equpment, though, their is no practical reason why it should not be audibly transparent in any competant design. I won't hold modern $30 DVD/CD players to this standard, such as an Orbitron or something, though. They may very well have been designed on such a budget, that the quality of engineer was also a budget consideratin., or perhaps the engineer was not even given sufficient time to correctly analyse the design, due to budget restraints.


You never take into consideration real world realities in regards to what is practical, and cost effective. Its just pure theory with you. Not true. What a presumption you make. I am aware of historical examples of electronics that had problems in audibility. The original Sony CDP101 or some similar model number that was first released, for example. It's also generally agreed that most of the earliest CD players had problems with the reconsctruction anti-aliasing filters. That's why upsampling/oversampling orginally popped up, to implement sharper, higher precision filters. Since precision implementation overall has now improved in all aspects of design/manufacture, over/upsampling is probably no longer a need, but I don't want to speculate. It does matter either way since over/upsampling is a standard thing in DACs, and that does work.


So far the ONLY thing have you been able to argue/debate, thus dragging these stupid threads out of proportion, are things like the two monitor crap, or arguing one's hard drive capacity when it was never brought up, trying to equate a controlled test that is designed to objectify subjective interpretaions with another form of subjective, or nitpicking some preamp you really have not objective data to offer about it, jsut more testimonials, or trying to once again submit your opinions and testimonials as if they are facts then attempting to justify not having to specify they are 'only opinions' when they are, or ignorantly arguing about 48kHz sample rate when it was no real part of the original discussion(though it was entertaining watching you plead it's not a standard when any John can verify at aes.org) or any other irrelevant small detail that is not the main subject, or even important to the 1st string of tangents, nor requires explanation in the discussion.

Hey, let me save you some typing. Let me reply to MY own comments in this thread for you! Why stop typing now? Your comments have little substance anyways. This is my first time role-playing like this, so please excuse me if it's not to your liking....


Yes, I ahve done basic recording, etc. using software such as Adobe Audition. On a 1600x1200 resolution setting, their are no problems for this purpose. I never suggested a display set up suitable for full scale music productin station. To suggest two minotors for basic recording/editing is rediculous and unwarranted.I'm persuaded to think you know so little about recording on a PC, that you don't have any idea. Take it from me, an expereineced engineer: you need two monitors. You can't just use any computer for recording/mixing.


Again, testimonial. If I wanted to submit testimonial, I would submit one such as from Arny Kreugar from the newsgroups whom recommends this device often(and why I took notice of the product originally), who extensively measures every device before recommendation. So what? It's a testimonial too, since he has not documented this item on his website yet. However, considering his history of objectifying his recomendations instead of merely offering a worthless testimonial on his opinion of how it sounded; it should not be difficult to see why I give him much more weight then the testimonials you offer.Who's Arny Kruegar? I told you what I experienced, and what another engineer heard! This is rediculous! Are you this desperate to dismiss the fact that you recommended a preamp completely unsuitable for the application?


My recommendation was clearly stated that ' I made no claims of audibility'. I clearly stated that i was recommended by someone else as being a good unit for the price. Difference is, you are trying to establish your testimonials as evidence..again. I mentioned Kruegar's name because anyone who is familiar with him know how he goes about suggesting equipment.You recommended a preamp that is noisey and not suitable for hi-rez recording, or even good quality 16bit recording. Just admit that you are full of BS.



You implied that hi-rez vs. redbook was a quality issue. In direct reply to reference to the debate in the other thread, you said:

"You can't really substantiate that point. Once again sound quality is subjective, not objective. As long as individual have varying tastes, and different perceptions of what sounds good, then there is no way to test sound quality. What sounds good to me may not sound good to you, and visa versa. So from that perspective, and to a individual with experience in both high rez and redbook sound, it might be a fact that high rez sounds better to them. And if they have had enough experience, and continue to hear the same things then their opinion does become absolute."

First you have to determine if their is any audible difference before determining quality. Step one has yet to be verified.
I implied what? Wrong. I'm not talking about difference, I'm talking about quality: somehting that is subjective. You can not determine subjective quality or preferences of every person.


I don't care about one's personal believe as long as they don't attempt to spread it around as if it's fact when it has not been substantiated. What? I was giving my opinion(s). I explained this already. You really can't read, can you?



Now you are confusing the paritcular aim of different tests. Hey, not all tests are designed to just find difference. A controlled test can be organized for just about any perceptual study. Objectivity is prevalent in this test. Indeed, this test did it's best to actually objectify/quantify a specific combination of parameters that would elicit a common response in subjects. The hypothesis of such a test is that a correlation between specific parameters and percieved quality amoung most or all subjects can be observed. Now, to prove the theory...
Now, how do you go about this? The actual scope of this study was the perceptions, themselves, to confirm or deny a commonality that was theorized may exist. All irrelevant stimuli were removed, leaving the only relvant ones to be judged.
While this test's scope was the 'subjective perceptions' of quality. This was by no means a subjective test, as in an uncontrolled test scenario(just listening to various items, under sighted conditions, etc.)taht may be typicaly associated with the 'subjective' term if one is used to associating the words in that manner, as is common in audio forums. In the end, this test demonstrates that in fact, quality can be objectified/quantified for the overwhelming majority. The entire point of test: to objectify perceptual response.
What?!?! You just admitted it was a subjective test right there! How can it be objective? It was a test that was analysing the subjective prefernces!


[Except that noone has even verified that SACD has any audible sound differences as opposed to RBCD...You must be fantasizing, Chris. I, and several other engineers have heard and known of the difference for a while now. You can not test everything to your standards that you demand(when it suits you). YOu just fall back on this when you don't ahve any experience to back you up.


The NRC model tested a known, real audible difference set. However, other then that, it sounds similar.This is not testing for a difference, Chris. It's not the same thing.



