SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

[WmAx]

Why would consumers jump on the SACD bandwagon when this format could go down the same path as CD, in regard to too high levels and inferior quality? I think Chris brought up a very valid question. Why wouldn't Telarc a so called "audiophile" recording company want a recording to sound it's very best on whatever format? Unless they have another motive. I found Bishop's excuse extremely lame. Either you like Sutton or you don't. What does Krall or Jones have to do with me buying Sutton? It's BS. I personally wrote Bishop a nastygram and my whole perspective has been compromised

What exactly is a nastygram?

Here is my reply to Mr. Bishop, that was sent after I recieved the email that is posted in teh beginning of this thread:

Thank you for the reply from Mr. Bishop. I will take advantage of the SACD
trade that was offered. I would prefer a refund, of course, since I do not
own a SACD capable play device. Please let me know what steps I need to
take. BUt please forward the rest of this message to Mr. Bishop:

REPLY To Mr. Bishop:

"I checked the waveform example of the piano "distortion." In my opinion,
what is seen there is the peak limiting and "soft clipping" imposed in the
CD mastering process on this particular release..."

" The piano is not distorted... If that was the case one would see jagged
artifacts around the
piano level "peak" rather than the level simply stopping 0.10 dB from the
peak."

"Of course, this does not mean that such a high peak will not cause
distortion on some playback systems. That's entirely possible and is
something out of our control."

The highly audible distortion remains in all of these following cases: (1)
playing CD in all players I have access (2) ripping waveform to computer,
playing back through soundcard (3) reducing maximum level slightly of the
waveform in a waveform editor, playing back on soundcard.

Indeed, I believe this is easily preventable. Simply could have (1) limited
the peaks (2) reduced absolute levels before downsampling(this is the proper
method)

"The Tierney Sutton "Dancing in the Dark" CD release is put up side-by-side
with Diana Krall and Norah Jones releases and other similar jazz vocal CDs.
Like it or not, those CDs are quite heavily compressed and limited (much
more so than the Sutton CD) and have very high apparent volumes. They also
exhibit an even more pronounced cut-off of peak levels. Since Tierney's CD
will be put in multi-disc CD players alongside these other CDs, we have to
make sure her CD stands at least a chance of being as "present" as the
competition and still maintain as much of the dynamics of my original mixes
as possible. "

I don't understand. Competition of what? I simply do not believe consumer
are this stupid to put a CD into the player and believe the quiter one is
'bad' compared to the louder one. (1) You mean radio play? If so, this is
not valid. Radio broadcast music is heavily compressed/limited before it is
transmitted. As far as I know, this is a universal standard. Diffeernt
levels on the CD istels will not manifest itself on broadcast end-use. (2)
The telarc consumer, i would speculate, is more discriminating then the
average consumer. I can not see this trickery as being effective.

I think Bob Katz has some very good points on this issue:

http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=93/?PHPSESSID=8a7653fe7dab1838c00ed4aeb7310fc8

"It's a very delicate balancing act. Certainly compromises
are made, just as in any other mainstream CD that has high apparent volume
level. "

I'm sorry to see such things happening with what I always considered a
label(telarc) that prioritized ultimate sound quality.

"I know one would find much more aggregious level compression taking
place on most mainstream CDs than what you would find on "Dancing in the
Dark."

Yes. Why I always trusted Telarc to have high quality. I guess I have to
change this view in response to this email.

"If you are interested, the DSD stereo and surround programs on the SACD
release of "Dancing in the Dark" (SA-63592) do NOT have this competitive
compression imposed on the audio. The DSD programs represent what I
recorded in the mixes from the sessions without the compromises needed on
the CD-only release. However, the CD layer of the SACD is exactly the same
as the CD-only release. To access the DSD programs, one needs the
appropriate SACD player which is available at major electronic retailers
starting at around $200 USD, although I never recommend that one gets the
"bottom-of-the-line" player."

I have a CD player that functions perfectly. It is rediculous that I must
purchase a new format player to get versions of the albums that ARE NOT
purposefully degraded.

"I hope you have the opportunity to hear the DSD program of this release.
That is, after all, the source I had recorded at Ms. Sutton's sessions and
the pcm CD is a derivative of that source."

I have paid close attention to the playback formats, and associated
scientific research(NHK labs study, Ooashi nueroscicnce study and the
original 1978 optimal bandwidth study(JAES). Besides the multi-channel
format and copy protection(not advantage to consumers, only for record
companies) I don't see any yet confirmed advantage to the added bandwidth. I
also don't see how 16 bit wordlength is limiting for audio playback,e
speciallly when combined with modern dithering techniques. Even if it was a
problem, seems that these PURPOSEFULLY compromised and compressed versions
of music supercede this issue.

Thank you for responding.

-Chris XXXXX

THis email was sent right after I recieved the initial reply. I should have been more specific when i referenced the suggestion of limiting. I also should have referenced time markers in a sample track that are, indeed at 0dB, not 0.1 as he asserts. I consider this an oversight/error on my part. However, I was 'steamed'. You are never as coherant when hot headed.

-Chris

[Mr Peabody]

Chris;

You have to do what is best for you, I however feel it is foolish to accept Telarc's offer for exchange. You are going to have to spend money to upgrade to a new SACD player, Bishop said the same distortion was on the CD layer of the SACD. If what you assert is true about playing unfair, why would you want to go along with it? I admit I am disappointed and confused about your news. I am stubborn though, I would eat the $15. for the CD and tell Bishop to shove the SACD.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Everyone has to pick a side 'blindly' when a certain level of ignorance is present. In this case, it seems we are both ignorant of the actual low level behaviours of the typical radio pre-broadcast processor. Whether Bob Katz and Roy Orban are just BSing the best, or not, they seem the most convincing too me in this case.

I have no don't doubt for one moment that Bob Katz is correct. However he speaks STRICTLY from a techinical stand point of view, and that is usually NOT the position the producer, or the marketing department is coming from. The level war was not created by mixers and mastering engineers, it was created by marketing and producers. In the link you have provided, every example that he sites with good levels for high quality reproduction came BEFORE the marketing departments of major record labels gained a larger share of the decision making in the production of product. I don't think Bob Katz is BSing, I just don't think he is painting the larger picture very well.

