View Full Version : Is High-Res just smoke and mirrors? . . . .
morris_minor
22-05-2013, 12:22
. . . Graham Slee thinks so, and puts forward the explanation why:
Here (http://www.gspaudio.co.uk/blog/understanding-audio-n-bit-words_post53.html) and here (http://www.gspaudio.co.uk/blog/understanding-audio-n-bit-words-part-2_post54.html) . . .
Discuss.
He's not alone.
Hi-res is necessary I understand, for recording and mastering to keep usable dynamic range as wide as possible after the editors etc have done their work, but it appears to have been comprehensively proved that in blind testing and, GIVEN THE SAME MASTER, CD red-book sounds the same.....
"DING...DING...DING" Round 1... :lol:
Spectral Morn
22-05-2013, 14:48
Not all High Resolution Music, Studio Masters etc will be to the same quality, much as in all things it will depend on implementation, but in my experience, with some studio masters of 88.2, 96 and 192 I can hear marked differences between them and 44.1 and I prefer the higher resolution versions. I will concede that much might have to do with the way things have been done and as I am not able to know exactly how things have been done I can't be sure if differences are down to the technology or that music has been dealt with better in some cases than in others.
However it is HD Music and HD Studio Masters than interest me and not rips or standard definition downloads - why anyone would want to be bothered ripping their CD collection is beyond me - just stick it in the drawer of a good CD player and enjoy, same goes for SACD - why bother.
In my experience to date - please note I say to date - no standard definition music on my computer audio set up betters the sound I get from my CD player playing CDs or my SACD player and yes I do have multiple formats of the same music (yep I know there might be mastering variations) and it is only the HD music that comes close to what my Moon Andromeda or Marantz SA7 can do. Please note I say come close not surpass - that has still to happen. Not saying it can't, just it hasn't done so in my set up as of yet.
So I don't think HD music is smoke and mirrors in principle as that suggests some sort of fraud (though only a small quantity of music is recorded to 192) but I do know that HD Tracks - for instance - have been caught out supplying a few HD masters that are not quite what they are being described as - plenty about this on the Computer Audiophile website.
So I think in balance it would be safer to say that not all HD music is created or supplied equal but what I have heard in my set up to date fills me with some hope for a download 88.2/96/192 future - though I still prefer and want physical media.
Regards Neil
morris_minor
22-05-2013, 15:44
This is the bit that got me thinking:
The point was that half the signal is contained in the most significant bit! What? Yes!
Well, what is 6dB? It's the same as saying two times! And -6dB is the same as saying half!
So the most significant bit goes from 100% of the signal to 50% of the signal.
What's left is 50% of the signal. The second most significant bit goes from 50% of the signal to 25% of the signal.
The third bit down goes from 25% of the signal to 12.5% of the signal.
The fourth... 12.5% of the signal to 6.25% of the signal.
Fifth... 6.25% to 3.125%
Sixth... 3.125% to 1.6% (corrected to one decimal place)
7th... 1.6% to 0.8%
8th... 0.8% to 0.4%
9th... 0.4% to 0.2%
10th... 0.2% to 0.1%
11th... 0.1% to 0.05%
12th... 0.05% to 0.025%
13th... 0.025% to 0.0125%
14th... 0.0125% to 0.00625%
15th... 0.00625% to 0.003125%
16th... 0.003125% to 0.0016% (corrected to 4 decimal places)
And 100 divided by 0.0016 = 62500
Log of 62500 = 4.795880017
Times 20 (to get it into decibels) = 95.91760035 dB
Which allowing for my decimal place corrections above is as near as damn it 96dB!!!
96dB being the spec for 16 bit.
And that's PROOF!
You can do exactly the same with 20 bit (what others like to call 24 bit), and in both cases it proves that the top bit handles 50% of the signal.
So which is better resolution? 16 bit or 24 bit?
It all depends on how quiet you can listen...
Can your listening environment handle either?
To my (admittedly very non-technical) mind that demolishes the argument for 24 bit over 16 bit for all my practical listening purposes. And given this, increasing the sampling frequency will mainly replicate other samples and not give you "higher resolution" at all.
If you want a system that records infinitely small changes in a signal from a microphone, then analogue would seem to fit the bill nicely.:lol:
In 1983, early CD sound was often dire - no vinyl ticks of course, but hard to listen to. In the intervening decades maybe, just maybe, we've got so used to digital sound that it's become not only bearable but desirable. Add in the marketing bullshit (from "Perfect Sound Forever" onwards), and season with a good sprinkling of one-upmanship number red-herrings to keep money rolling into the coffers and is it any wonder that the truth gets buried?