Such presumption. That's the point. You have to provide substantiation IT IS an issue in the first place. Verificatino of claims. It's simple. Maybe someone has real psychic powers? No one has demonstrated this, either, in scientifically valid tests. But should I asumme they do exist? The issue is that certain abilities ahve been demonstrated, and it's not logical to assume that abilities beyond these are real until they ahve been verified to exist.
You can't test everything to this rediculous standard. You have to know when to trust certai opinions and learn to trust your own ears. Do you think tht I could do my job if I didn't? Do you think I could ever get anytning done if I required this rediculous standard of yours? The world does not exsit to please you, Chris. Get over it.


When you state someting new in a fashion that is made as absolute, how else do you expect me to take it? If you want to state once and for all that these are your opinions but dont want to make this clear in your text, as anyone should, then add it to your sig line. At least, then, it's very clear and renewed qualification for every new post. Until then, everytime you make a new post that is stated as absolute/fact, I can only take it in that manner. I don't have to justify myself to you or anyone else. Learn to read. I already said that it was my opinion(s). What don't you understand?!


Burr brown is not the only competant chip maker. It was given as an example. As for price points, I don't even have reason to believe a cheap CD player by RCA is of inferior sonic quality. David Clark(of The Audio Critic -- the hardlined objectivist publication) performed and alysis a few years back on components used in varying price points of modern electronics, and found no valid claims to be plausibel as to why 'hi-end' equipment would be audibly superior. Even the cheap modern parts were more then satisfactory for remaining under human JNDs.If you believe a cheap budget item can have theoretically perfect performance, your not as sharp as you pretend to be. Quality of the design/construction is built to a price point, and you can't have high quality at a low price point.


Yet, hi-end consumer equipment has not exclusively shown to be superir in tests vs. normal grade consumer audio equipment in any controlled tests or by way of measurments correlating with JNDs.That's right, try to dismiss facts with your weak excuses and flawed reasoning.


Again, I have not seen any plausible excuse for any normal quality product to have audible problems. The filter topology, itself, is not realy a price consideration. The filter order/topology is essentially whatever the engineer chooses. He chooses the cutoff point and slope rate, as well as filter Q.Anti alias filter is designed to the RBCD standard. You can't choose the filter. Don't you understand that you an not change the RBCD standard?


No, I don't. Always is a strong word. I never stated that. In modern equpment, though, their is no practical reason why it should not be audibly transparent in any competant design. I won't hold modern $30 DVD/CD players to this standard, such as an Orbitron or something, though. They may very well have been designed on such a budget, that the quality of engineer was also a budget consideratin., or perhaps the engineer was not even given sufficient time to correctly analyse the design, due to budget restraints.What proof do you have that these modern devices are transparent? You don't!


So far the ONLY thing have you been able to argue/debate, thus dragging these stupid threads out of proportion, are things like the two monitor crap, or arguing one's hard drive capacity when it was never brought up, trying to equate a controlled test that is designed to objectify subjective interpretaions with another form of subjective, or nitpicking some preamp you really have not objective data to offer about it, jsut more testimonials, or trying to once again submit your opinions and testimonials as if they are facts then attempting to justify not having to specify they are 'only opinions' when they are, or ignorantly arguing about 48kHz sample rate when it was no real part of the original discussion(though it was entertaining watching you plead it's not a standard when any John can verify at aes.org) or any other irrelevant small detail that is not the main subject, or even important to the 1st string of tangents, nor requires explanation in the discussion.You are talking about issues that you have little to no experience in real life. Move beyond your technical papers and get some experience. I would know if 48Khz was a professional standard -- you are just talking out of your butt again with nothing to back yourself up. That letter you posted was not a standard, it was just a letter of suggestion. When I have heard, and others have heard or experienced these issues(like the noisy preamp or the sound quality of hi-rez), we know what's real and what's not. Our jobs depend on it. Get some experience and stop trying to pretend you know what your talking about by reading some technical paper or book. It's not real life! Live in the real world.

[hifitommy]

it means we are going to get sacd one day soon. check out the sheer number of titles on sacd.net, and yes, rock music too. incubus ferinstance, to me a local band here in the san fernando valley, and others are picking up the right idea.



players are starting to proliferate, although i dont care if mine has dvda. people can keep coughing up the vomit that rbcd is transparent to the source and that SACDs only benefit is wider bandwidth. the benefit is higher sampling frequency and the wider bandwidth allows the sound more ease.

<O:p

gargle the technical babble all you want, sacd is more transparent to the original than rbcd PERIOD. open your damned ears and LISTEN for a change. as much as i love vinyl, i am not so asleep that i maintain that it cant be exceeded. i waited a reeeeely long time to get into cd and likewise a reeely long time to get into sacd. fact is, the music wasnt available in vinyl and its the music i am really after.

<O:p

but i DO want it to sound better and thats where sacd has taken digital sound, and as a consumer, i think it wise to support the format of most capability. i paid $169 for my player, and the software prices i pay are no more than regular priced rbcd. the choices are increasing on both the soft and hardware fronts.

<O:p

so, keep it up, the increased discussion shows more interest and the industry needs to see that.

[mtrycraft]

people can keep coughing up the vomit that rbcd is transparent to the source and that SACDs only benefit is wider bandwidth.[b]

Is that a benefit for SACD? Or, just is wiout any real benefit to the consumer?

[b] the benefit is higher sampling frequency and the wider bandwidth allows the sound more ease.

Sheer speculation on your part.



gargle the technical babble all you want, sacd is more transparent to the original than rbcd PERIOD.

You are correct in that you can speculate all you want, but no evidence, not fact.

open your damned ears and LISTEN for a change.


Listen to what? For what?

as much as i love vinyl, i am not so asleep that i maintain that it cant be exceeded.

But you have been asleep for decades, since the dawn of CD. Time to wake up to reality.


fact is, the music wasnt available in vinyl and its the music i am really after.

