sacd superior to rbcd

vinyl superior to both? thats been conjectured. if one uses the instruments attached to the sides of his head, he will be picking sacd over rbcd. objections to the artifacts of vinyl playback will be cited in the vinyl vs sacd question.

the jury is still out on sacd vs vinyl. both are relaxing and satisfying in a way that rbcd cannot accomplish.

...regards...tr

While I don't want to get into a "this medium is superior to this medium" debate, I would agree that in the vast majority of my experiences, vinyl is clearly and audibly superior to rbcd, although there are exceptions. The few SACD's I've heard are also superior to rbcd and the lack of noise is one area I'd consider it superior to vinyl. Sonically, I've found nothing lacking with SACD, although I haven't really spent much time comparing it to vinyl - or rbcd for that matter.

Have you seen or heard about Mark Levinson's theory that PCM leads to mental exhaustion/irritability?

the brain has to work to fill in the spaces between the 44.1k samples whereas with analog, and now it seems, sacd, that isnt necessary.

if you have read my posts on dig vs ana, you will remember that i had mentioned a more relaxed and satisfied feeling after listening to vinyl than with rbcd. this correlates with the levinson assertion.

but its all floobie dust you know. yup, we are lying to ourselves.

...regards...tr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hifitommy

the brain has to work to fill in the spaces between the 44.1k samples whereas with analog, and now it seems, sacd, that isnt necessary.

---

No, the DAC reconstructs the wave content up to about 22 kHz. Since you can't hear anything above that, and probably not even that high, that is not a problem.

So, while you may not like ordinary CDs, you have not provided a good explanation. I suspect it is a difference in frequency balance between the LP and CD versions.

Difference in frequency balance - that is a likely explanation for why most CD's sound shrill and grainy. The LP has a more natural frequency balance, in most cases. I'd say you're correct. But what is it that causes this frequency imbalance in CD? Most people would say it's the recording or mastering. Do you agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb122

Difference in frequency balance - that is a likely explanation for why most CD's sound shrill and grainy. The LP has a more natural frequency balance, in most cases. I'd say you're correct. But what is it that causes this frequency imbalance in CD? Most people would say it's the recording or mastering. Do you agree?

---

Well, you see, most of my CDs do not sound shrill and grainy. Maybe it's because I listen mostly to classical music, or maybe it's because I often do my research. But I have too many good CDs to just put it down to luck, although that plays some role. Anyway, many of my CD reissues seem to have been done right, especially by Decca/London, and many of them were pretty early 80's. No need for a super-remastering job there! And some of those early digital recordings were very fine: for example, some of the early Telarc digital recordings are fantastic, not to mention London and Denon.

Anyway, popular music fans seem to have a different experience.

The CD technology can provide a very flat FR--what you put in should be very, very close to what you get out. Not to mention low system noise (can't help the tape master, room, microphones, mixers, etc.) Rumour has it that some earlier CDs were made from the LP cutting master tape, which would probably result in very raised highs (LPs require EQ on playback to cut down those highs, and the record noise with it). I have heard some awful CDs in my day. I suppose they could plead ignorance, learning curve, and so on. :rolleyes:

I remember some of the magazines wrote up some comparisons of the frequency balance of the CD and LP issues of some recordings, also stereo separation, but I can't remember the detailed results.

As well, many phono cartridges have a mild dip in the treble which may make them sound smoother. Anyway, I do have some LP that sound as good or better than the CD version, but on the whole, not.

Recordings originally done with CD in mind should sound pretty good, and there's no real excuse for them not to. The same with the new formats, SACD and DVD-A.

So yeah, I think the recording and mastering and all that are most likely the reason, but it's hard for the consumer to be sure in any individual case. But I don't care: if it sounds good, it sounds good.

"reconstructs the wave content up to about 22 kHz. Since you can't hear anything above that, and probably not even that high, that is not a problem.


two samples at 22k, four at 11k, etc, cant accurately reproduce the complexity of those waveforms. sine waves yes, musical complexity, no.

" I suspect it is a difference in frequency balance between the LP and CD versions"

it isnt the balance, its that its the lack of datal. hence the cited 'spray can' sound of rbcd cymbals.

upsampling mitigates this to some degree, i found this out when i got my sacdp. my rbcds are more listenable now.