The human brain is a complex organ (more so in some, than others :eyebrows:) and auto-suggestion works wonders. I can almost feel the waves of "not for me, matey" coming at me. If you really are immune, then well-done!
:peace:
<puts another hi-res LP on />
sq225917
22-05-2013, 16:17
Excluding some sort of processing error in the downsampling process you really 'shouldn't be able' to hear any difference between a 192/24bit file and it down sampled to 44.1/16.
That's not the same statement however as saying you won't, just that you shouldn't. There are plenty of third rate filters and downsampling algorithms out there that impose a signature onto files passed through them.
That said I'll always buy the higher rate source material if it was the original master file. I'll not pay for upsampled analogue tape masters or any of that quasi hi-res bullshit that does the rounds regulalrly. Not because I think I can hear the difference, but just because one day I might.
I have digital files in the various HD and SD flavours which sound subime, LP's which sound sublime and CD's which sound sublime. I also own albums on all formats which sound distinctly 'ordinary' even though I might enjoy the content when the mood takes me. Not sure what that adds or subtracts to and from the argument, but there ya go... :cool:
In my experience to date - please note I say to date - no standard definition music on my computer audio set up betters the sound I get from my CD player playing CDs or my SACD player and yes I do have multiple formats of the same music (yep I know there might be mastering variations) and it is only the HD music that comes close to what my Moon Andromeda or Marantz SA7 can do. Please note I say come close not surpass - that has still to happen. Not saying it can't, just it hasn't done so in my set up as of yet.
It would be very interesting to re-visit this one Neil in perhaps 12 months time if you have moved away from a laptop as your source, to a dedicated server? Not saying it would change, but there are possibilities for you to perhaps ponder this one more :eyebrows:
As to the OP, well as you might know Bob this is something I have messed about with myself. I have been experimenting now for the best part of 2 years with file based audio and I have settled on redbook and I agree totally with Graham Slee. As others here will probably attest (Gazjam, John and Brian for example) there is a lot you can do at the 'front end' to give exceptional results, without having to resort to 24/192. The mastering is also key, I have heard HD albums that are mediocre and superb 16/44 albums that sound superior, but I have also heard 24/192 files that have astonishing clarity and are worth the cost. It reminds me a lot of the phrase you can't polish a turd. Get the playback system right in the first instance and 16/44 is IMO all you need in 99 times out of 100. I personally don't now bother with HD files at all, but is it all just smoke and mirrors? Often yes, but there is no hard and fast rule and the original mastering will have the most influence, not the file resolution. But . . . . . get your server/playback system performing at peak and in my experience 24/192 is not necessary, which is why I have settled for 16/44.1 for the majority of my albums.
Just my 2 cents worth.
morris_minor
22-05-2013, 17:27
You're right Tim - there are great recordings at all resolutions, and how they're mastered is key.
I also think that the analogue stage in a DAC is the key to its performance. Bit rates/sampling frequencies are no guarantee of quality....
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
I also think that the analogue stage in a DAC is the key to its performance. Bit rates/sampling frequencies are no guarantee of quality....
Absolutely Bob :thumbsup:
I have for my listening tastes arrived at the perfect combination and a lot of that is more by luck than judgement, but that luck came about by extensive tinkering and testing. There are so many elements in getting file based audio right way before the audio file itself, which makes it entirely understandable why many folk try it then dismiss it, especially if all they do is install Foobar on their home computer and rip a CD. What is great though is the level of development that has occurred during the time I have been playing with it and the enthusiasm of the audio community who have driven it forward via forums like AoS and Computeraudiophile.
Up the geeks :cool:
Absolutely Bob :thumbsup:
I have for my listening tastes arrived at the perfect combination and a lot of that is more by luck than judgement, but that luck came about by extensive tinkering and testing. There are so many elements in getting file based audio right way before the audio file itself, which makes it entirely understandable why many folk try it then dismiss it, especially if all they do is install Foobar on their home computer and rip a CD. What is great though is the level of development that has occurred during the time I have been playing with it and the enthusiasm of the audio community who have driven it forward via forums like AoS and Computeraudiophile.
Up the geeks :cool:
Can't disagree with that. :)
Ali Tait
22-05-2013, 18:36
+1 :)
I am also with Tim on this Neil
There a number of things you could do to improve your set up
If you wish to keep your laptop I recommend the following
The first would be to upgrade to W8 Honest its not so bad once you get use to and the sonic benefits are worth the effort
Get Jplay in your system it makes a big difference 2pc set up would be the ultimate expression of this
If you want to go further then I think Linux or a dedicated Audio pc would probably be the next step but cannot confirm as yet to hear what these do
Audioman
22-05-2013, 18:43
I would suggest anyone with a DVDA player buys one of the new King Crimson DVDA / CD releases. Then compare the CD layer played on a high quality dedicated CD player V DVDA in a compatible DVD or Universal player (these generally do no do justice to CD playback). Then report back. I don't think they will sound the same. Though CD version is a very good mastering the high resolution (24/96) disc sounds much better. It will also play 24/48 on an ordinary DVD player so those with DVD only can experiment. BTW both discs are new Steve Wilson remasters.