You could have fooled us all with your postings.



but i DO want it to sound better

Then you need to work on the speakers and your room. Buy quality recordings, the ones that don't compress music.

and thats where sacd has taken digital sound,

Actually, while you were asleep, CD has done that a long time ago. Hello?

and as a consumer, i think it wise to support the format of most capability.

Then one should buy a universal player. Simple.

[hifitommy]

1. people can keep coughing up the vomit that rbcd is transparent to the source and that SACDs only benefit is wider bandwidth.[b]

Is that a benefit for SACD? Or, just is wiout any real benefit to the consumer?

1: see-[b] the benefit is higher sampling frequency and the wider bandwidth allows the sound more ease.

1b: Sheer speculation on your part.

1b-no speculation involved, its much like recording in a bigger room to avoid room overload.

2.gargle the technical babble all you want, sacd is more transparent to the original than rbcd PERIOD.

You are correct in that you can speculate all you want, but no evidence, not fact.

2-again, not speculation, its FACT, one you cant grasp.

3.open your damned ears and LISTEN for a change.


3.Listen to what? For what?

3-EXACTLY! you have no idea what to listen for.

4.as much as i love vinyl, i am not so asleep that i maintain that it cant be exceeded.

4.But you have been asleep for decades, since the dawn of CD. Time to wake up to reality.

4-yes, ive been figuratively sleeping in wait for better sound for the consumer. reality has arrived in the form of sacd. thank the digitla gods.

5.fact is, the music wasnt available in vinyl and its the music i am really after.

5.You could have fooled us all with your postings.

5-you are easily fooled. and misdirected. common sense doesnt sink in. too dense.

6.but i DO want it to sound better

6.Then you need to work on the speakers and your room. Buy quality recordings, the ones that don't compress music.

6-http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/588.html some work has already been done.

7.and thats where sacd has taken digital sound,

7.Actually, while you were asleep, CD has done that a long time ago. Hello?

7-unfortunately, cd didnt deliver, goodbye!

8.and as a consumer, i think it wise to support the format of most capability.

8.Then one should buy a universal player. Simple.

8-not all sound good in both formats, some convert dsd to pcm (aka vomit).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You should find an audible improvement on the actual SACD tracks on many SACD releases. It seems that the CD versions are usually purposefully compromised with added dynamic compression; at least according to the few waveform analysis examples that audioholics.com did and accoriding to the admission of at least one recording engineer.

-Chris

Chris, purposefully compromised is a inaccurate statement and you know this. This use of inflammatory language is silly and stupid, and does nothing to accurately describe what is being done. Accidentally spreading misinformation is not great. Purposefully spreading misinformation is irresponsible and damaging.

Since this has been covered in another thread, and accurately explained by a audio engineer that knows more than yourself about the recording process, I will not go into the explaination of the process. In the future it might be helpful to refer to more knowledgeable people who are well schooled in the process, especially since you openly admit that you are not a recording engineer.

[WmAx]

Chris, purposefully compromised is a inaccurate statement and you know this. Refer to [1]


This use of inflammatory language is silly and stupid, and does nothing to accurately describe what is being done.
Inflammatory? I guess this is entirely in the eye of the beholder. If you find it 'inflammatory' then I suppose it is too you. Does not make it a reasonable interpretation, but that's not the point. :-)


Since this has been covered in another thread, and accurately explained by a audio engineer that knows more than yourself about the recording process, I will not go into the explaination of the process. In the future it might be helpful to refer to more knowledgeable people
[1] Since this has been covered in another thread, and argued into the ground, so to speak, anyone who wants to know what this all about can refer to the thread in question. In the future, it might be helpful if you learn ed the value of objective analysis as opposed speculation and heresay. Again, anyone who wants to know what's 'up', can read through all 400+ posts:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=4780

-Chris

<table bgcolor="#ffffff" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="784"> <tbody><tr><td valign="top" width="461"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="461"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" width="331"><table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="331"><tbody><tr><td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>0</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody> </table>

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Without a specific value, this is a testament/speculation.You are funny. Accusing me of having problems with english language here,yet not long ago you could not even manage to demonstrate basic comprehension, and foolishy claiming the non-existance of a sampling standard that you could at any time check on the listed standards on the standards page of the AES, nor understand or read what I did offer you in such thread, as evidenced by your rediculous replies then and now.

If I was foolishly claiming the non existance of a sampling standard, then just what standard did 48khz apply to? Redbook's sampling standard is 44.1khz. The sampling standard for DVD-A is 24/96khz. DVD-V wasn't even thought of then, but it is the only standard based on 48khz sample rate. The paper you submitted is a recommendation, not a recognization of a standard. Carefully read the language.

In the discussions of standards relative to digital audio to date we feel that the needs of broadcasting organizations have been little mentioned, and we would like to make a fewpoints, In Europe a standard sampling rate of 32 kHz _+ 50 parts per million, giving an audio bandwidth of 15 kHz, has been agreed within the EBU for use by broadcasters. As commercial applications assumea bandwidth of about 20 kHz, and hence sampling rates from 40 to 60 kHz, it is probable that broadcasters who will need to interface between these standards will do so by means of a digital rate-changing filter, so avoiding D/A and A/D conversion, To make this rate-changing filter as simple as possible to instrument, it is desirable to choose certain sampling frequencies for the commercial recording application. These in order of merit are:
In consideration of the above points, we suggest that 48 kHz would be a good choice of sampling frequency for commercial digital audio recording systems. Dr. Bruce Moffat, our Head of Section, shares this view. Notwithstandingthe above, werecognize that there may be circumstances, (such as in the 3M variable-speed re-corder), where other considerations make a somewhat higher sampling rate desirable. It is, however, in our view essential that provision be made for locking the recorder to an external32-kHzclock on replay, by again using an 18-MHz master clock frequency.