Every radio station in the world is not filled full of Orban products. There are MANY MANY different manufacturers of broadcasting equipment. Everyone of these guys has an opinion about broadcasting standards, equipment, and how they are employed in the field. You can if you desire take both of these gentlemens words as absolute, or you can listen to the thousands of other which offer a differing opinion of the subject matter. As I have stated earlier this business if full of opinions, and those that rebutt them. If it makes you more comfortable to grab one person's words, and make that word. Then by all means do so. But there are others out there with opinons just as valid as Katz and Orban who would argue that you are being just a little short sighted in your beliefs.

And I totally disagree with the statement Telarc shouldn't be singled out. Them and Sheffield tout themselves as being superior recording and sound quality. If they are just another commercial CD company then they misrepresent themselves which is also fraud

Have you read ANY of the content in this thread. How in the heck do you think that Telarc and Sheffield are immune to any market driven compromises. They are business as well as record companies. Do you think it is wise for them NOT to compete with the other record companies, and then go out of business just to satisfy you? That's unreasonable, as it is for you to blame them specifically. There is racism and greed in the world, can I blame you as part of the problem since you exist in the world? I don't think so. Telarc and Sheffield didn't create this problem, all they are doing is competing againist other's who not only initiated it(marketing depts and producers), but continue to drive it.

If you do not understand compromise based on competition, then I am not going to waste my time explaining it. You live in a world driven by competition, you should understand this well or you have been living in a cave.

[WmAx]

I have no don't doubt for one moment that Bob Katz is correct. However he speaks STRICTLY from a techinical stand point of view, and that is usually NOT the position the producer, or the marketing department is coming from...

If it makes you more comfortable to grab one person's words, and make that word. Then by all means do so. But there are others out there with opinons just as valid as Katz and Orban who would argue that you are being just a little short sighted in your beliefs...

I will have to ask you to clarify these seemingly conflicting statements. Do you mean that Bob Katz is absolutely correct, technically? But then you assert others out their have opinions just as valid as Katz that will argue with this.....

Perhaps you mean purely on the issue of the ignorant marketing department, producers and program directors? Not the tecnical issues?

-Chris

[WmAx]

Chris;

You have to do what is best for you, I however feel it is foolish to accept Telarc's offer for exchange. You are going to have to spend money to upgrade to a new SACD player, Bishop said the same distortion was on the CD layer of the SACD. If what you assert is true about playing unfair, why would you want to go along with it? I admit I am disappointed and confused about your news. I am stubborn though, I would eat the $15. for the CD and tell Bishop to shove the SACD.

Hold on now! When I say I was going to buy a SACD player? I might. But not now(I need to buy a new pair of headphones at the moment). However, the very least I can do is take the SACD version, factory sealed, and sell it on ebay. :-)

-Chris

[WmAx]

Sorry, it's been a while since I updated the correspondence between myself and Telarc.

I recieved a reply in reference to the email i sent(found at the bottom of this post). I will post the recieved email in it's entirety as well as the response to this email. I never recieved another reply, nor do I expect to recieve a reply considering Mr. Bishop's attitude towards being quoted on a forum.

Letter From Mr. Bishop(6-09-04):

Dear Mr. XXXXX,

First of all, you should know that it is very improper (or at the very
least, RUDE) email etiquette to post correspondence with any company or
individual and post it on public forums without permission of all parties.
It is especially improper when one takes quotes out of context for posting.
I very much take objection to you posting our correspondence on public
internet sites, especially since I have not even responded to your last
email yet! I spend quite a bit of time posting and answering questions on
various hi-fi audio and industry web sites and I am always very forthcoming
and straightforward in my answers and assessments on those sites.

Secondly, I happen to agree with Bob Katz's viewpoints on heavy-handed
over-compression of audio and have stated so at many AES Convention panel
discussions with Bob. I also happen to know there are examples of released
audio product that Bob has mastered that have more compression on them than
what he would like in an "ideal" world. I also happen to know that
"Dancing in the Dark" would not be held up by a rational person as an
example of over-compression. The reality is, we all have artists, clients,
etc. to please at the same time as trying to get the best-possible audio
quality. Especially when it comes to artists, as the engineer, I have to
remember it is not MY name on the cover. When I wrote to you that
compromises sometimes are made in mastering a project, that definitely did
NOT mean that one purposely makes a bad-sounding or distorted product. It
means that we try to reach a middle ground between the desires of all
parties involved and what the "ideal" is.

Certainly it would be wonderful to have totally uncompressed, full dynamic
range music recordings in all genres of music, but let's get real! Very
few, if any, music reproduction systems are capable of playing true natural
dynamic range recordings with no alterations made in the master. When the
recording or mastering engineer moves the volume faders in the least during
a recording, the dynamic range is being altered. All analog recordings -
tape or vinyl - without exception, have dynamic range compression taking
place as a part of the recording process and the medium involved.
Recordings long held in high reverence in the audiophile community have had
fairly heavy recording medium and electronic dynamic range compression
imposed on them in the original source recording. Since the audiophiles
that hold these recordings in reverence were not present at the original
sessions, they would have no point of reference for what was "pure,"
"true," or not. The recordings just are what they are. Those that think
there are no manipulations of dynamic range in even the most purest of
audiophile recordings are simply fooling themselves. Engineers who make
the recordings know otherwise, as even having the performers to alter
dynamic range in performance to fit the recording medium (which is a common
occurrence in-session) can be classified as dynamic range compression.
There are also level controls at countless points in every
recording/mastering chain. I would hope some are not so naive as to think
those controls are NEVER touched.

As for the Tierney Sutton "Dancing in the Dark" CD audio, I pointed out
previously that no levels were over -0.10 dB digital peak level in the CD
master. It is not even possible to make a CD master that has "illegal"
levels with over 0 dB digital peak levels as the LBR would reject such a
master. If you have been getting measurements that are over 0 dB, there is
a serious flaw in your measurements or system. Overall mastering
compression was chosen and adjusted to get to the best possible middle
ground between preserving the performance and still have good apparent
volume. Great care was taken to evaluate the effect of any process
introduced at any point in the recording process and subsequent mastering.
The final master was evaluated and was approved by the producer, the
artists, and the manager of the editing department. As was evident on all
our playback systems, not a single person made note of audible distortion
on the CD pcm master that was presented to Sony Disc Manufacturing. The
waveforms you present as evidence of a "defect" simply show peak limiting
of the master. In my opinion, that limiting was very mild compared to the
vast majority of similar CDs on the market. Many dozens of hours were
spent in mastering and evaluating the CD master only, apart from the SACD
master, so certainly the CD should not be considered to be the poor
stepchild of the SACD release.