Absolutely Bob :thumbsup:
I have for my listening tastes arrived at the perfect combination and a lot of that is more by luck than judgement, but that luck came about by extensive tinkering and testing. There are so many elements in getting file based audio right way before the audio file itself, which makes it entirely understandable why many folk try it then dismiss it, especially if all they do is install Foobar on their home computer and rip a CD. What is great though is the level of development that has occurred during the time I have been playing with it and the enthusiasm of the audio community who have driven it forward via forums like AoS and Computeraudiophile.
Up the geeks :cool:
I haven't figured out how to rip CD's using Foobar as yet. I rip all my CD's using WMP into .wav files. My system could probably be tweaked even further but I do not possess the technical nouse to do it. The hassle I had trying to get Foobar to work properly nearly drove me bonkers. My system could do with a Windows reinstall but I am loath to do it because I just couldn't face all the hassle getting everything up and running again :(
BTW both discs are new Steve Wilson remasters.
Great example Paul, Steven Wilson's masters are most definitely the exception to the rule and are certainly worth the investment - I've mentioned it (many times) before, but he really is a musical genius and his masters are exceptional. If only every producer/engineer had his skill and passion.
Spectral Morn
22-05-2013, 22:57
It would be very interesting to re-visit this one Neil in perhaps 12 months time if you have moved away from a laptop as your source, to a dedicated server? Not saying it would change, but there are possibilities for you to perhaps ponder this one more :eyebrows:
.
Indeed Tim and it will be very interesting.
Regards Neil
Spectral Morn
22-05-2013, 23:07
I am also with Tim on this Neil
There a number of things you could do to improve your set up
If you wish to keep your laptop I recommend the following
The first would be to upgrade to W8 Honest its not so bad once you get use to and the sonic benefits are worth the effort
Get Jplay in your system it makes a big difference 2pc set up would be the ultimate expression of this
If you want to go further then I think Linux or a dedicated Audio pc would probably be the next step but cannot confirm as yet to hear what these do
Hi John
I have read a lot about 2 PC but no one yet (unless I have missed the post) has explained what that is....exactly.
I think I will wait till the new version of W8 comes out.
Interestingly I tried JRiver18 and I think JRiver17 sounds better :eek: at least in my setup. J18 is thinner, leaner and more forward than J17 which sounds richer and tonally more natural - music vs hifi and I have configured both carefully but maybe J18 works better in a W8 context rather than W7.
Agreed re Jplay which can be interfaced with J17
A dedicated audio PC/server is certainly something I am thinking about but I would like the opportunity to try one before I buy one.
Regards Neil
The very best SACDs and DVD-As I have not only sound better than CD, they do things (such as the extreme naturalness in the treble) that CD cannot do. Case proved - for me, anyway.
WOStantonCS100
23-05-2013, 02:05
The very best SACDs and DVD-As I have not only sound better than CD, they do things (such as the extreme naturalness in the treble) that CD cannot do. Case proved - for me, anyway.
+1
Given an analogue or high res master to begin with (and that is the all important part), there isn't a shadow of a doubt in my mind (or ears) that 16/44 (CD) simply does not compare nor should be considered in the same league. I've proven that to myself time and time again in the studio and at home with a high res digital recorder.
My most recent example was transferring "It's Oh, So Quiet" from my Bjork - Post LP to 16/44.1 and to 24/192 and then comparing the two back to the vinyl. Those familiar with this song will note the great dynamic shift between verse (very soft) and chorus (loud). My phono rig easily defines the acoustic guitar (down to what type (steel string or nylon string)) being played "way in the back" of the verse behind Bjork's vocals. 24/192 doesn't have any problem capturing this and playing it back. This same information captured with 16/44.1 is blurry and not at all convincing. And, that's enough to convince me.
2pc set up is a bit OTT but gets the best out of using Windows in my system
Two ways to connect via 2pc set up 1) Wireless I do not use this as I hear a bit of harshness this way 2) Using a Ethernet cable between the two pc I use a CAT 7 cable and prefer this over CAT 5 and 6 I think its due to the better connection on CAT 7
Jplay will work with Jriver but to be honest I only use it with just Jplay mini it does not have the same interface but I prefer how it sounds. Its something you have to play with this yourself to figure out what is best for you.