There is absolutely nothing that says any of this was adopted as a standard in 1978 for any digital audio format. The first digital processors hit the market in 1978, and they were based on 44.1khz sampling rate and no other. In 1980 the redbook standard was proposed by Sony and Philips based on 44.1khz sampling rate, and no other. In 1982 the compact disc was released based on the 44.1khz sample rate. It wasn't until early 1991 that the first digital processing and recording products hit the street with a 48khz OPTION for dolby digital soundtracks. A option is not a standard. Just because 48khz is offered, doesn't make it a standard. If that was the case, then 32khz would also be a standard, because that is also a option found on most digital audio studio products. So Chris, if anyone is looking rediculous, its your for your inability to understand the information that your submit as support.


Again, testimonial. If I wanted to submit testimonial, I would submit one such as from Arny Kreugar from the newsgroups whom recommends this device often(and why I took notice of the product originally), who extensively measures every device before recommendation. So what? It's a testimonial too, since he has not documented this item on his website yet. However, considering his history of objectifying his recomendations instead of merely offering a worthless testimonial on his opinion of how it sounded; it should not be difficult to see why I give him much more weight then the testimonials you offer.

You did submit a form of testimonial by recommending the product that he endorsed. You did this with no measurements whatsoever, just the word of a single gentlement who's name mean absolutely nothing to me. Once again this is picking and choosing information that YOU deem credible. To remain consistant with your previous position, his word is irrelevant without any measurements to support it. If you can dismiss Michael Bishops information because it lacks measurements, then this should be dimissed on the same grounds. I don't give a damn what kind of online reputation he has, it mean nothing to me, and neither does his name.


My recommendation was clearly stated that ' I made no claims of audibility'. I clearly stated that i was recommended by someone else as being a good unit for the price. Difference is, you are trying to establish your testimonials as evidence..again. I mentioned Kruegar's name because anyone who is familiar with him know how he goes about suggesting equipment.
Well, I have heard it, so I CAN make claims of audibility. And for recording purposes it is unsuitable, and your recommendation without even hearing it is consistant with your arguments with SACD. If you do not know what pizza taste like, how can you say you don't like it. How in the hell can your recommend a product without listening to it. As Arny's recommendation is cow plop, I know nothing about him, audio engineers I have asked have never heard of him, so his word is dog slop to me.


You implied that hi-rez vs. redbook was a quality issue. In direct reply to reference to the debate in the other thread, you said:

"You can't really substantiate that point. Once again sound quality is subjective, not objective. As long as individual have varying tastes, and different perceptions of what sounds good, then there is no way to test sound quality. What sounds good to me may not sound good to you, and visa versa. So from that perspective, and to a individual with experience in both high rez and redbook sound, it might be a fact that high rez sounds better to them. And if they have had enough experience, and continue to hear the same things then their opinion does become absolute."

First you have to determine if their is any audible difference before determining quality. Step one has yet to be verified.
Step one has already been determined by hundreds of audio engineers who have upgraded their studio's to high rez. They listen to redbook, and high rez, and made their decision. I do not think anyone can convince anyone else to spend thousands of dollars of their money based on manufacturer hype. Audio engineers(unlike yourself) do not make their decision based soley on numbers. They listen, and judge for themselves just like anyone should do.


I don't care about one's personal believe as long as they don't attempt to spread it around as if it's fact when it has not been substantiated.
Well Arny belief according to your words is being spread as fact, but you do not reject it. This is why I dismiss half the crap you submit outright. It is clear that personal opinion is cool as long as it supports your arguement.(See Bob Katz from other topic). You will quote somebody testimonial regarding compression on radio, but reject that same person testimonial about 2" tape. This is why I think you are full of crap.


If it was a relevant issue in the conversation, they yes, I would require verification. :-
If figures(rolls eyes))



Now you are confusing the paritcular aim of different tests. Hey, not all tests are designed to just find difference. A controlled test can be organized for just about any perceptual study. Objectivity is prevalent in this test. Indeed, this test did it's best to actually objectify/quantify a specific combination of parameters that would elicit a common response in subjects. The hypothesis of such a test is that a correlation between specific parameters and percieved quality amoung most or all subjects can be observed. Now, to prove the theory...
Now, how do you go about this? The actual scope of this study was the perceptions, themselves, to confirm or deny a commonality that was theorized may exist. All irrelevant stimuli were removed, leaving the only relvant ones to be judged.
While this test's scope was the 'subjective perceptions' of quality. This was by no means a subjective test, as in an uncontrolled test scenario(just listening to various items, under sighted conditions, etc.)taht may be typicaly associated with the 'subjective' term if one is used to associating the words in that manner, as is common in audio forums. In the end, this test demonstrates that in fact, quality can be objectified/quantified for the overwhelming majority. The entire point of test: to objectify perceptual response.
You are writing just to read your own words here, and definately mudding the waters.. The goal was simple. They used a panel of 3000 SUBJECTIVE opinions through objective testing methods to obtain a result. But the basis of the result was not the objective method, it was the SUBJECTIVE PREFERENCES. Any time the word preference is used, objectivity cannot be used.



Because, lumped preference was teh objective of the test.
Yes, but you insist on complete objectivity, in other words based on your posts, there is no room for preferences, opinions, or testimonials. You should have completely rejected this test outright.



You are incorrect. In the proper scope, I value opinions.
Yes, that proper scope would be as long as it squares with your beliefs. Well, the world would be ignorant as hell if they made decisions based on your beliefs. You have never heard SACD or high rez PCM, and yet you reject it outright. Why would I believe a person who has never even heard a formats opinion on its feasibility. A person would have to be a idiot to do that!

In this case, the entire objective was to find a correlation of opinion vs. a real sound difference. As many variables as possible were removed that would otherwise contaminat the test. That's why it was DBT.
I know why it was DBT, so you could have saved the keystrokes.


