SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

[Woochifer]

Oh..proof of a negative? How is that possible? If there is proof of a positive, that's the way. I provided one link in Swedish and a short explanation of the test and results. No difference was heard between samples 1-3 in that test and in no other test I've seen have been positive. I've never claimed proof that needs to be peer reviewed, although that would strengthen it. Only the details of the test and the test scores IF there was a difference. Since there apparently are tests being done according to "AES standards" then there should be some numbers. If not, there is no proof. Knowledge is worthless if it cannot be delivered to others.

No, a null result is not proof of a negative, it's a nonconclusive finding. But, documenting those null results has value, especially since we're in the rhelm of comparing a 44.1/16 source against a high res master. Are you saying that something should be published ONLY if a positive result shows up? You're making a leap of logic to assume that all of these unpublished null results that you cite as proof of transparency between 44.1/16 and the master source are every bit as credible as the opinions of sound engineers who work with high res digital equipment on a daily basis.

To you the knowledge is worthless if it cannot be delivered to others, yet these null results that help bolster your case aren't published -- does that not make your point worthless as well since it also exists strictly in the rhelm of opinion? Conversely, it's not a recording engineer's obligation to try and prove the worth of his/her procedures to a layperson. One of two of them out of thousands, it might be disputable, but considering how the entire industry has standardized around high resolution digital formats, either you got a case of mass delusion occurring or the merits of higher resolution than 44.1/16 are very clear to the people who have the best access to the source material that can help make that determination.

No, I don't throw opinions away. If I did I would not be here. If there is knowledge that breaks new grounds, I'm happy to learn. But I'm not satisfied with just opinions. I may upgrade to high-res audio if that shows to be audible in some way. But until no evidence exist, I'll keep my equipment.

You're assuming that the only difference between CDs and high res discs is the resolution, and you seem to have judged the merits of the formats based strictly on bench tests, which does not say anything about how actual CDs compare to their high res versions. Have you even bothered giving any of the high res formats a listen? I'm not basing my opinion of the high res formats on theoretical arguments, I'm basing it on what gets demonstrated to me by what's actually available to an end consumer. On that basis, I've yet to hear a high res disc that does not at least subtlely improve upon the CD version (in some cases, the improvement is huge). As I've stated many times, I don't care about the causal effects, I only care about the end results. Theoretical arguments I'll leave to the recording engineers who work with the technology, and anyone else who has the time and inclination to deal with those questions.

The simple fact is that there are plenty of CDs still on the market that were poorly transferred in the first place. The high res formats afford an opportunity to not only get the transfer done right, but also to create a multichannel mix as well as a remixed two-channel master (since creating a multichannel mix requires going back to the original multitrack master and do the mixdown without the degradation that you got with analog equipment) and benefit from the higher resolution, whether or not you believe that the resolution alone has any causal effect. That's a practical benefit that these theoretical spin jobs almost always ignore. If you'd rather live in theory and technical details and base your opinion of the high res formats' value strictly on that basis while ignoring the practical improvements that are easily demonstrated by the discs on the market, that's your choice

[Thomas_A]

No, a null result is not proof of a negative, it's a nonconclusive finding. But, documenting those null results has value, especially since we're in the rhelm of comparing a 44.1/16 source against a high res master. Are you saying that something should be published ONLY if a positive result shows up? You're making a leap of logic to assume that all of these unpublished null results that you cite as proof of transparency between 44.1/16 and the master source are every bit as credible as the opinions of sound engineers who work with high res digital equipment on a daily basis.

To you the knowledge is worthless if it cannot be delivered to others, yet these null results that help bolster your case aren't published -- does that not make your point worthless as well since it also exists strictly in the rhelm of opinion? Conversely, it's not a recording engineer's obligation to try and prove the worth of his/her procedures to a layperson. One of two of them out of thousands, it might be disputable, but considering how the entire industry has standardized around high resolution digital formats, either you got a case of mass delusion occurring or the merits of higher resolution than 44.1/16 are very clear to the people who have the best access to the source material that can help make that determination.