In my opinion, many similar genre CD releases exhibit much more
heavy-handed compression and severe peak limiting than the relatively mild
compression that was employed on the Sutton CD. "Dancing in the Dark" is
not the first Telarc CD to have compression applied in the mastering
process by a long shot - it certainly won't be the last. Non-classical
projects will always have different requirements and criteria to be
satisfied compared to our classical projects. While the CD master is
usually made from the same source as the SACD stereo master, the CD end
product has to also be suitable in car audio situations, portable players,
and still be good for home playback where background noise may not be a
problem. We get many emails and letters from consumers that complain we
put TOO MUCH dynamic range on our CDs and that they have to turn the volume
up as compared to "other" CDs. I don't think we've gotten more than one
email or letter asking for more dynamic range in the last five years.
Being more of a "pop" release, "Dancing in the Dark" has to fit into all
these other playback situations as well. This project has never been
presented to the public as a purist audiophile recording, but rather a
recording of a great singer and band presenting great tunes. I would hope
that most people recognize the release as fitting that description.

Mastering techniques are applied judiciously by any responsible engineer,
not because anyone thinks the public is "stupid" as you put it in your
email, but to make the release fit the many playback situations the CD may
be played in. Several scientific and double-blind tests have shown without
a doubt that the same recording played back with as little as .5 dB
increase in level is perceived as the "better" recording.

Mastering techniques are never, ever applied to optimize radio airplay.
Every decent engineer knows what the broadcast chain does to a recording
and how our work is undone at that point.

About your choice of taking CD as the best that audio formats can offer: I
have worked with pcm at every sample and bit rate possible since 1976 and
analog recording for ten years before that in every format and speed. I
have worked with DSD since 1996. If DSD went away tomorrow, I would be
very disappointed to have to return to pcm for source recordings,
regardless of the final release format. For my work, I choose to record in
DSD. I'm thrilled the SACD is available so my DSD recordings can be heard
at home without change, all other things being equal. In my opinion, the
16-bit CD is far from being the ideal end product no matter what
noise-shaping techniques are applied. Since I have been a part of every
major (and not-so-major) dithering and noise-shaping test and development
since 1986, I might know something about this.

You apparently have no use for SACD and have no intention of even exploring
the possibilities of the format. Therefore I see little point of making an
exchange of your CD with the SACD version. Since you are so thoroughly
dissatisfied with the Sutton disc, I can only offer that you exchange this
CD with Telarc Customer Service for another single CD title of your choice.

You are not to post, forward, or quote my correspondence with you without
my prior authorization. Please respect that request.


With Best Regards,

Michael Bishop
Recording Engineer
Telarc International Corp.

Here is my reply to above e-mail(6-09-04):

>
> First of all, you should know that it is very improper (or at the very
> least, RUDE) email etiquette to post correspondence with any company or
> individual and post it on public forums without permission of all parties.

I did not agree to a non-disclosure agreement. THe email that you send,
addressed to me, is my property.

> It is especially improper when one takes quotes out of context for
posting.

Hold on. I posted your e-mail, in entiretey, as I recieved the email. Not
one of your words, phrases, etc. were edited. I made commentary on some of
your statements; obvisously for this, I would have to point to specific
items in order to make comment on the items. Anyone has the entire email to
read, and judge for themselves.

> Secondly, I happen to agree with Bob Katz's viewpoints on heavy-handed
> over-compression of audio and have stated so at many AES Convention panel
> discussions with Bob. I also happen to know there are examples of
released
> audio product that Bob has mastered that have more compression on them
than
> what he would like in an "ideal" world. I also happen to know that
> "Dancing in the Dark" would not be held up by a rational person as an
> example of over-compression. The reality is, we all have artists,
clients,
> etc. to please at the same time as trying to get the best-possible audio
> quality. Especially when it comes to artists, as the engineer, I have to
> remember it is not MY name on the cover. When I wrote to you that
> compromises sometimes are made in mastering a project, that definitely did
> NOT mean that one purposely makes a bad-sounding or distorted product. It
> means that we try to reach a middle ground between the desires of all
> parties involved and what the "ideal" is.

To be honest, I don't have much concern for the pressures or reasons why
someone decides to degrade the product. I am a consumer, not a mastering
engineer. What I DO CARE ABOUT, is that the average products I consume are
being produced in relative low quality. My post on the forum, my reason for
replying to you, is to make it known that I'm tired of the low quality
product. Hopefully, many other people will start complaining and making a
fuss. I don't specfically want to upset your or anyone else. However,
nothing improves if everyone sits down and ignores the problem(s). This is
historical pattern. If toes get stepped on in the process of achieving the
objective, so let it be.

>
> Certainly it would be wonderful to have totally uncompressed, full dynamic
> range music recordings in all genres of music, but let's get real! Very
> few, if any, music reproduction systems are capable of playing true
natural
> dynamic range recordings with no alterations made in the master. When the
> recording or mastering engineer moves the volume faders in the least
during
> a recording, the dynamic range is being altered. All analog recordings -
> tape or vinyl - without exception, have dynamic range compression taking
> place as a part of the recording process and the medium involved.
> Recordings long held in high reverence in the audiophile community have
had
> fairly heavy recording medium and electronic dynamic range compression
> imposed on them in the original source recording. Since the audiophiles
> that hold these recordings in reverence were not present at the original
> sessions, they would have no point of reference for what was "pure,"
> "true," or not. The recordings just are what they are. Those that think
> there are no manipulations of dynamic range in even the most purest of
> audiophile recordings are simply fooling themselves. Engineers who make
> the recordings know otherwise, as even having the performers to alter
> dynamic range in performance to fit the recording medium (which is a
common
> occurrence in-session) can be classified as dynamic range compression.
> There are also level controls at countless points in every
> recording/mastering chain. I would hope some are not so naive as to think
> those controls are NEVER touched.