Except that noone has even verified that SACD has any audible sound differences as opposed to RBCD...
Oh, but they have. I posted a white paper submitted by DCS which clearly outlined the differences between redbook and 24/96khz PCM, and 24/192khz PCM. You never even commented on it, which makes me believe that you never read it, or dismissed it because it didn't sqaure with your beliefs. The paper testing method have been scrutinized, and submitted to AES with no challenge.


Something sounds suspicous. What steps were taken to verify the results were not due to test error, signal distortion, etc.?
Oh, now something is wrong. They used the same method as the NRC. You found no problem with that, yet something is suspicious with this. That paid VERY careful attention not to skew the results in any way shape form or fashion. Source to redook, source to high rez. No downsampling from each source, no downconversion from another source, no eq, no post process at all, and level matched. The results stand for themselves, but you just cannot accept it. LOL!!!!


The NRC model tested a known, real audible difference set. However, other then that, it sounds similar.
Yes, but this test followed that method to the T, so if you had no problem with the NRC test, then you should have no problem with this test. If you do have a problem, I want you to state it right here, so everyone can see the inconsistancy of your every changing position.


Such presumption. That's the point. You have to provide substantiation IT IS an issue in the first place. Verificatino of claims. It's simple. Maybe someone has real psychic powers? No one has demonstrated this, either, in scientifically valid tests. But should I asumme they do exist? The issue is that certain abilities ahve been demonstrated, and it's not logical to assume that abilities beyond these are real until they ahve been verified to exist.
When it is provided, you dismiss it. Verification is only useful when a individual as a open enough mind to receive information that might be contrary to their beliefs. You have already demonstrated that you will reject anything that in contrary to your beliefs. So all the rest of the blather is useless to even mention.


When you state someting new in a fashion that is made as absolute, how else do you expect me to take it?
Well, it maybe new to you, but it is not new to everyone else. VERY high profile engineers have been claiming for years that high rez sounds better than redbook. The very idea that you think my claims are new shows that you are behind the curve with your knowledge of formats.

If you want to state once and for all that these are your opinions but dont want to make this clear in your text, as anyone should, then add it to your sig line. At least, then, it's very clear and renewed qualification for every new post. Until then, everytime you make a new post that is stated as absolute/fact, I can only take it in that manner.
I am going to once again tell you that you cannot tell me how to frame my words. I said in my post earlier that all information is my opinion, and my opinion just happens to be supported by hundreds of other audio engineers. If you cannot understand that, then there is nothing I can do but recommend going back to school. I am not going to continually state what I have already told you because you lack comprehensive skills. If you can't get it, then maybe you should not read posts, or post yourself.


Burr brown is not the only competant chip maker. It was given as an example. As for price points, I don't even have reason to believe a cheap CD player by RCA is of inferior sonic quality. David Clark(of The Audio Critic -- the hardlined objectivist publication) performed and alysis a few years back on components used in varying price points of modern electronics, and found no valid claims to be plausibel as to why 'hi-end' equipment would be audibly superior. Even the cheap modern parts were more then satisfactory for remaining under human JNDs.
Remember, this is just a testimonial until I SEE what was written. And keep in mind, you said components, not CD players, SACD players, or DVD-A players. Can you please clarify with the article?


Yet, hi-end consumer equipment has not exclusively shown to be superir in tests vs. normal grade consumer audio equipment in any controlled tests or by way of measurments correlating with JNDs.
Well, then why have some mags produced video or audio tests on equipment, and when compared to each other some products have higher noise level than others, or higher video noise than others which can be heard as grunge, or seen as artifiacts? There have been cases where high end product have measureable output performed budget components. You just haven't seen them(or didn't want to). My Sony DVD-V player definately measures better than a Apex DVD player in every respect. Can you explain that?



Now, I am aware of some hiend DACs that have no anti alias filter, such as some made by AUdio Note. I'm actually more surprised to find, say, an RCA that has audible levels of distortion in the output.
It's okay to be surprised, just don't be ignorant.


Well, this is a very important thing for this conversation.
I guess if you are majoring in minors.


Again, I have not seen any plausible excuse for any normal quality product to have audible problems. The filter topology, itself, is not realy a price consideration. The filter order/topology is essentially whatever the engineer chooses. He chooses the cutoff point and slope rate, as well as filter Q.
Please, whole worlds can be built on what you haven't seen. Do you claim to know all there is about audio?



No, I don't. Always is a strong word. I never stated that. In modern equpment, though, their is no practical reason why it should not be audibly transparent in any competant design. I won't hold modern $30 DVD/CD players to this standard, such as an Orbitron or something, though. They may very well have been designed on such a budget, that the quality of engineer was also a budget consideratin., or perhaps the engineer was not even given sufficient time to correctly analyse the design, due to budget restraints.

Chris, now you are BS'ing. You will take a high resolution live recording, downsample it, downconvert it, dither it, and think it will sound exactly like the original master? Not!! Have you even heard the effects of dither? Do you really think you can add dither, and it still be transparent compared to the original. Right!!!! You are talking in a vaccum.

Secondly you are making excuses and trying to explain away things that you have no idea about. Have you ever manufactuered a CD player, or a DVD player? NO! Have you ever took a CD player or DVD player apart and looked at it's insides? NO! Have you ever tested the anti aliasing filters in CD players and DVD players? NO, Have you ever talked to a engineer who designs CD and DVD players? NO! So how can you presume to know what they are thinking, what there design constrains are, the perfomance of any given product? You don't! You have approach the issues outlined here, and in the other post with too many No's and You don'ts how can you be taken seriously?



Not true. What a presumption you make.

Can you name even ONE study of anything that was done on everyone on this earth??? You can't, so there is no presumption here at all. Testing for anything(and everything) has only been done on a fraction of the population of this earth. Until you get them all, then nothing is for certain.




I am aware of historical examples of electronics that had problems in audibility.

Once again, whole worlds can be built on what you are not aware of. Stanley Blackman's paper pointed out that most players(CD and DVD alike) have some sort of problems with their filters that have varying degrees of audibility.



