Simple SACD question!

[N. Abstentia]

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

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

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

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

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

[markw]

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

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

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

[kexodusc]

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


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

[N. Abstentia]

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

[ronning]

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

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

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

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

Hope that helps.

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

[markw]

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

[krabapple]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[progfan]

N. Absentia said:

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

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

[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.

[markw]

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

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

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

[Woochifer]

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

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

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

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

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

[WmAx]

You're so right about that. The most laughable part of these format debates is that NOBODY, aside a professional recording engineer, has access to the master source material that you would need to conduct a proper and equitable listening test.

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

If you really want to test the SACD format versus CD, you'd have to have something recorded in DSD and PCM simultaneously

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

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

-Chris

[markw]

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

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

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

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

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

[Woochifer]

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

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

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

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

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

-Chris

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

-Chris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

[WmAx]

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

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

-Chris

[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

[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...