I don't know exactly the point. I can only assume you think I want NO
compression EVER used. I did not make this comment. Specifically, this is
about over compression. I guess the term 'radio-style' compression might be
appropriate as a relative term.

>
> As for the Tierney Sutton "Dancing in the Dark" CD audio, I pointed out
> previously that no levels were over -0.10 dB digital peak level in the CD
> master. It is not even possible to make a CD master that has "illegal"
> levels with over 0 dB digital peak levels as the LBR would reject such a
> master. If you have been getting measurements that are over 0 dB, there
is
> a serious flaw in your measurements or system.

Their are sections tht measure at 0dB. Confrimed with Goldwave and Adobe
Audition software programs, of the ripped wave files. As for levels 'over'
0dB. I never made such a claim. Point out where I made this claim.

> compression was chosen and adjusted to get to the best possible middle
> ground between preserving the performance and still have good apparent
> volume. Great care was taken to evaluate the effect of any process
> introduced at any point in the recording process and subsequent mastering.
> The final master was evaluated and was approved by the producer, the
> artists, and the manager of the editing department. As was evident on all
> our playback systems, not a single person made note of audible distortion
> on the CD pcm master that was presented to Sony Disc Manufacturing.

Maybe something IS wrong my version of the disc? I percieve audible
fuzz-like distortion in sections. After hearing these sections, I made note
of the time on the CD player and then checked those times in the ripped wave
file only to find clipped signals.


> of the master. In my opinion, that limiting was very mild compared to the
> vast majority of similar CDs on the market.

Use of the words 'vast majority' is a bit of a generalization, especially in
lack of actual statistics. However, I will say that i have noticed 'many'
severely clipped CDs on the market. The very reason it makes me even more
upset that an 'audiophile' company is also guilty.

Several scientific and double-blind tests have shown without
> a doubt that the same recording played back with as little as .5 dB
> increase in level is perceived as the "better" recording.

I am aware of these studies. Though I can not recollect the specific
researcher/paper ids off the top of my head. However, this is in relation to
the same song, everything else being equal. It also is not in relation to a
louder but signficantly more compressed version. If you have information of
that specific situation, please refer me to the paper. The papers also did
not address louder but with audibly clipped peaks.

> Mastering techniques are never, ever applied to optimize radio airplay.
> Every decent engineer knows what the broadcast chain does to a recording
> and how our work is undone at that point.

O.K. However, I can assume every engineer is 'decent'.

> About your choice of taking CD as the best that audio formats can offer:
I
> have worked with pcm at every sample and bit rate possible since 1976 and
> analog recording for ten years before that in every format and speed. I
> have worked with DSD since 1996. If DSD went away tomorrow, I would be
> very disappointed to have to return to pcm for source recordings,
> regardless of the final release format. For my work, I choose to record
in
> DSD. I'm thrilled the SACD is available so my DSD recordings can be heard
> at home without change, all other things being equal. In my opinion, the
> 16-bit CD is far from being the ideal end product no matter what
> noise-shaping techniques are applied. Since I have been a part of every
> major (and not-so-major) dithering and noise-shaping test and development
> since 1986, I might know something about this.

My comment on this aspect was based on the noise/dynamic range and bandwidth
as related to playback only. I have not stated it is ideal for
recording/editing. Show/refer me to a peer-reviewed, scientifically valid
listenig test that demonstrated the bandwidth of RBCD is not optimal for
music playback. The ones I am aware of, show that is is optimal for human
audibility purposes of music playback.

>
> You apparently have no use for SACD and have no intention of even
exploring
> the possibilities of the format.

Well, when/if they make a new SACD format that takes advantage of an
extrmeley effective multichannel system such as Holman's 10.2 technology,
then I would be 'all over it'. However, I may HAVE to buy a SACD player in
order to have better quality recordings. I base this on your first email,
claiming that the SACD version does not have the problems of the CD version.

>Therefore I see little point of making an
> exchange of your CD with the SACD version. Since you are so thoroughly
> dissatisfied with the Sutton disc, I can only offer that you exchange this
> CD with Telarc Customer Service for another single CD title of your
choice.

Actually, I like the artist Tierney Sutton. I'll listen to some of the
samples on the website of new releases, and see if their is another artist
that I want.

>
> You are not to post, forward, or quote my correspondence with you without
> my prior authorization. Please respect that request.

I'll consider your request. I'll make no promise in this regard.

-Chris XXXXX

Here is the email that Bishop was replying:

"I checked the waveform example of the piano "distortion." In my opinion,
what is seen there is the peak limiting and "soft clipping" imposed in the
CD mastering process on this particular release..."

" The piano is not distorted... If that was the case one would see jagged
artifacts around the
piano level "peak" rather than the level simply stopping 0.10 dB from the
peak."

"Of course, this does not mean that such a high peak will not cause
distortion on some playback systems. That's entirely possible and is
something out of our control."

The highly audible distortion remains in all of these following cases: (1)
playing CD in all players I have access (2) ripping waveform to computer,
playing back through soundcard (3) reducing maximum level slightly of the
waveform in a waveform editor, playing back on soundcard.

Indeed, I believe this is easily preventable. Simply could have (1) limited
the peaks (2) reduced absolute levels before downsampling(this is the proper
method)

"The Tierney Sutton "Dancing in the Dark" CD release is put up side-by-side
with Diana Krall and Norah Jones releases and other similar jazz vocal CDs.
Like it or not, those CDs are quite heavily compressed and limited (much
more so than the Sutton CD) and have very high apparent volumes. They also
exhibit an even more pronounced cut-off of peak levels. Since Tierney's CD
will be put in multi-disc CD players alongside these other CDs, we have to
make sure her CD stands at least a chance of being as "present" as the
competition and still maintain as much of the dynamics of my original mixes
as possible. "

I don't understand. Competition of what? I simply do not believe consumer
are this stupid to put a CD into the player and believe the quiter one is
'bad' compared to the louder one. (1) You mean radio play? If so, this is
not valid. Radio broadcast music is heavily compressed/limited before it is
transmitted. As far as I know, this is a universal standard. Diffeernt
levels on the CD istels will not manifest itself on broadcast end-use. (2)
The telarc consumer, i would speculate, is more discriminating then the
average consumer. I can not see this trickery as being effective.