The original Sony CDP101 or some similar model number that was first released, for example. It's also generally agreed that most of the earliest CD players had problems with the reconsctruction anti-aliasing filters.

And Mr. Blackman's paper pointed out they are still having problems with the filters.



That's why upsampling/oversampling orginally popped up, to implement sharper, higher precision filters.

A SHARPER filter is the problem Chris!!! And the purpose of oversampling/upsampling was so LESS sharp and more gentle filter can be used. However oversampling can increase clock jitter. Most mid and low priced CD and DVD players do not have good jitter rejection at the input clock just before the DAC. So oversampling is not a pancea, and is really just another band aid applied to a insuffient medium. Upsampling can improve the audio, has none of the drawbacks of oversampling, but is usually found only in high end players, or outboard DAC's. This hardly takes care of the problem for the masses. Why bother to do that when you just sample the audio at a higher rate at recording, and maintain the same sample rate to the outputs of the player. No steep filters are needed, and no oversampling(making jitter less a problem).



Since precision implementation overall has now improved in all aspects of design/manufacture, over/upsampling is probably no longer a need, but I don't want to speculate. It does matter either way since over/upsampling is a standard thing in DACs, and that does work.

Since you have never visited a manufacturer site, then you do not know if implementation has in improved at all. Upsampling is not universal, and oversampling creates as many problems as it solves, and filter are only a little better performers than previous filters designs because of the drive towards lower cost products.



So far the ONLY thing have you been able to argue/debate, thus dragging these stupid threads out of proportion, are things like the two monitor crap, or arguing one's hard drive capacity when it was never brought up

Wasn't it you who mentioned how easy and inexpensive it was to do recording through computers. Yet you have never recorded this way, and really have no idea how much it costs. Since the hard drive issue was part of you uniformed computer Remember, this was your lame way of trying to gloss over stuff that you have no idea about. You are really quite good at this


trying to equate a controlled test that is designed to objectify subjective interpretaions with another form of subjective

Or was it you who attempted to make this test completely objective, when in reality it is based on subjective opinions and preferences, and not anything objective at all. Spin spin spin Chris!!!!


or nitpicking some preamp you really have not objective data to offer about it, jsut more testimonials

You were the one who presented the preamp based on a testimonial in the first place, or did you forget about that. You doing just what Mtry does, you rile against testimonials, then you turn around and present one yourself, from a person who means nothing to anyone but you. You never heard the preamp(I have) you have never used the preamp, yet your profound personal experience in recording using computers allowed you to recommend it unheard.


or trying to once again submit your opinions and testimonials as if they are facts then attempting to justify not having to specify they are 'only opinions' when they are

I believe it was you that pointed out this line from my previous post.

Terrence: "I never stated anything as FACT(that's what you gathered), its is a broad based opinion. While you are quick to dimiss it, I am not."

Chris= If this is a standing qualifiacation that is to apply to everything you stated in regards to audbility of hi-res audio, then it looks like most of that 400+ post thread was teh result of statement errors

So now you are trying to turn this completely around and say that I am submitting my opinions as fact again!!!!!!. If you pointed out this line in my post, then why don't read it yourself? It plainly states that I am presenting a BROAD BASED OPINION THAT MANY OTHER ENGINEERS SEEM TO SHARE. Now that I have made this clear to you, you can stop mentioning it, along with bandwidth. (geez, I cannot believe this guy doesn't read his own stuff!! is anyone home!!!! tap tap tap)



,
or ignorantly arguing about 48kHz sample rate when it was no real part of the original discussion(though it was entertaining watching you plead it's not a standard when any John can verify at aes.org) or any other irrelevant small detail that is not the main subject, or even important to the 1st string of tangents, nor requires explanation in the discussion.

Ignorantly arguing??? Well you have yet to show me what audio format 48khz is a standard in. Where is it Chris? Here you look like a complete fool. EVERYONE knows that redbook is 44.1khz, EVERYONE knows that DVD-A is 24/96khz, and EVERYONE knows that SACD is not based on that sample rate. READ IT AGAIN, nowhere does it state anywhere it was adopted, NOWHERE. There is absolutely no evidence it was adopted for any audio format. If it has been, show me the goods, or put a sock in it. These tired, immature emotional outburst are annoying coming from a grown man.

I think I can answer for myself, you and I think nothing alike, so you cannot possibly answer for me. You rather immature, and quite frankly stupid comments are not representative of what I would say anyway.


Yes, I ahve done basic recording, etc. using software such as Adobe Audition. On a 1600x1200 resolution setting, their are no problems for this purpose. I never suggested a display set up suitable for full scale music productin station. To suggest two minotors for basic recording/editing is rediculous and unwarranted.

Chris, if you go to any audio school you won't be taught Adobe audition. No studio I have ever been in uses Adobe Audition. No one that I know who works freelance uses Adobe Audition. Pro tools is the standard software for both the audio and film recording field. This is software for amateurs, and is not representative of what would be found in a professional environment. I suppose you used radio shack microphones, with the noisy rolls mike preamp for the remainder of your setup. At 1600x1200 the graphics would be so small it would be impossible to get accurate level readings anyway. Amateurish software, and amateurish approach.

Since I already responded to the drivel that you have written, I will not labor myself to respond this silly crap you posted below this. But I will add my own take to this.

My name is Chris. I have recorded some audio using amateurish audio software designed by a company who's claim to fame is the PDF file, which by the way is non audio related.

I have never been in a studio, but I know the recording process in and out. I have never downsampled, downconverted, mixed, mastered, eq'd, compressed or limited a single piece of audio( I have only recorded and edited on a computer), yet I know for a fact that when I do this, it will be perfectly transparent when compared to the master tapes. I have never setup a single microphone in my life, but I know how to record with a great deal of skill. I have personally heard every CD and DVD player, and can confirm without a doubt that the all filters do not degrade the signal one bit, and are easy and economical to design(since I am a expert in the manufacturering process I know deez tings). I believe that based on specifications the redbook standard is perfect for digital audio, and should never be improved upon. There is no statisical evidence that high rez sounds better than redbook even though a link with a dCs DBT test that says otherwise was provided. I just discounted it because I said redbook is good enough. I use quotes from respected engineers as long as the support what I believe. If that same engineer does not support what I believe, that portion of his writings is invalid and dismissed.