But how many times should I say it? It has been documented in a non-peer reviewed magazine. I publish (and review) other matters in peer-reviewed journals and null results are often difficult to publish since they are inconclusive. Journals have thousands of manuscript to choose from and null results are often rejected. IF not the null result is a result of a previous positive finding that is questionable. So since there is no positive finding of a difference that has been published with some scientific method involved, why should there be more publications of null results?

One more thing, the market will decide only if there is two or more formats present. And as I said if the recording engineers deliberately put poor quality on CD, then they are responsible for that. Not me.

You're assuming that the only difference between CDs and high res discs is the resolution, and you seem to have judged the merits of the formats based strictly on bench tests, which does not say anything about how actual CDs compare to their high res versions. Have you even bothered giving any of the high res formats a listen? I'm not basing my opinion of the high res formats on theoretical arguments, I'm basing it on what gets demonstrated to me by what's actually available to an end consumer. On that basis, I've yet to hear a high res disc that does not at least subtlely improve upon the CD version (in some cases, the improvement is huge). As I've stated many times, I don't care about the causal effects, I only care about the end results. Theoretical arguments I'll leave to the recording engineers who work with the technology, and anyone else who has the time and inclination to deal with those questions.

The simple fact is that there are plenty of CDs still on the market that were poorly transferred in the first place. The high res formats afford an opportunity to not only get the transfer done right, but also to create a multichannel mix as well as a remixed two-channel master (since creating a multichannel mix requires going back to the original multitrack master and do the mixdown without the degradation that you got with analog equipment) and benefit from the higher resolution, whether or not you believe that the resolution alone has any causal effect. That's a practical benefit that these theoretical spin jobs almost always ignore. If you'd rather live in theory and technical details and base your opinion of the high res formats' value strictly on that basis while ignoring the practical improvements that are easily demonstrated by the discs on the market, that's your choice

I am not assuming that the only difference is the resolution. The only TECHNICAL difference is the resolution and the storage amount. What the recording engineers put there is different, and if the continue to make bad recordings on CD when there is no reason for it, is it to push other formats becuase they think "CD is technically bad" or any other reasons ? Using 8-10 bits of resolution and compressed material on CD when there are 16, is a bad thing not good.

I have listened to so-called hybrid discs with SACD and CD. And you are sure that there are improvements or just different? There are excellent SACD pressings as there are CD ones, even though they get more rare - because of the above.

I only speak as a medium for two-channel music as previously said.

[Woochifer]

But how many times should I say it? It has been documented in a non-peer reviewed magazine. I publish (and review) other matters in peer-reviewed journals and null results are often difficult to publish since they are inconclusive. Journals have thousands of manuscript to choose from and null results are often rejected. IF not the null result is a result of a previous positive finding that is questionable. So since there is no positive finding of a difference that has been published with some scientific method involved, why should there be more publications of null results?

One more thing, the market will decide only if there is two or more formats present. And as I said if the recording engineers deliberately put poor quality on CD, then they are responsible for that. Not me.

But, if the null result is relevant to the argument that you put forth, then why would those not be published, yet you demand "proof" if someone states the opposite argument? If you do all this writing and reviewing, and this point is so important to you, then why not put the argument to the test directly? You obviously have the technical know-how and the inclination, so what's the hang up? You talk about the supposed transparency of 44.1/16 as if it is proven by the links that you posted, yet it's all a bunch of tangental material that doesn't touch upon that question directly.

I am not assuming that the only difference is the resolution. The only TECHNICAL difference is the resolution and the storage amount. What the recording engineers put there is different, and if the continue to make bad recordings on CD when there is no reason for it, is it to push other formats becuase they think "CD is technically bad" or any other reasons ? Using 8-10 bits of resolution and compressed material on CD when there are 16, is a bad thing not good.

I have listened to so-called hybrid discs with SACD and CD. And you are sure that there are improvements or just different? There are excellent SACD pressings as there are CD ones, even though they get more rare - because of the above.

I only speak as a medium for two-channel music as previously said.