I think Bob Katz has some very good points on this issue:

http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=93/?PHPSESSID=8a7653fe7dab1838c00ed4aeb7310fc8

"It's a very delicate balancing act. Certainly compromises
are made, just as in any other mainstream CD that has high apparent volume
level. "

I'm sorry to see such things happening with what I always considered a
label(telarc) that prioritized ultimate sound quality.

"I know one would find much more aggregious level compression taking
place on most mainstream CDs than what you would find on "Dancing in the
Dark."

Yes. Why I always trusted Telarc to have high quality. I guess I have to
change this view in response to this email.

"If you are interested, the DSD stereo and surround programs on the SACD
release of "Dancing in the Dark" (SA-63592) do NOT have this competitive
compression imposed on the audio. The DSD programs represent what I
recorded in the mixes from the sessions without the compromises needed on
the CD-only release. However, the CD layer of the SACD is exactly the same
as the CD-only release. To access the DSD programs, one needs the
appropriate SACD player which is available at major electronic retailers
starting at around $200 USD, although I never recommend that one gets the
"bottom-of-the-line" player."

I have a CD player that functions perfectly. It is rediculous that I must
purchase a new format player to get versions of the albums that ARE NOT
purposefully degraded.

"I hope you have the opportunity to hear the DSD program of this release.
That is, after all, the source I had recorded at Ms. Sutton's sessions and
the pcm CD is a derivative of that source."

I have paid close attention to the playback formats, and associated
scientific research(NHK labs study, Ooashi nueroscicnce study and the
original 1978 optimal bandwidth study(JAES). Besides the multi-channel
format and copy protection(not advantage to consumers, only for record
companies) I don't see any yet confirmed advantage to the added bandwidth. I
also don't see how 16 bit wordlength is limiting for audio playback,e
speciallly when combined with modern dithering techniques. Even if it was a
problem, seems that these PURPOSEFULLY compromised and compressed versions
of music supercede this issue.

Thank you for responding.

-Chris XXXXX

-Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sorry, it's been a while since I updated the correspondence between myself and Telarc.

I recieved a reply in reference to the email i sent(found at the bottom of this post). I will post the recieved email in it's entirety as well as the response to this email. I never recieved another reply, nor do I expect to recieve a reply considering Mr. Bishop's attitude towards being quoted on a forum.

Letter From Mr. Bishop(6-09-04):


Here is my reply to above e-mail(6-09-04):

First, I think you were wrong for posting his letter without his permission. Whether you think you own the email or not, there is something called intended usage, and you didn't let him know your motivations. Very low class of you, and your excuse was feeble at best.

Secondly, his statement mirriors the ones I gave you on this same issue. His answer to you is consistant with industry standards and practices, and he did NOTHING out of the ordinary to the mentioned CD. You usage of the words "degraded" is silly since the audio was already "degraded" in the transition from DSD to PCM. As he mentioned(and Wooch has reinterated time and time again) you were not present at the studio session, and do not know how much the CD version deviates from the original master.

Your responses back to him show that you have no experience in the studio, have never had to please or work with record producers, have no idea about the condition, or how the original source material sounds. You very limited knowledge of the specifics of recording and playback makes you look silly and defensive when responding to his comments.

You have taken Michael Bishops kindness(by responding to your email) and completely disrepected him. He has five hundred times the audio education , and fifty billion times the recording experience than you could ever think to have, yet you feel that you can challenge the information he afforded you. If I were him, I would be insulted by your arrogance, and would never respond to you again.

Your demands for white papers on an issue this man knows loads about shows that you are off base, not so bright, and pretty foolhardy. I think you need to spend more time learning about standard recording practices, working with producers and artists, and how to actually mix and master before you approach this subject matter again. Studing white papers but having no experience with what you study is like walking with one leg, one arm, and one eye. It gives you a false sense of balance and perspective.

Michael Bishops answers to you are consistant to what you will hear from every audio engineer at Mr. Bishops level. His answers(if you are not just being combative) should satisfy every question you would have about compression on CD.

I think it is worth noting that he said the original recording was done in DSD and converted into PCM. So the best way to hear this project would probably be the SACD or two channel DSD layer. I think you will find in the near future that these kinds of conversions, and conversion from 24/96khz to 44.1khz will be the norm instead of the exception, and the CD platform will not be the most prominent or clean source for audio delivery. In other words, get used to the change, because it is not going to be reversed.

[WmAx]

...

I won't bother quoting you, or really reading your last post in it's entirety. I think it's worth noting that you rarely reply with a worthwhile comment. You seem to be caught up on unsubstantiated issues and argue the endlessly even though it's pointless, especially to the requests for substantiation by several of the people in this thread to date. To reply and argue about something you don't even know for certain, when these people are asking for substantiaion seems to me like you just enjoy pressing the keys on your keyboard, at least too me. You almost seem like a religous leader arguing in support of his religion without a damn thing to substantiate the claims except speculations, testimonials and other stuff worthless as 'proof'.

-Chris

[Woochifer]

Sorry, it's been a while since I updated the correspondence between myself and Telarc.

I recieved a reply in reference to the email i sent(found at the bottom of this post). I will post the recieved email in it's entirety as well as the response to this email. I never recieved another reply, nor do I expect to recieve a reply considering Mr. Bishop's attitude towards being quoted on a forum.

Why would he reply given that you won't even acknowledge his request that you ask him before you go posting his replies on a public forum? I know that someone who doesn't care to abide by my confidentiality requests on e-mail correspondences would not deserve any of my time. If anyone has an attitude on this matter, it certainly doesn't seem to be Mr. Bishop. You seem more interested in perpetuating theoretical soapbox arguments than pursuing the highest possible audio quality for the music that you enjoy. If you don't like the audio quality for a particular CD, then either put up with it or invest in a universal player so you can access the SACD layer. It's not like those hybrid discs will force you to double dip and repurchase your music collection, and it's not like a universal player's an empty investment given that it also allows for multichannel audio.