...regards...tr

isnt necessary nor used in competent reissues. listen to some of the sacd reissues. bs+t for example. maybe even slightly more laid back than the original.

phono cartridges mostly had a dip in the mids, if anything. in the top, a rising freq response was more the norm, especially with our beloved moving coil carts. this was mastered later in the game, sometimes by phono preamp designers, sometimes by cartridge designers.

as i have mentioned before, my sacdp renders rbcd much nicer than a conventional rbcdp. i am much happier with rbcd sound now. my collection is much more enjoyable.

i am afraid the gap between vinyl and rbcd cant be simply explained away with freq balance. the detail and relaxation resulting from analog playback is not available on rbcd.

...regards...tr

" two samples at 22k, four at 11k, etc, cant accurately reproduce the complexity of those waveforms. sine waves yes, musical complexity, no"


Nonsense. You just don't understand th eissues so you make up stuff and repeat bs by others.



" upsampling mitigates this to some degree, i found this out when i got my sacdp. my rbcds are more listenable now.

...regards...tr"

False again. Oversampling has been used for a very long time.

Please do your homwork on the technical aspects

"the brain has to work to fill in the spaces between the 44.1k samples whereas with analog, and now it seems, sacd, that isnt necessary."

The brain doesn't fill in here anything as there is nothing to fill in. Simple concept.


"if you have read my posts on dig vs ana, you will remember that i had mentioned a more relaxed and satisfied feeling after listening to vinyl than with rbcd. this correlates with the levinson assertion."

Yes, it is only an unsupported assertion. Bias maybe at work.

I don't really care much about the technical aspects of these debates. Most of us don't have the equipment, access to source materials, time or patience to really do anywhere near a conclusive comparison. There's no question that plenty of CDs sound inferior to their vinyl counterparts. But, is this format driven or more a reflection of the quality of the transfer? The problem with CD transfers, particularly recordings done when the LP was dominant, is that there's a lot of variability in terms of how the original masters were prepared. Simply doing a straight transfer from an "original master tape" might deviate quite a bit from what the artist or producer intended because that master might have been prepared specifically with the vinyl medium in mind.

I read an article about the steps that Classic Records goes through when they prepare one of their reissues in the high res 96/24 DVD and 192/24 DVD-A formats. Before doing anything, Bernie Grundman (one of the better mastering engineers out there) tries to find an early pressing of a particular album from the record company libraries. Then he does a playback of that LP pressing and compares it to the "original" master tape. If he's lucky, the session notes will have the original EQ settings and notes on any processing that occurred during the mixdown, and he uses that information in preparing the high resolution transfer. In his view, the vinyl playback hints at what the recording engineer intended. Obviously, with 96/24 resolution, it will sound different. But, all of his prep work tries to ensure that the originally intended sound is recreated, except with the higher resolution. I've bought a few of Classic's 96/24 PCM discs and they sound amazingly clean and free from any hint of harshness.

I seriously doubt that in the rush to reissue all of their backcatalog in the CD format, the major record companies took a lot of care to ensure that master tapes originally mixed and EQ'd to sound ideal for vinyl were redone so that the CD versions did not sound overly harsh. That might explain why with so many of these recent "newly remastered" CD reissues, the remastered version is typically more subdued in the highs than the original CD issue. That would also explain why on more recent recordings, the CD version typically sounds better than the LP version. Even with the current wave of CD remasters (presumably to try and get us to keep rebuying old albums over and over), there are still plenty of albums that never got remastered and are still the harsh, tinny sounding CDs that audiophiles hate and blame on the format itself.