I sent a email to a very respected audio engineer regarding a peak on one of his companies CD's. When he gave a very thorough explainantion of what he did, and his analysis of the CD, I dismissed it even though he was the audio engineer with the master tapes. I know more than he does because I have recorded on my little computer with big time audio software Adobe Audition.

There is nothing I don't know about digital audio, I know it all. So nobody can challenge me, or the are just exposing opinion or testimonials. Only I can do that!

Sir Terrence is going to provide me a link to an objective DBT of both high rez formats, and the author's conclusions.

http://www.athensmastering.com/en/MultiFormatEvent.en.html

Because he says that 24/96khz sounds better than 16/44.1khz, I am going to dismiss this too as just a testimonial. When you know as much as I do about digital audio, you can do that.

[E-Stat]

I have never been in a studio...
I had to pick myself off the floor. :)

I'm sure glad someone steering the recording "ship" knows what is going on!

rw

[WmAxII]

Sir Terrence, your disability to comprehend basic things is still a treat to read. Thank you.

Unfortunately, I can no longer post on this site. As you will notice the 'Suspended' under my WmAx moniker. I registered this name just to say goodbye. :-)

Later.

-Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Dang, Dang, Dang!!!!!!!!.

Just when this was getting fun. I am really going to miss Chris. I liked his tenacity, and his drive to make his point. Unfortunately his lack of hands on experience makes his perspective a little niave, shortsighted, rather inefficient, and compartmentalized. When all you do is read, read, read, and never get to put what you read in action, this is what happens.

Chris builds speakers, so measurements mean alot to him. Unfortunately measurements tell you nothing about how that speaker sounds. Measurements are only half the story for me. It takes measurements and LISTENING to tell the whole story. Redbook specifications tell us that the CD is perfect for digital audio. But the question remains, how does it sound when compared to the original master. The CD is obviously not doing very well in that area.

Good luck to Chris, I hope one(or more) of the speakers he designs is successful(Listen to them first Chris!!)

[krabapple]

N. Absentia said:

"I bought Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon SACD, and even though I can only listen to the hybrid part of it on a standard CD player it sounds AMAZING!"

I've noticed this with Nektar's "Journey to the Centre of the Eye" as well. I don't have a SACD player, but when I play the CD using Pro Logic II-or even just straight stereo-it sounds incredible. The panning effects are great and it's one of the most dramatic CD remasters I've ever heard. For those who may have heard Nektar's original back catalog on CD, you know what I'm talking about ;)

Don't know if this is the case for 'Journey' but for 'Remember the Future', the two-track mix comes from the the original 'matrixed' quadraphonic (SQ) master tape (four channels matrixed into two), which decodes fairly well using Dolby Pro Logic II (and presumably even better if you have a quad decoder).

The new surround mix is also derived from the quad mix, this time decoded and with a new 'center' channel synthesized.

[krabapple]

You're so right about that. The most laughable part of these format debates is that NOBODY, aside a professional recording engineer, has access to the master source material that you would need to conduct a proper and equitable listening test. If you really want to test the SACD format versus CD, you'd have to have something recorded in DSD and PCM simultaneously, and then comparably mixed and mastered. As far as I know, no source out there is available for hobbyists like us that allows for this kind of comparable evaluation. Everything is either an analog, PCM, or DSD source and then transferred and/or converted into the playback format. If you're doing a true test of the format itself, you have to eliminate the other potential variables including the format conversions, and nothing I've seen even comes close to meeting this kind of standard.

i agree compeltely.

[QUOTE]With Dark Side of the Moon, keep in mind that for that 30th anniversary hybrid disc a BRAND NEW two-channel master tape got created with the involvement of the band members and David Guthrie (who engineered several of Floyd's later albums; Alan Parsons, the original recording engineer, was not involved). This isn't even a format-related change, this is a completely different master source since they are not using the original two-track master tape that was used in the 1973 release and subsequent rereleased and remastered editions. They had an opportunity to do this because in order to create a 5.1 mix, the mixing engineer has to go all the way back to the multitrack session tapes (not just the "original master tape") and generate a completely new mixdown. This affords the opportunity to do the mixdowns without the degradations that would have occurred using the kinds of 1973-vintage analog tape machines that generated the original mix. From what I understand, the new hybrid DSOTM also made some changes in how certain sounds got mixed in (levels, imaging cues, etc.), so the end result is not necessarily comparable.

Actually, I don''t think they created a new 2-channel mix, at least not according to any interviews with Guthrie et al that I've read. What's your source for this?



Improving upon the original CD issue would not be that difficult. In my comparisons with the Mobile Fidelity half-speed mastered LP version, it wasn't even close. The low level linearity of the CD was flawed and almost had a "fuzzy" sound, whereas the LP sounded much cleaner especially during the low level passages.

What is 'low level linearity'? Linear as compared to what? The master tape?

[QUOTE] Almost makes me wonder what generation master tape Capitol/EMI was using for that transfer, because the LP actually sounded quieter in my A/B comparisons.

That might be acclimation to LP noise -- or the CD layer of the SACD brought up the tape noise due to compression.

[Eric Li]

Hi all,
I just join this audio review and I'm quite interested to learn more about SACD from all of you. I have one Cambridge and one Samsung CD/DVD player which can play SACD. I had connected these players to the Denon 4308 amp. with a set of Klipsch speakers. I'm looking forward to hear better music after having your advice. Thanks. Eric Li from Hong Kong.