Like I was telling mtry, if it is common industry practice to alter the CD mixes during the mastering process and not doing these alterations with the high res versions, then why would all these tangental irrelevancies matter when you already know which version is likeliest to give you the best sound quality? The theoretical arguments are irrelevant. If you want to boycott Telarc for compressing the audio or bumping up the levels, then you'll have to boycott every other music company out there as well since Telarc is hardly alone in that practice. That leaves you with listening to test tones.

[WmAx]

Why would he reply given that you won't even acknowledge his request that you ask him before you go posting his replies on a public forum? I know that someone who doesn't care to abide by my confidentiality requests on e-mail correspondences would not deserve any of my time. If anyone has an attitude on this matter, it certainly doesn't seem to be Mr. Bishop.

Everyone has an attitude. You assume I mean this in a negative manner. When someone has an 'attitude', this does mean anything negative. See the definition.

You seem more interested in perpetuating theoretical soapbox arguments than pursuing the highest possible audio quality for the music that you enjoy.

You are correct. That was one of the primary issues I intended in this thread.

I don't claim to be 'nice'. I admit openly that I realize I may seem like an '*******' to many people. I considered this before I posted the email where he demands not to be posted. Indeed, I realized that it may incur responses such as yours before I posted. However, I felt it was important to share the entire communication. This at least allows a better-informed opinion by anyone who cares to read all of the correspondence from the beginning of this thread to the end.

-Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Why would consumers jump on the SACD bandwagon when this format could go down the same path as CD, in regard to too high levels and inferior quality?

Aren't you being just a little dramatic here. The format is in its infancy, and you already have it following the same path as the CD. Do the words drama king mean anything here?

I think Chris brought up a very valid question. Why wouldn't Telarc a so called "audiophile" recording company want a recording to sound it's very best on whatever format?

I cannot believe that you have done thousands of recordings and cannot answer this question for yourself. I think that Telarc does turn out recordings that sound very good indeed. The raised levels does not change that. Raising the level does not always compromise sound quality, and it is disengenous for you to implicate that in an indirect way.

Unless they have another motive. I found Bishop's excuse extremely lame. Either you like Sutton or you don't. What does Krall or Jones have to do with me buying Sutton? It's BS. I personally wrote Bishop a nastygram and my whole perspective has been compromised

Nastygrams are childish, ineffective, and serve no purpose. From what I have gathered from your postings, you do not know much about the industry, so that makes you ill qualified to decide if Michael's excuse is lame or not. You don't own a SACD player, so you cannot judge the quality of the higher resolution format in comparison to the CD platform. Based on this, it seems that your complaining about all of this is rather lame itself. Before Chris even bought the topic up, you didn't even know the practice existed!, Now all of a sudden CD's are vile, compromised products, and you are just totally outraged, everyone in the music industry is a evil demon(with Telarc and Sheffield being baal himself) and you are not going to support the high resolution formats. This is good.....

[Steve1000]

This is my first post here. I've been lurking and like it here a lot. However, as far as the technical expertise displayed by many of the regulars, I am way over my head.

I would like to see an analysis of the merits of the question posed below (by the original poster in this thread). I'm not really competent to answer. But my belief is this -- that for two-channel music, SACD has no audible advantage over CD, given that the mastering for both media is given proper attention and the playback equipment is maybe in the solid-performing $150 range or better.

Am I right? Am I wrong? WHY?

SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

The point of this post is to question if the proclomations of people claiming SACD is audibly superior to CD format, even when both are used in 2 channel mode, have any validitiy.

Let's consider the following points:

(1) I can not find a scientific research project demonstrating audibly benefits to humans of a wider bandwidth then CD offers.

(2) I can not find definitive research of SACD vs CD releases, to find alternative explanations.

(3) I can not find reason for larger then 16 bit wordlength for audio playback, especially when properly dithered, which can effectively remove the quantitazation noise and allow the theoretical limit of CD of 96dB to be approached and/or met.

-Chris

[Woochifer]

This is my first post here. I've been lurking and like it here a lot. However, as far as the technical expertise displayed by many of the regulars, I am way over my head.

I would like to see an analysis of the merits of the question posed below (by the original poster in this thread). I'm not really competent to answer. But my belief is this -- that for two-channel music, SACD has no audible advantage over CD, given that the mastering for both media is given proper attention and the playback equipment is maybe in the solid-performing $150 range or better.

Am I right? Am I wrong? WHY?

You're welcome to believe whatever you want. If you have a belief, then test it by doing your own comparisons. If you level match it, and apply some kind of bias control, then you'll have your own answer.

The thing is that there are plenty of CDs still sitting around music store bins that were not done correctly in the first place. Your assumption regarding proper mastering for both media is a huge leap of faith. My only exposure thus far to high res digital audio is classic records' 96/24 audio discs, which are playable through any DVD player. The quality of the playback through those discs is a clear cut improvement over the CD versions, including "remastered" versions. Whether or not it's generalizable to SACD or DVD-A can only be answered when I get around to getting a universal player. But, based on my own sample, I certainly would not rule out higher resolution as a causal effect for the improveed sound quality that I heard.

[WmAx]

Whether or not it's generalizable to SACD or DVD-A can only be answered when I get around to getting a universal player. But, based on my own sample, I certainly would not rule out higher resolution as a causal effect for the improveed sound quality that I heard.

Transmission of a bandwidth not proven to be audible in a controlled test should not be ruled out as a casual effect for the improved sound quality that you heard? Perhaps, I don't like to 'absolutely' rule anything 'out'. However, I don't see it as logical to presume that a larger bandwidth, in itself, is enhancing the audible data appreciably. Failure to achieve positive results in controlled tests does not lend support to the idea.

-Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Transmission of a bandwidth not proven to be audible in a controlled test should not be ruled out as a casual effect for the improved sound quality that you heard? Perhaps, I don't like to 'absolutely' rule anything 'out'. However, I don't see it as logical to presume that a larger bandwidth, in itself, is enhancing the audible data appreciably. Failure to achieve positive results in controlled tests does not lend support to the idea.

-Chris

Chris,

You seemed VERY locked in to bandwith as a higher sampling rate benefit. That is not a higher sampling rates true benefit. 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.