The great thing about SACD and DVD-A is that creating the multichannel mixes for these recordings requires going all the way back to the original multitracked masters. This opens up all kinds of potential for maintaining the integrity of the original source material, and it creates a mix that was done specifically with a high res digital format in mind. You're no longer getting something that originally got prepped to compensate for the vinyl medium. Plus, you're now getting a multichannel mix. Even with the two-channel mixes, these represent opportunities to revisit albums that might have gotten a shoddy CD transfer. Irregardless of whether it's format driven or a byproduct of better mastering, I've been very impressed with the quality of the SACD, DVD-A, and 96/24 PCM discs that I've heard thus far. And the addition of multichannel mixes is just a nice side benefit.

b seriously doubt that in the rush to reissue all of their backcatalog in the CD format, the major record companies took a lot of care to ensure that master tapes originally mixed and EQ'd to sound ideal for vinyl were redone so that the CD versions did not sound overly harsh.

The record companies were trying to get their new CD's on the shelf fast, weren't they? That probably has more to do with it than anything. But, as you mentioned, I don't want to get into medium wars. As Pat D said, if it sounds good, it sounds good. It's not as if I have no CD's that sound great. I admit, they are few and far between but, in the grand scheme of things and even though it may seem as though all I do is gripe about sound quality of CD's, my silver discs get a lot of playing time in my home. Then again, I spin a fair amount of shellac as well! Excellent sound quality is nice but I'd listen to a portable transistor radio if that's all I had!

Skeptic has said that the classical music labels take more care in the remastering from LP to CD as a rule. He's probably correct. As you said, if it sounds good, it sounds good and I couldn't agree more. I'm not qualified to make technical arguments so I'll stick with the sound in whatever the format.

As Hifitommy mentioned, phono cartridges don't dip in the treble, the MC's rise if anything but the better MC's don't do that anymore. The issues I have with CD's are usually in the lower treble/upper midrange. It isn't the reportedly extended HF that grates on me at all.

Thanks for the insightful post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb122

As Hifitommy mentioned, phono cartridges don't dip in the treble, the MC's rise if anything but the better MC's don't do that anymore. The issues I have with CD's are usually in the lower treble/upper midrange. It isn't the reportedly extended HF that grates on me at all.

---

Some cartridges do have a dip in the treble--that's the part above the upper midrange. Many cartridges, not only some MCs, do have a rise in the extreme highs, well above 10 kHz. The amount of capacitance will affect my Grace F9E phono cartridge quite a bit. My Quad 44 preamp has a switch on top to add 180 pF capacitance, if desired, which gently rolls off the highs, according to the meters on my old EQ and using my old test LPs. Without the added capacitance, it measured pretty flat with the meters on the EQ.

As well, some LP recordings roll off the highs somewhat above the midrange, as I found when long ago I tried to equalize a few CDs to make them sound closer to the LP. Not a very exact method, of course, and I didn't try to check out many recordings that way--too much trouble.

Cartridges with dips and peaks are, IMHO, defective, even if they are by design. You're probably correct but any cartridge with a dip in the treble is something I'd stay clear of.

not much light in these "this format is better than that format" debates.

I think the first consideration must be given to the personal interests of your sources: do they want to sell you something? Any prognostication from a manufacturer is suspect in my view because my wallet is involved.

The second consideration is that your ears are digital: those little hairs (coccli) in your inner ear are each tuned to a specific frequency, and each nerve cell 'fires' (a 1 in the digital world) only when the nerve cells' coccli responds to the presence of its specific frequency. So a digital source only has to offer a resolution greater than the resolution provided by the coccli in your ears. Other distortion products may come from the analog side of the CD/DVD player.

The third consideration is that I have both DECCA and DECCA LONDON LP's in my collection, and the DECCA LP's will ALWAYS sound clearly far superior to the DECCA LONDON LP's when the performance was recorded in England or Europe because the DECCA LP's were mastered in England while the DECCA LONDON LP's were mastered in the USA. This was because US Customs always had to touch the pressing masters sent from England, which always damaged those pressing masters, so DECCA resorted to sending tapes which would not be damaged by Customs' touchy-feely. Interestingly enough, US performances on US LP's would sound better than US performances on English/European LP reissues. So the quality and the "slant" of the mastering/remastering most probably accounts for ALL differences that are perceived between LP's, CD's, etc. etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb122

Cartridges with dips and peaks are, IMHO, defective, even if they are by design. You're probably correct but any cartridge with a dip in the treble is something I'd stay clear of.