[hifitommy]

see quote below:








































































































'
<table id="post46784" class="tborder" width="100%" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td class="alt2" width="175"> hifitommy (http://forums.audioreview.com/member.php?u=210559) <script type="text/javascript"> vbmenu_register("postmenu_46784", true); </script>
Forum Regular

http://forums.audioreview.com/image.php?u=210559&dateline=1073778848 (http://forums.audioreview.com/member.php?u=210559)

user gallery (http://gallery.audioreview.com/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=210559)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
Posts: 723
http://forums.audioreview.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif


</td> <td class="alt1" id="td_post_46784"> <!-- icon and title --> reply point for point
<hr style="color: rgb(65, 103, 122);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> 1. people can keep coughing up the vomit that rbcd is transparent to the source and that SACDs only benefit is wider bandwidth.

Is that a benefit for SACD? Or, just is wiout any real benefit to the consumer?

1: see-[B] the benefit is higher sampling frequency and the wider bandwidth allows the sound more ease.

1b: Sheer speculation on your part.

1b-no speculation involved, its much like recording in a bigger room to avoid room overload.

2.gargle the technical babble all you want, sacd is more transparent to the original than rbcd PERIOD.

You are correct in that you can speculate all you want, but no evidence, not fact.

2-again, not speculation, its FACT, one you cant grasp.

3.open your damned ears and LISTEN for a change.


3.Listen to what? For what?

3-EXACTLY! you have no idea what to listen for.

4.as much as i love vinyl, i am not so asleep that i maintain that it cant be exceeded.

4.But you have been asleep for decades, since the dawn of CD. Time to wake up to reality.

4-yes, ive been figuratively sleeping in wait for better sound for the consumer. reality has arrived in the form of sacd. thank the digitla gods.

5.fact is, the music wasnt available in vinyl and its the music i am really after.

5.You could have fooled us all with your postings.

5-you are easily fooled. and misdirected. common sense doesnt sink in. too dense.

6.but i DO want it to sound better

6.Then you need to work on the speakers and your room. Buy quality recordings, the ones that don't compress music.

6-http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/588.html some work has already been done.

7.and thats where sacd has taken digital sound,

7.Actually, while you were asleep, CD has done that a long time ago. Hello?

7-unfortunately, cd didnt deliver, goodbye!

8.and as a consumer, i think it wise to support the format of most capability.

8.Then one should buy a universal player. Simple.

8-not all sound good in both formats, some convert dsd to pcm (aka vomit).
<!-- / message --> <!-- sig --> __________________
...regards...tr"




the above quote is a hijacked post. i did NOT post that. some IDIOT did that!!!

do NOT attribute that to me PLEEEEEESE!!!


<!-- / sig --> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt2"> [B]Online<!-- http://forums.audioreview.com/images/statusicon/user_online.gif --> http://forums.audioreview.com/images/buttons/reputation.gif (http://forums.audioreview.com/reputation.php?p=46784) </td> <td class="alt1" align="right"> <!-- controls --> http://forums.audioreview.com/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://forums.audioreview.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=46784)</td></tr></tbody></table>

[bobsticks]

God, I miss Terrence...

[hifitommy]

too. no BSing there!

[ericmc5]

I've been so busy with Music Creator 5, exploring it's possibilties I've neglected my A/V account.http://forums.audioreview.com/images/smilies/23.gif

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Wow, why would the last poster bring this dead thread back from the grave???

[hifitommy]

well loooook who IS back from the dead!

;^)

[lomarica]

the post got long winded (as usual) but the original post is correct. I have raised this issue before. Try Dire Straits Brother in Arms fantastic on my Mark Levison Lexus car stereo which reads DVD audio not sacd. The difference is amazing. I also have the same disk not recorded sacd.

I wish the sacd was more mainstream, but that is an entire different post.

[Vinylly]

I have to agree with you. My SACD's sound much better then regular CD's on my regular CD player. Case in point, 'Antiphone Blues' is just incredible on my Meridian 508 player.

[hifitommy]

only if a better remastering job was done in the cd layer would an sacde sound better on a regular CDP. my finding is that regular CDs sound better on sacd players due to the upsampling odne by the SACDP.

[Woochifer]

only if a better remastering job was done in the cd layer would an sacde sound better on a regular CDP. my finding is that regular CDs sound better on sacd players due to the upsampling odne by the SACDP.

Not sure if the upsampling alone would be the cause, given how many regular CD players can also perform that function. I think a couple of factors are in play with SACD players.

First, SACD players eventually transitioned over to dual function DACs that natively process both DSD and PCM signals. There are a very limited number of chips to choose from, but it just so happens that they are very high quality components. The Burr-Brown DSD-17XX series performed well enough that Arcam chose it for their highly acclaimed CD72 players, even though that model did not play SACDs at all.

Second, even the entry level SACD players were built with high quality components in the analog sections to handle the SACD format's higher resolution. Building to a higher spec for SACD can also have side benefits for regular CD playback.

[Woochifer]

I have to agree with you. My SACD's sound much better then regular CD's on my regular CD player. Case in point, 'Antiphone Blues' is just incredible on my Meridian 508 player.

As hifitommy indicated, the difference you're observing would likely be better mastering done on the CD layer.

From my experience with comparing different CD and SACD versions, the mastering can make a huge difference -- even greater than with SACD's higher resolution.

For example, with Mobile Fidelity's CD/SACD releases, they create the CD layer using the same ultra high resolution playback/digital conversion setup that they use to create the SACD layer. (They use a highly customized analog tape player with supposedly one of the widest frequency responses ever attained to do the transfer) MoFi's engineers also tweak with the settings to optimize the sound quality by ear. Again, these same quality control steps are used while creating both the CD and SACD.

The original CD release might have resulted from a bad transfer, or the engineers had a different reference sound in mind during the mastering process. When comparing my MoFi CD/SACDs with other CD versions, I notice that the CD and SACD layers on the MoFi version sound more similar to each other than they do to the other CD version.