Well, if you're assuming that CD audio quality is purposely doctored to sound inferior to SACD, then you'll just have to live with that compromised level of sound quality unless you upgrade to a high res player, right? Regardless of the reasons, I purchase high res discs because at a practical level, they represent an improvement in sound quality. As for whether the improvement is technically based or just due to better attention to detail, I could care less. It's the same reason why I bought half-speed mastered LPs 20 years ago. I didn't care if it was due to the half-speed cutting lathe, higher density vinyl, first generation source material, or just a better mastering engineer at work, bottomline was better audio quality and that's all that mattered. Any conclusions about causal effect would have been mindless speculation.

Am I sure these high res discs represent improvements? Yes, because whether something sounds better is a subjective assessment. For example, recording engineer Rudy Van Gelder remastered a series of his classic jazz sessions on CD, and in my assessment some of the remastered CDs sound worse than before.

[Thomas_A]

But, if the null result is relevant to the argument that you put forth, then why would those not be published, yet you demand "proof" if someone states the opposite argument? If you do all this writing and reviewing, and this point is so important to you, then why not put the argument to the test directly? You obviously have the technical know-how and the inclination, so what's the hang up? You talk about the supposed transparency of 44.1/16 as if it is proven by the links that you posted, yet it's all a bunch of tangental material that doesn't touch upon that question directly.

If there has been tests with positives then it is easy to show the results. Null results does not mean much especially if there is a positive result somewhere that can be repeated with the specific test material used. The null results only means that the test failed at that particular test, with the participants, and with the equpiment and music material used. It means nothing else. So it is not at all proven that there is an inadubility, because it is not possible to do that. So I don't demand "proof of the negative", only when there is a positive. Why, becuase I am a researcher and music lover and want to know why I seldom find good quality music to buy - when I know there are excellent recordings on CD and thus an excellent medium. If there are claims that the medium is poor, I want to know why. It does not hurt to push a little to get the truth.

Well, if you're assuming that CD audio quality is purposely doctored to sound inferior to SACD, then you'll just have to live with that compromised level of sound quality unless you upgrade to a high res player, right? Regardless of the reasons, I purchase high res discs because at a practical level, they represent an improvement in sound quality. As for whether the improvement is technically based or just due to better attention to detail, I could care less. It's the same reason why I bought half-speed mastered LPs 20 years ago. I didn't care if it was due to the half-speed cutting lathe, higher density vinyl, first generation source material, or just a better mastering engineer at work, bottomline was better audio quality and that's all that mattered. Any conclusions about causal effect would have been mindless speculation.

Am I sure these high res discs represent improvements? Yes, because whether something sounds better is a subjective assessment. For example, recording engineer Rudy Van Gelder remastered a series of his classic jazz sessions on CD, and in my assessment some of the remastered CDs sound worse than before.

There are a few excellent CD recordings and they sound fabolus, but I don't think I am only "assuming" that unessecary poor quality are deliberately put on CD. Analysing the signals, spectral content, dynamics and clipping show that it is really bad of many CDs. So-called remastered versions have often been modified to the worse. This does not happen by accident. Now can you come up to one reason why this happens on CD but not on high-res media? Finally (this will be my last post in this thread) if high-res takes over, there is nothing saying that in a couple of years, the quality will follow the CD route.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

But how many times should I say it? It has been documented in a non-peer reviewed magazine. I publish (and review) other matters in peer-reviewed journals and null results are often difficult to publish since they are inconclusive.

My claims (supported by identical claims by other engineers) have been published in non peer magazine call Surround Professional. Why are your non peer reviewed claims more valid than mine?

Why is it so difficult to publish the fact that some people can hear a difference, and some people cannot? Some people have better hearing than others. Some people have more balanced hearing than others (more even frequency response between ears). Some can hear higher frequencies better than others. Does anyone check the hearing of the partcipants in these DBT? I get my hearing checked at least once every year so I know exactly what losses have taken place, and how this effects how I hear when mixing.

Journals have thousands of manuscript to choose from and null results are often rejected. IF not the null result is a result of a previous positive finding that is questionable. So since there is no positive finding of a difference that has been published with some scientific method involved, why should there be more publications of null results?

Well what if a null result came from all previous testing of a particular subject matter, in other words no previous positives. Do they still publish that?