---

Well, I wouldn't necessarily go that far if I preferred the cartridge. But since you do, how do you determine whether the cartridge has a flat response, as so few are reviewed nowadays? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtrycrafts

Yes, it is only an unsupported assertion. Bias maybe at work.

---

The only thing he is asserting is what his feeling was. If he doesn't know what his feeling was, who does? Nothing "unsupported" at all with what he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pctower

The only thing he is asserting is what his feeling was. If he doesn't know what his feeling was, who does? Nothing "unsupported" at all with what he said.

---

Sorry but he didn't express a feeling but made a statement of fact how the brain works in reconstructing or hearing sampled music or anything, for that matter. Total nonsense. One only has to look at the amp output to see what signals are output.
One can compare the raw analog and the analog after A/D and D/A conversions.

The brain doesn't need to interpolate for anything that is missing. Nothing is missing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woochifer

The great thing about SACD and DVD-A is that creating the multichannel mixes for these recordings requires going all the way back to the original multitracked masters. This opens up all kinds of potential for maintaining the integrity of the original source material, and it creates a mix that was done specifically with a high res digital format in mind. You're no longer getting something that originally got prepped to compensate for the vinyl medium. Plus, you're now getting a multichannel mix. Even with the two-channel mixes, these represent opportunities to revisit albums that might have gotten a shoddy CD transfer. Irregardless of whether it's format driven or a byproduct of better mastering, I've been very impressed with the quality of the SACD, DVD-A, and 96/24 PCM discs that I've heard thus far. And the addition of multichannel mixes is just a nice side benefit.

---

If we are lucky to have multi channel masters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pctower

The only thing he is asserting is what his feeling was. If he doesn't know what his feeling was, who does? Nothing "unsupported" at all with what he said.

---

Well, actually, PC, he Tommy asserted more than that:

"if you have read my posts on dig vs ana, you will remember that i had mentioned a more relaxed and satisfied feeling after listening to vinyl than with rbcd. this correlates with the levinson assertion."

First of all, he reports a more relaxed and satisfying feeling after listening to LPs than ordinary CDs. Well, it's his impression, but there is actually a testable claim in there about the correlation of his feelings, or at least his reports of his feelings, with CD and LP.

Second, he relates this to some claim attributed to Levinson, probably the one about the brain having to fill in alleged gaps. But of course, the DAC is what reconstructs the wave forms. Anyway, since he hasn't established there is anything in the CD that requires a technical explanation, he has proposed a solution without establishing there is a problem. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb122

Difference in frequency balance - that is a likely explanation for why most CD's sound shrill and grainy. The LP has a more natural frequency balance, in most cases. I'd say you're correct. But what is it that causes this frequency imbalance in CD? Most people would say it's the recording or mastering. Do you agree?

---

Yeah, that's my guess. New CDs, at least the classical news, generally sound better than the ones made years ago, especially the LP reissues. Maybe it's 20 bit process but the bigger factor is probably smarter EQ by the engineers.

My preferance, biased maybe, and definitely based on the equipment I own is:
1) SACD
2) CD
3) Vinyl

No, better CDs don't sound "grainy and etched" to me (despite my amp being Phase Linear 400 circa 1978). Maybe its my SACD and CD players, or maybe it's my ears that are 58 years old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtrycrafts

If we are lucky to have multi channel masters.

---

Yup, I've started hearing about some albums originally slated for a multichannel DVD-A remix, only to have the project cancelled because not all of the original multitracked master tapes could be located. Steely Dan's "Aja" is an example. That was slated for a DVD-A treatment, but the multitrack masters for two songs turned up missing, so the project's on hold until those tapes can be located. They could do a two-track release, but unlike with SACD, I've yet to see any DVD-As released with only the two-channel soundtrack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woochifer

I've yet to see any DVD-As released with only the two-channel soundtrack.

---

That woul dbe waste of time and effort. :)

as you yourself have said, dolby pro logic and DPLII are effective in reproducing the ambience effects. to take advantage of the full hi rez surround format, you need a pre/pro or receiver with the requisite discrete inputs for hi rez.

the time waste comes in by not releasing things in hi rez. no catalog, no customers, no hi rez. lets release them in hybrid format so people will have the hi rez discs in their hands when the equipment manufacturers catch up.