The higher up in sampling frequency you go, the more these things improve up until a point Read;

http://www.digitalproducer.com/artic...le.jsp?id=7408

Also read what Bob Stuart of Meridan Audio says about higher sampling rates.

http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Coding2.PDF

IMO, and already documented, there is absolutely no reason to record(or any need for)at 192khz sampling rate. Some very odd things happen to the bass response at that sample rate. Bass appears thin and out of time to these ears, and have been noted and documented. Read this

http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/papers/effects.pdf

So while the higher bandwith is an argueable point, getting more samples really isn't amoung the engineering community. Keep in mind, tests concerning the audiblity of high frequency information above human hearing are still inconclusive. So the perceived effects of higher frequencies on the listening experience have not been determined, and therefore CANNOT be ruled out.

[WmAx]

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.

All undeniably true if you remove the word audible from the end of this statement. You state this as if it's proven fact, and I am not aware of any research coming to this conclusion as far as audibility is concerned.

The higher up in sampling frequency you go, the more these things improve up until a point Read;

http://www.digitalproducer.com/artic...le.jsp?id=7408

Certainly it improves accuracy. Audibly with normal music playback? I don't see subtantial evidence of this.

Keep in mind, tests concerning the audiblity of high frequency information above human hearing are still inconclusive

That is the issue So far, the respected controlled tests/references on this subject have not been able to achieve a positive result.

So the perceived effects of higher frequencies on the listening experience have not been determined, and therefore CANNOT be ruled out

I did not state the contrary. I stated exactly this sediment, but I also stated that it is not logical to attribute the things 'credited' to hi-rez playback since their is no strong evidence that suggests that this should be the case. Until a peer-reviewed, scrutinized, valid audiblity test has been performed that achieves positive statistical signficance, then it can not be accepted as fact.

-Chris

[Monstrous Mike]

The higher up in sampling frequency you go, the more these things improve up until a point Read;

http://www.digitalproducer.com/artic...le.jsp?id=7408

Ok, I read that article and I have extracted the following quote:

"It’s been determined that time delay differences of 15 microseconds between left and right ears are easily discernible by nearly anyone. That’s less than the time difference between two samples at 48kHz (about 20 microseconds). Using a single pulse, one microsecond in length as a source, some listeners can perceive time delay differences of as little as five microseconds between left and right. It is therefore, indicated that, in order to provide a system with exact accuracy concerning imaging and positioning, the individual samples should be less than five microseconds apart. At 96kHz (a popularly preferred sample rate) there is a 10.417-microsecond space between samples. At 192kHz sample rate there is a 5.208-microsecond space between samples. This reasoning suggests that a sample rate of 192kHz is probably a good choice. As processors increase in speed and efficiency and as storage capacity expands high sample rates, long word length will become an insignificant concern and we’ll be able to focus on the next audio catastrophe.

I'm having some trouble understanding the above. The author is talking about time delay differences between the left and right ear and this might refer to sound coming from the left and right speakers which left the speaker a different times or sound coming from one speaker but the listener's ears are not the same distance (i.e. head turned) from that speaker. I believe this allows the listener to determine the direction the sound is coming from.

However, for the life of me, I cannot see how the has anything to with the sampling frequency of the digital audio signal. Do you have any ideas?

[mtrycraft]

Also read what Bob Stuart of Meridan Audio says about higher sampling rates.

http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Coding2.PDF

.

Did you read the whole article by Stewart? Did you read how much emphasis he places on science and research, psychoacoustic data on hearing?

Did you read page 8, 'Do we need more thatn 44.1 ...'

I am shagrined to read the two references he offeres up by Ohashi as they are anything but credible and has since been shown to be flawed.

Not much guessing on his part. He takes the science route, not what feels good.

This paper was also presented at an AES conference as well and published as a preprint which I happen to have

[Woochifer]

Transmission of a bandwidth not proven to be audible in a controlled test should not be ruled out as a casual effect for the improved sound quality that you heard? Perhaps, I don't like to 'absolutely' rule anything 'out'. However, I don't see it as logical to presume that a larger bandwidth, in itself, is enhancing the audible data appreciably. Failure to achieve positive results in controlled tests does not lend support to the idea.

-Chris

How's it not logical? I'm basically pointing out a variable that's not accounted for. I don't have the mechanisms or access to source material to prove that any other factor is a more valid causal link than another, and neither do you. I know that the bandwidth is one of the variables, so therefore it has to remain on the table as potential causal factor until it is demonstrated to me that some other variable is more responsible for what I observed.

You cite the need for controlled tests. Fine. Bring over the original master tapes and we can set the blind controlled listenings anywhere you want. If the CD, 96/24 disc, and original master are all transparent to one another under those conditions, then we have the answer. Otherwise, you are making a conclusion in the absence of proof as well by trying to rule out the bandwidth as a causal factor without knowing anything else about the source material.

[WmAx]

I don't have the mechanisms or access to source material to prove that any other factor is a more valid causal link than another, and neither do you. I know that the bandwidth is one of the variables, so therefore it has to remain on the table as potential causal factor until it is demonstrated to me that some other variable is more responsible for what I observed.

It has not been demonstrated to be important. Their have been careful studies to attempt to confirm, but none that stood up to scrutiny have demonstrated positive results.

Which Bandwidth Is Necesarry for Optimal Sound Transmission?
G. Plenge, H. Jakubowski, P. Schone, JAES, 1978

Perceptual Discrimination between Musical Sounds with and without Very High Frequency Components
JAES, Preprint 5876, Convention 115, 2003
Toshiyuki Nishiguchi, Kimio Hamasaki, Masakazu Iwaki, and Akio Ando

Otherwise, you are making a conclusion in the absence of proof as well by trying to rule out the bandwidth as a causal factor without knowing anything else about the source material.

Read the above papers.

As far as conclusion without proof? No. I CAN NOT conclude that your claim has any signfigance. Data does not suggest this conclusion. You would have me assume things are true before such has been proven?

-Chris

[Steve1000]

I'm certianly not going to buy into "hi-res" audio if it is inherently no better for two-channel music than CD "low-res" [??] audio. I won't buy into the new format simply because they are paying better attention to the mastering with the new format. A LOT of people join me in this sentiment. If this is what the recording companies are doing, "hi-res" is toast, IMHO.