One more thing, the market will decide only if there is two or more formats present. And as I said if the recording engineers deliberately put poor quality on CD, then they are responsible for that. Not me.

This statement is an insult to EVERY audio engineer out who is busting there ass to do a good job. Do you think they mix in a vaccum?? The artist and producer MUST approve the sound of any mix a audio engineer does, so if it sounds like crap, that what the producer wants to hear. You would be surprised how many times we try and talk producers out of doing something, only to be rejected. With all this experience that you have, I am disappointed that you do not know just what role the mixer plays in relationship to the producer/artist.

Currently the film community has three formats. All three have been in co-existence since 1993. The market decided that all three can stay. Right now the consumer market is supporting DVD-A, SACD, MP3, CD, and vinyl LP. It has been this way for about 3 years or so, I don't really see any of them disappearing any time soon. So much for your theory or market trends.

[Thomas_A]

This statement is an insult to EVERY audio engineer out who is busting there ass to do a good job. Do you think they mix in a vaccum?? The artist and producer MUST approve the sound of any mix a audio engineer does, so if it sounds like crap, that what the producer wants to hear. You would be surprised how many times we try and talk producers out of doing something, only to be rejected. With all this experience that you have, I am disappointed that you do not know just what role the mixer plays in relationship to the producer/artist.

Since I'll leave this thread I only have one more question: How come the producer/artist don't want to hear crap when there is a new medium available, all of a sudden? Because they think the medium is better?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Since I'll leave this thread I only have one more question: How come the producer/artist don't want to hear crap when there is a new medium available, all of a sudden? Because they think the medium is better?

There has always been a premium format for high quality release in audio. Years ago the compact disc was the premiere format, and the LP was the compromised one since it was used by the most radio station all over this country. The cassette replace the eight track.

Now radio stations use the CD as the common release format, so it has to be all things to all audio formats. So CD's HAVE to be mixed so they sound well no matter what medium is used. That usually set's up compromises because all audio media do not treat audio the same way. DVD-A and SACD are not used in radio, or any other audio format that is broadcast over the air. It does not have to be compromised because it is not used anywhere but in your home, where the only compromise it is subjected to is a poorly set up system.

[Thomas_A]

There has always been a premium format for high quality release in audio. Years ago the compact disc was the premiere format, and the LP was the compromised one since it was used by the most radio station all over this country. The cassette replace the eight track.

Now radio stations use the CD as the common release format, so it has to be all things to all audio formats. So CD's HAVE to be mixed so they sound well no matter what medium is used. That usually set's up compromises because all audio media do not treat audio the same way. DVD-A and SACD are not used in radio, or any other audio format that is broadcast over the air. It does not have to be compromised because it is not used anywhere but in your home, where the only compromise it is subjected to is a poorly set up system.

I don't agree that CDs have to be compressed, limited etc just because to fit the radio (as Wmax said in the beginning of this thread). If it needs to be compressed there is something wrong with the information given between artist/producer and various recording engineers and broadcast engineers. See e.g. this citation from George Graham:

"In the audio business, there is something of a chasm between broadcast audio engineers and recording engineers. Folks from one camp don't seem to know a lot about the practices and mindset of the other. I guess I'm lucky to work on both sides of the fence -- making music recordings for broadcast and then hearing just how they sound on the air. Every broadcast station already uses compression on the air. There is a legal limit, as regulated and monitored by the FCC, to the loudness of sound on the air. So to keep a signal loud enough not to be lost in fading, and static, compression, which varies by station and format, is inevitably used.

The fallacy that seems to have become pervasive among many people in the pop music recording field, especially among record companies, is that if a CD is pushing the absolute digital max it will somehow be louder or better on the air and presumably win more airplay, and thus sell more copies to the public. This is not true at all. Compressing a CD will contribute to on-air loudness almost unnoticeably. Radio people have the brains to turn up a CD that's recorded at a normal level, and broadcast stations' existing compressors will even everything out anyway. The only thing that is accomplished is messing up the dynamic range for those who pay their good money for CDs, "squashing" the life out of any acoustic instruments in the mix, and increasing listener fatigue.