...regards...tr

"The brain doesn't need to interpolate for anything that is missing. Nothing is missing"

plenty is missing. otherwise, why develop a higher rez recording format? rbcd can reproduce the FREQUENCIES up to 21k but not the complex WAVEFORM SHAPE at that frequency level. also, sound doesnt stop suddenly at 20k.

[QUOTE=hifitommy
plenty is missing. .[/QUOTE]

Actually, that brings up a question: Do RBCD's sound wrong because something is missing or because of additive distortions, in your opinion?

BTW, I picked up the Sony SACD player you recommended. While I can't comment on RBCD sound differences, the diffs between RB and SACD is pronounced! I just bought a dozen new SACD's to go with the player and it's by far the finest digital sound I've heard. It rivals good vinyl and, in some key areas, it bests good vinyl. Too early for me to tell if it will surpass the LP. Thanks for the tip, bro!

glad you finally got the opportunity to hear real digital. i am slowly building my sacd inventory and even have a dts and dvda or two. they will play on the new player and they dont sound horrible.

havent you compared the rbcd section with your old rbcd? Admittedly i didn't have an aggressive rbc d player before but it was respectable (philips cdr/alchemy ditb). i find the sony to be head and shoulders above any ive had in the house.

there is much more software becoming available all the time for sacd and buy the current rolling stone for mag, theres a sacd sampler and big article in it about hi rez. PLUS, you take the disc to a cc store and if theres a 10th track, you win 3 sacds or a sony dream system (worth about $500). i guess theyre getting serious about the format now.

as would be expected, the cc personnel didnt know a damn thing about the promo when i went in. i won the 3 sacds but intend to buy another copy or two of the mag to up my chances for a nice bedroom system.

check out the hi rez asylum at AA, its pretty active and informative.

That last post entitled "Balony" wasn't mine. I don't know what's going on, but either someone has pre-empted by moniker or there's a bug in the software.

This has never happened to me before.

Which Sony SACD player is it. I've had a Marantz 8260 which I bought used about a year ago, and have only started to seriously listen to SACD, and the more I listen the more impressed I am. For the first time this morning, I played around with some different ICs and PCs (nothing special, just some old RCAs I had gathering dust - everything else in my system is XLR) and it really opened up with the right combination.

Even on redbook it is not embarrased in comparison to my mega-buck CEC TL-1X (with Richard Kern installed Reference Audio Mods modification package) and AudioLogic DAC (with the new output transformer replacement for the output tubes). But the SACD performance takes it to another level.

A while back, Richard Greene asked if I had comparred the redbook layer of any hybrid disk with the SACD layer. This morning was the first chance I had to do that. I played one of the Stones SACD discs on my redbook front end and then switched it to the Marantz for an SACD comparison. The SACD layer played on the 8260 blew away the same disk played on my dedicated redbook front end.

Of course, this comparison was all sighted so most here will demanding "proof", but I'm sure if you have been listening a lot to an SACD source, you know what I'm talking about. I'll leave the proof to those who have the patience for such stuff.

[QUOTE=pctower]Which Sony SACD player is it.

It's the DVP-NS755V which I bought for $225. It looks like a typical low priced Sony CDP, all plastic. But it sounds wonderful. I'm sure it's not the last word in SACD playback but it certainly gives me a healthy insight into what the high rez digital fuss is all about. I've compared the hybrid discs myself, redbook to SACD and I amazingly find the redbook layer to sound pretty durn good! But not up to the level of the SACD level. No, it doesn't constitute proof, as you said, but let me tell you something about acquiring this proof.

I started posting on A/R about 3 years ago. A few years before that I participated in some blind testing of solid state preamps. We used 3 different brands that cost about the same (around $3-400, as I recall), the preamp out on a cheap Japanese receiver and a megabuck unit, all SS and all measured the same. We found sonic differences in all 5 of these units, as proven by our scores. To do so, we went through something like 18 trials per test and did 3 tests per comparison. Testing all 5 took a lot of time, effort, sweat and it merely proved something that we knew all along, that measurements, while important, are only part of the sonic picture. It was a WASTE of time.

