Simple SACD question!

[hifitommy]

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



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



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



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



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

[mtrycraft]

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

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

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

Sheer speculation on your part.



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

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

open your damned ears and LISTEN for a change.


Listen to what? For what?

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

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


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

You could have fooled us all with your postings.



but i DO want it to sound better

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

and thats where sacd has taken digital sound,

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

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

Then one should buy a universal player. Simple.

[hifitommy]

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

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

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

1b: Sheer speculation on your part.

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

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

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

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

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


3.Listen to what? For what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.but i DO want it to sound better

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

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

7.and thats where sacd has taken digital sound,

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

7-unfortunately, cd didnt deliver, goodbye!

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

-Chris

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

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

[WmAx]

Chris, purposefully compromised is a inaccurate statement and you know this.

Refer to [1]

This use of inflammatory language is silly and stupid, and does nothing to accurately describe what is being done.

Inflammatory? I guess this is entirely in the eye of the beholder. If you find it 'inflammatory' then I suppose it is too you. Does not make it a reasonable interpretation, but that's not the point. :-)

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

[1] Since this has been covered in another thread, and argued into the ground, so to speak, anyone who wants to know what this all about can refer to the thread in question. In the future, it might be helpful if you learn ed the value of objective analysis as opposed speculation and heresay. Again, anyone who wants to know what's 'up', can read through all 400+ posts:

SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

-Chris

0

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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


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

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

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

My recommendation was clearly stated that ' I made no claims of audibility'. I clearly stated that i was recommended by someone else as being a good unit for the price. Difference is, you are trying to establish your testimonials as evidence..again. I mentioned Kruegar's name because anyone who is familiar with him know how he goes about suggesting equipment.

Well, I have heard it, so I CAN make claims of audibility. And for recording purposes it is unsuitable, and your recommendation without even hearing it is consistant with your arguments with SACD. If you do not know what pizza taste like, how can you say you don't like it. How in the hell can your recommend a product without listening to it. As Arny's recommendation is cow plop, I know nothing about him, audio engineers I have asked have never heard of him, so his word is dog slop to me.

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

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

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

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

I don't care about one's personal believe as long as they don't attempt to spread it around as if it's fact when it has not been substantiated.

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

If it was a relevant issue in the conversation, they yes, I would require verification. :-

If figures(rolls eyes))

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

You are writing just to read your own words here, and definately mudding the waters.. The goal was simple. They used a panel of 3000 SUBJECTIVE opinions through objective testing methods to obtain a result. But the basis of the result was not the objective method, it was the SUBJECTIVE PREFERENCES. Any time the word preference is used, objectivity cannot be used.

Because, lumped preference was teh objective of the test.

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

You are incorrect. In the proper scope, I value opinions.

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

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

I know why it was DBT, so you could have saved the keystrokes.

Except that noone has even verified that SACD has any audible sound differences as opposed to RBCD...

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

Something sounds suspicous. What steps were taken to verify the results were not due to test error, signal distortion, etc.?

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

The NRC model tested a known, real audible difference set. However, other then that, it sounds similar.

Yes, but this test followed that method to the T, so if you had no problem with the NRC test, then you should have no problem with this test. If you do have a problem, I want you to state it right here, so everyone can see the inconsistancy of your every changing position.

Such presumption. That's the point. You have to provide substantiation IT IS an issue in the first place. Verificatino of claims. It's simple. Maybe someone has real psychic powers? No one has demonstrated this, either, in scientifically valid tests. But should I asumme they do exist? The issue is that certain abilities ahve been demonstrated, and it's not logical to assume that abilities beyond these are real until they ahve been verified to exist.

When it is provided, you dismiss it. Verification is only useful when a individual as a open enough mind to receive information that might be contrary to their beliefs. You have already demonstrated that you will reject anything that in contrary to your beliefs. So all the rest of the blather is useless to even mention.

When you state someting new in a fashion that is made as absolute, how else do you expect me to take it?

Well, it maybe new to you, but it is not new to everyone else. VERY high profile engineers have been claiming for years that high rez sounds better than redbook. The very idea that you think my claims are new shows that you are behind the curve with your knowledge of formats.

If you want to state once and for all that these are your opinions but dont want to make this clear in your text, as anyone should, then add it to your sig line. At least, then, it's very clear and renewed qualification for every new post. Until then, everytime you make a new post that is stated as absolute/fact, I can only take it in that manner.

I am going to once again tell you that you cannot tell me how to frame my words. I said in my post earlier that all information is my opinion, and my opinion just happens to be supported by hundreds of other audio engineers. If you cannot understand that, then there is nothing I can do but recommend going back to school. I am not going to continually state what I have already told you because you lack comprehensive skills. If you can't get it, then maybe you should not read posts, or post yourself.

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

Remember, this is just a testimonial until I SEE what was written. And keep in mind, you said components, not CD players, SACD players, or DVD-A players. Can you please clarify with the article?

Yet, hi-end consumer equipment has not exclusively shown to be superir in tests vs. normal grade consumer audio equipment in any controlled tests or by way of measurments correlating with JNDs.

Well, then why have some mags produced video or audio tests on equipment, and when compared to each other some products have higher noise level than others, or higher video noise than others which can be heard as grunge, or seen as artifiacts? There have been cases where high end product have measureable output performed budget components. You just haven't seen them(or didn't want to). My Sony DVD-V player definately measures better than a Apex DVD player in every respect. Can you explain that?

Now, I am aware of some hiend DACs that have no anti alias filter, such as some made by AUdio Note. I'm actually more surprised to find, say, an RCA that has audible levels of distortion in the output.

It's okay to be surprised, just don't be ignorant.

Well, this is a very important thing for this conversation.

I guess if you are majoring in minors.

Again, I have not seen any plausible excuse for any normal quality product to have audible problems. The filter topology, itself, is not realy a price consideration. The filter order/topology is essentially whatever the engineer chooses. He chooses the cutoff point and slope rate, as well as filter Q.

Please, whole worlds can be built on what you haven't seen. Do you claim to know all there is about audio?

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

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

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

Not true. What a presumption you make.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.athensmastering.com/en/Mu...tEvent.en.html

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

[E-Stat]

I have never been in a studio...

I had to pick myself off the floor.

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

rw

[WmAxII]

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

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

Later.

-Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

[krabapple]

N. Absentia said:

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

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

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

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

[krabapple]

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

i agree compeltely.

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Eric Li]

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

[hifitommy]

see quote below:








































































































'

hifitommy
Forum Regular



user gallery
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
Posts: 723

[bobsticks]

God, I miss Terrence...

[hifitommy]

too. no BSing there!

[ericmc5]

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

[hifitommy]

well loooook who IS back from the dead!

;^)

[lomarica]

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

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

[Vinylly]

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

[hifitommy]

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

[Woochifer]

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

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

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

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

[Woochifer]

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

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

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

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

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