Lately, this has been made worse by the increasing availablity of "desktop audio," which puts powerful compression tools in the realm of the home studio, by using a computer to perform the mastering function. Increasing numbers of CDs are being released that have come from home and "project" studios, with generally less-experienced people doing the mixing and mastering in these settings. So some serious damage is being done by people impressed by how much louder they can make their recording sound by crushing the dynamic range with relatively inexpensive software.

Further, there is the phenomenon of "cascaded compression." When an already-compressed signal (e.g. a CD) is itself compressed (e.g. when played on a radio station), the compressors can actually "fight" each other, one bringing down the signal, followed by another one with different characteristics that might want to bring it back up at a slightly different rate. The result can border on distortion, and gives an especially annoying "pumping" sound, that ruins what is left of the dynamics of the music and can leave the artist and producer's sonic intent in shambles. And this is exactly the situation when a compressed CD is run on a radio station with its own compression."

At

http://www.georgegraham.com/compress.html

More at:

http://www.geocities.com/mjareviews/rant7.html

And last,

those who have not heard how CD can sound when transferred from an analogue source, listen to this record, found at Amazon (its an assortment of Christmas choir songs, a true reference for quality):

Cantate Domino
Oscars Motettkor, Torsten Nilsson, Alf Linder, Marianne Mellnas
Label: Proprius Records
Catalog: #7762
ASIN: B000002480

Bertil Alving made the recording 1976 and the mastering, 1993.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't agree that CDs have to be compressed, limited etc just because to fit the radio (as Wmax said in the beginning of this thread). If it needs to be compressed there is something wrong with the information given between artist/producer and various recording engineers and broadcast engineers. See e.g. this citation from George Graham:

George has his opinion(and they are not in short supply in this industry) the artist, producer, and other engineers have theirs. George Graham opinion is just another one. Sorry, but the name means nothing to me. Everyone has their opinion based on THEIR experience. What proof has George offered you to support his claims, a personal demo?

"In the audio business, there is something of a chasm between broadcast audio engineers and recording engineers. Folks from one camp don't seem to know a lot about the practices and mindset of the other. I guess I'm lucky to work on both sides of the fence -- making music recordings for broadcast and then hearing just how they sound on the air. Every broadcast station already uses compression on the air. There is a legal limit, as regulated and monitored by the FCC, to the loudness of sound on the air. So to keep a signal loud enough not to be lost in fading, and static, compression, which varies by station and format, is inevitably used.

His site was last updated in 1999. So this information is quite dated. Does he know that the title(and job) of broadcast audio engineer is a dying breed replaced by almost total automation? Does he understand that compressors and limiters found in radio stations all over the world very in quality, and some are not even regulated by the FCC? Don't you understand that if I compress my CD to match the loudness limits of the FCC in post production, it does not have to be processed quite so heavily by a processor of unknown quality? Nobody masters CD's for release in this country only. The music industry is world wide. The FCC only regulates here in America, what happens if my CD goes number one in a country NOT regulated by the FCC. Why don't you and Chris have this kind of forethought?

The fallacy that seems to have become pervasive among many people in the pop music recording field, especially among record companies, is that if a CD is pushing the absolute digital max it will somehow be louder or better on the air and presumably win more airplay, and thus sell more copies to the public. This is not true at all. Compressing a CD will contribute to on-air loudness almost unnoticeably. Radio people have the brains to turn up a CD that's recorded at a normal level, and broadcast stations' existing compressors will even everything out anyway. The only thing that is accomplished is messing up the dynamic range for those who pay their good money for CDs, "squashing" the life out of any acoustic instruments in the mix, and increasing listener fatigue.

For the record I do not approve of pushing my mixes to digital max or even close to clipping, even the ones destined for radio. I have my own personal way of mixing and mastering that get's the necessary loudness without the clipping that is so common in many CD mixes, especially pop. However, I have heard uncompressed and unlimited CD's on the radio, and the distortion, timbre altering, overly squashed sound of the radio's compressors made it sound absolutely horrible. This would horrify and piss off many a studio executive or producer who has invested many hundreds of thousand dollars on a product that is played over the air with that quality. The reality of todays world is, if you want the best mix, get SACD or DVD-A. The CD is joe six packs format now(you know the guys that like the sound of MP3), and that is just the way it is. Live with it, or not period.