I have a VERY rudimentary understanding of these things. As I understand it, CDs are sampled at 44.1 khz, so that the frequency response maxes out at about 22 khz, which is well in excess of the hearing of the vast majority of the human population, though dogs may be able to appreciate it.

I'm not going to be running double-blind of ABX tests between SACD and CD disks listening for audible consequences of 23 khz info in this lifetime. Life's too short, I'm not going to spend my money on such silliness if there's no support for it in theory, and I have too little expertise. If I am persuaded that CDs should have the same two-channel audio quailty as SACDs, DVD audio, etc., I'm not gonna bite for the "high-res" stuff, as a matter of principle. That' why I'm asking.

The vast majority of households, including mine, have no interest whatsoever in anything more than highly euphonic two-channel sound or in trying to hear what little information is conveyed above 22 khz.

I am quite willing to alter my views, but not based on the thin reed of purely subjective assertions.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want. If you have a belief, then test it by doing your own comparisons. If you level match it, and apply some kind of bias control, then you'll have your own answer.

The thing is that there are plenty of CDs still sitting around music store bins that were not done correctly in the first place. Your assumption regarding proper mastering for both media is a huge leap of faith. My only exposure thus far to high res digital audio is classic records' 96/24 audio discs, which are playable through any DVD player. The quality of the playback through those discs is a clear cut improvement over the CD versions, including "remastered" versions. Whether or not it's generalizable to SACD or DVD-A can only be answered when I get around to getting a universal player. But, based on my own sample, I certainly would not rule out higher resolution as a causal effect for the improveed sound quality that I heard.

[kingdaddykeith]

I did a test with my TA-E/TA-P9KES combo a few years back between the SACD’s DSD (untouched analog) version against the same layer down-mixed to 48/16 PCM. This particular combo allowed for easy level matching (2 separate volume controls) and lightning fast switching since I wasn’t changing layers, I was just switching in or out the TA-E pre/processor (Bypass mode). My results using a SACD 2-ch recording was that there was absolutely no audible difference in my setup with my ears, I wanted to hear a difference, but I just couldn’t, and the switching could be done so that I could not tell which version I was listening to.

This test which I have posted about over at Audio Asylum Hi-Rez forum made a lot of people very angry over there, WmAx can attest to that, I believe he posted one of the few level headed responses.

However, there is something about the technology that should give better dynamic range and allow for higher peaks and less compression if done properly, so I believe that there is some hope for this or similar recordings. So far with my collection of about 15 SACD’s I am of the opinion that the best thing, or maybe the only thing that makes SACD sound any better is the re-mastered recording which is usually better then the older Redbook version. In addition, the Multi-Track recording are IMO much better then the 2 ch, so there is some good from these new Hi-Rez formats, but like all formats it is very dependant on the mix and mastering.

In truth I only like about 1 in 3 of my SACD’s, the rest are either the same or worse then their original masters, but some are just outstanding, like Goodbye Yellow brick Road, Toys in the Attic and Avalon. All the 2-ch mixes I’ve heard so far are terrible, very shrill on the top end, and with no ability to adjust the tone or equalize, I just can’t stand to listen more then a few minutes, which is perfect for demo only.

[Woochifer]

I'm certianly not going to buy into "hi-res" audio if it is inherently no better for two-channel music than CD "low-res" [??] audio. I won't buy into the new format simply because they are paying better attention to the mastering with the new format. A LOT of people join me in this sentiment. If this is what the recording companies are doing, "hi-res" is toast, IMHO.

I have a VERY rudimentary understanding of these things. As I understand it, CDs are sampled at 44.1 khz, so that the frequency response maxes out at about 22 khz, which is well in excess of the hearing of the vast majority of the human population, though dogs may be able to appreciate it.

I'm not going to be running double-blind of ABX tests between SACD and CD disks listening for audible consequences of 23 khz info in this lifetime. Life's too short, I'm not going to spend my money on such silliness if there's no support for it in theory, and I have too little expertise. If I am persuaded that CDs should have the same two-channel audio quailty as SACDs, DVD audio, etc., I'm not gonna bite for the "high-res" stuff, as a matter of principle. That' why I'm asking.

The vast majority of households, including mine, have no interest whatsoever in anything more than highly euphonic two-channel sound or in trying to hear what little information is conveyed above 22 khz.

I am quite willing to alter my views, but not based on the thin reed of purely subjective assertions.

To me, it boils down to a very simple question. Do the high res discs improve upon the listening experience over what the CD versions offer?

So far, whether it's the audible improvements I've observed with two-channel material, or with the whole new dimension of 5.1 surround mixes, my answer is a definite yes. The 96/24 discs I've bought thus far are a clear cut improvement upon their CD counterparts, and what 5.1 surround music brings to the table is a whole new way to enjoy music. If this is typical of SACD and DVD-A, then I see no drawback to it whatsoever.

There are still plenty of poorly done CDs out there, and any chance to revisit these recordings and give them an improved transfer is welcome in my view. In addition, creating a 5.1 surround mix requires going back to the original multitrack master, which means that it's possible to obtain a higher resolution mixdown than a version that was originally done using analog recorders (and potentially degraded by going through successive iterations during the mixdown process on analog equipment). This would include the two-channel mixdown as well, if the artist chooses to have an album remixed at the higher resolution.

You're more than welcome to quibble about what the true causal effect is, or choose not to get into high res based on some personal principle. I don't have the answer on what the true causal effects are (and absent access to the original source material, nobody else does either), and frankly, I don't care. In the meantime, I'll just enjoy what these new versions offer with better sound quality and listening to familiar music in a new way. In my view, results count and what I've observed so far, the new high res discs have delivered.

[Steve1000]

Fair enough! Your point of view is entirely reasonable, IMHO. Mine's just a little different.

You're more than welcome to quibble about what the true causal effect is, or choose not to get into high res based on some personal principle. I don't have the answer on what the true causal effects are (and absent access to the original source material, nobody else does either), and frankly, I don't care. In the meantime, I'll just enjoy what these new versions offer with better sound quality and listening to familiar music in a new way. In my view, results count and what I've observed so far, the new high res discs have delivered.