I've posted this before. Once a poster told me I "owed" it to the world of science to repeat these tests. I told him "fuggedaboudit"! There is no reason for ME to do it again when ANYBODY with normal hearing can do it for themselves and prove it for themselves. I proved it to the person I need to prove it to - ME! :)

The points are 1) do all SS preamps that measure the same sound the same? Not on your life. 2) Have I tested this? Yes, I have 3) Do I want to test again? Sure, right after I test the time it takes for a car to rust. 4) If they measured the same, is it likely that we either don't measure everything there is to measure or we're not measuring properly? Well, if myself and my three cronies scored as well as we did (nearly perfectly in all cases), it's more than likely - it's pretty much a sure thing in my book. 5) Do I care if anyone believes what I'm saying about these tests? Not a whit. They can call me a liar all they want. They can stay in their temple and worship measurements or they can get out and test for themselves. But it should be extensive testing, not a few trials and then give up. And the folks under test need to have some good listening and interpretive skills as well as a knowledge of what music should sound like. Are the differences profound? Not really, but they are musically significant to me. But I ain't gonna go through those tests again! Yikes!

Now...maybe if they paid me 5 years of my salary, I'd do it again! Wait, you're an attorney - I'll do it for 5 years of YOUR salary! Hell, if I'm going to change the world, they're going to have to change MY world! :) Seriously though, I can't imagine why it would be all that earth shattering. Audiophiles have been telling people for years that things sound different, despite the specs.

P.S I wouldn't care to try this with SS power amps or CD players :)

[QUOTE=hifitommy]
havent you compared the rbcd section with your old rbcd? QUOTE]

No, I haven't but I'd bet that I'd have trouble discerning any diffs. I've always had trouble with CDP's which I guess turned out to be a good thing. I still use the Sony XA20-ES simply because it can navigate discs that most other players can't. I do hear a diff between it and my old Pioneer CD recorder but I have to plug directly into the headphone sockets and use my Senn HD-600's and even then, it's nothing to write home about. It's not worth the trouble, IMO.

Thinking of buying the 15 disc Dylan SACD set from Music Direct for $200. I haven't really bought all that many SACD's because I don't really want to repurchase what I already own. But as newer titles become available, I'll be out there snapping up as many as I can afford.

Gotta go, Cecil Taylor is on the stereo....

[QUOTE=DMK]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pctower

Which Sony SACD player is it.

It's the DVP-NS755V which I bought for $225. It looks like a typical low priced Sony CDP, all plastic. But it sounds wonderful. I'm sure it's not the last word in SACD playback but it certainly gives me a healthy insight into what the high rez digital fuss is all about. I've compared the hybrid discs myself, redbook to SACD and I amazingly find the redbook layer to sound pretty durn good! But not up to the level of the SACD level. No, it doesn't constitute proof, as you said, but let me tell you something about acquiring this proof.

---

In the December 2003 Stereophile, John Atkinson measured the outputs of an expensive Sony CD/SACD player and found, the maximum output was different for multichannel and 2 channel and CD and SACD:

"The Sony SCD-XA9000ES 's maximum output level is specified as 2V, conforming to the CD standard, but it met this only from the multichannel outputs playing the SACD. From the two channel outputs playing the CD, the output was and auible 0.57 dB lower, at 1.875 V; playing SACD, the output was 0.31 dB lower, at 1.93 V. These differences will be just audible, in favor of SACD in direct comparisons."

I am not saying these are in any sense bad figures, but they do point out a difficulty in comparing CD and SACD recordings, even on the same player. Of course, there is no guarantee that the CD and SACD layers of the same disc are recorded exactly the same, either, whether at the same level or with different FR shaping or synamic compression, etc. But it does show the difficulty in making proper comparisons between SACD and CD.

A larger difference is found in the Linn Unidisk 1.1, also in favor of the SACD, but apparently not in the Krell SACD Standard multichannel SACD/CD player, as Atkinson doesn't mention any differences.

[QUOTE=Pat D] These differences will be just audible, in favor of SACD in direct comparisons."

Thanks for the tip. I would imagine my player does something similar. I'd better check it out with a level meter before commenting again.