Lately, this has been made worse by the increasing availablity of "desktop audio," which puts powerful compression tools in the realm of the home studio, by using a computer to perform the mastering function. Increasing numbers of CDs are being released that have come from home and "project" studios, with generally less-experienced people doing the mixing and mastering in these settings. So some serious damage is being done by people impressed by how much louder they can make their recording sound by crushing the dynamic range with relatively inexpensive software.

This is not even close to the norm these days. Mostly all of the product bound for the corporate controlled radio(which has severly limited the choice of music played) comes from master facilities of great quality. Rarely if never does the garage produced CD ever reach the airwaves. The corporatization of broadcast radio has contributed greatly to this end. To use this(somebody elses words I might add) to further your arguement just shows you are reaching for straws, and just trying to find something to latch on to, to legitimitize your arguement. Not buying it at all.

Further, there is the phenomenon of "cascaded compression." When an already-compressed signal (e.g. a CD) is itself compressed (e.g. when played on a radio station), the compressors can actually "fight" each other, one bringing down the signal, followed by another one with different characteristics that might want to bring it back up at a slightly different rate. The result can border on distortion, and gives an especially annoying "pumping" sound, that ruins what is left of the dynamics of the music and can leave the artist and producer's sonic intent in shambles. And this is exactly the situation when a compressed CD is run on a radio station with its own compression."

I am VERY familar with this phenomena. However, in the year 2004(as opposed to 1999 when this was originally written) most compressors in radio just don't automatically work the same way for every mix. The less the mix has been compressed, the harder the radio station compressor works. The more compressed the mix(up to FCC standards) the less the radio station compressors has to work.(at least this was the explaination given to me, I cannot attest to it's accuracy, but it was given to me by a very reliable and accurate source). This is largely a moot arguement because just like broadcast television, over the air analog is losing listeners to satellite digital radio by the thousands. It won't be long before mixers won't need to use compressors at all, because they won't be mixing for broadcast analog as a primary listener medium.

At

http://www.georgegraham.com/compress.html

More at:

http://www.geocities.com/mjareviews/rant7.html

Horribly outdated information. Pertinent pre 1999, irrelevant post 1999.

And last,

those who have not heard how CD can sound when transferred from an analogue source, listen to this record, found at Amazon (its an assortment of Christmas choir songs, a true reference for quality):

Cantate Domino
Oscars Motettkor, Torsten Nilsson, Alf Linder, Marianne Mellnas
Label: Proprius Records
Catalog: #7762
ASIN: B000002480

Bertil Alving made the recording 1976 and the mastering, 1993.

Great info. However good it sounds, how does it stack up to the original master when compared? How was it recorded(how many channels) Was it mixed and mastered for radio play?

The bottom line is this, the CD has outlived its usefulness as the primary medium for high end playback. In these days with between 30-50 channels being used for a typical high production product, mixing it for CD is like having a hoover dams worth of water going through a typically used kitchen funnel. So much eq, limiting, and compression has to be used to make all of these channels heard over each other after mixdown hardly makes anything pristine anymore. Recording in high rez, and downsampling to redbook is not a transparent process.

CD can sound very good to the end user. But the real test is how well it stands up to the master tape itself. IMO on more occasions than so, it does not. Some differences are slight, some VERY audible. Regardless, the bottom line is we are moving away from redbook and the primary high quality delivery of audio. You can argue this until the moon turns blue, but you cannot prohibit change because it's coming whether you like it or not.

Lastly, it is not in good form to quote someone elses words, and represent them as your own. To say you don't agree with something, and then use someone elses experiences to bolster your argument is disengenous and VERY uncool. If you have some personal experiences, or situations you have participated in, then that is one thing. But you are quoting people as if they are the foremost expert on all subject matter regarding audio, and that is just not the case. Opinions are abundant in this field, and so are counter opposing white papers. You must be very careful where you gravitate towards when you don't work in this industry.

Now ask GG would he turn a client down if the client wanted HIS cd to sound as loud as the artist's competitors? I seriously doubt it.