The very best SACDs and DVD-As I have not only sound better than CD, they do things (such as the extreme naturalness in the treble) that CD cannot do. Case proved - for me, anyway.
+1 The difference was very easy to hear and pushed the playback very close to the 1210 when I heard the DVD A disc at Martins
Spectral Morn
23-05-2013, 09:26
2pc set up is a bit OTT but gets the best out of using Windows in my system
Two ways to connect via 2pc set up 1) Wireless I do not use this as I hear a bit of harshness this way 2) Using a Ethernet cable between the two pc I use a CAT 7 cable and prefer this over CAT 5 and 6 I think its due to the better connection on CAT 7
Jplay will work with Jriver but to be honest I only use it with just Jplay mini it does not have the same interface but I prefer how it sounds. Its something you have to play with this yourself to figure out what is best for you.
Hi John
Still as clear as mud...... in what way can you use two Pcs to do this? Can you give a step by step guide as to how this is done? Why you would do it? and in what way its better than a single Pc. Sorry if I am coming across as stupid but it isn't obvious to me how this is done.
Regards Neil
Spectral Morn
23-05-2013, 09:28
The very best SACDs and DVD-As I have not only sound better than CD, they do things (such as the extreme naturalness in the treble) that CD cannot do. Case proved - for me, anyway.
I would agree with that as well though I prefer SACD to DVDA marginally.
Regards Neil
Morning Guys
Some of my thoughts
The DSD issue has always been firmly on the minds of engineers within the recording community for many years now. Some of the early adopters have been revisiting their original pro DSD stance in recent years.
What many people are unaware of is that DSD has to be converted to PCM (Usually 352.8 KHz /24bits) to be mixed then re-sampled to DSD which is 1 bit 2.82 MHz.
If you think of the formats as a box with RD book CD is a box 16 bits wide by 16 deep and takes 44100 samples a second.
DSD is a box 1 bit by 1 bit square but uses 2, 822,400 million samples a second
24/96 KHz is a box 24 by 24 and 96,000 samples a second. Many industry professionals feel that this format is more than match for DSD.
The bit depth *maybe* more important than the physical sample rate, however than is not the debate.
DSD produced audio (well recorded from a true DSD master, not a re-sampled CD master) when compare to red book CD equivalent (same tracks, matched levels etc) gives the feeling of greater space, improved upper frequency detail, with a much smoother over all sound.
However this comes at the expense of the life, vitality, rhythmic pace, bass articulation &timing plus the loss of musical involvement. It also seems to detach the treble from the rest of the frequency spectrum. (imho)
This tends to present a more desirable style of presentation to this portion of the audiophile listening community.
Usually reserved for more traditional style recordings (Jazz, Classical, and Blues) they champion tend to be obsessive or true audiophile types who feel that SACD is the pinnacle of sound reproduction.
There are the odd exceptions to the norm:- Deep Purple, Roxy Music, Toto, Pink Floyd , Eric Clapton, (these were made from analogue master tapes).
I noticed an email letter in one of the month’s hifi press by a chap called John Luke
Below are a couple of selected paragraphs:-
“A a classical music fan it is worth pointing out that many of the world’s finest orchestra’s have chosen to record exclusively in SACD, many on their own labels”
“The many thousands of recordings are enjoyed by an international community of stereo and multi channel audio enthusiasts dedicated to the pursuit of ultimate sound quality”
“Of course you will respond with your usual mantra about measuring the quality of high res downloads, but that is merely following the agenda of the computer geeks. It is not taking a stand as an independent voice committed to getting ever closer to the original recoding”
A real soap box full when you read its printed entirety!
The gent is totally entitled to his opinion regarding SACD, however this is the usual response we have encountered with exponents of SACD.
I am not singling out any classical/ jazz /blues fans here so please do not prepare a lynching party!
Recording in ALL formats have both good and bad examples, usually down to the mixing engineers state of mind (Psychotropic and alcohol effects not withstanding!) Record companies demographic market section etc.
No one mentions DVD-A in the same vein as SACD do they? Again another Beta-max / VHS style casualty I feel.
Personally I own just over 200 SACD titles, only 2 genuinely sound better (I’ll quantify this by saying more people who have listened to these recordings while visiting have preferred them) than the CD equivalent both of these interestingly are single layer pure SACD discs taken from genuine 50Khz dsd original masters.
Your thoughts gents?
Some interesting reading here:-
Some industry thoughts (http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=74)
What many people are unaware of is that DSD has to be converted to PCM (Usually 352.8 KHz /24bits) to be mixed then re-sampled to DSD which is 1 bit 2.82 MHz.
Information Theory allows for sampling rate and bit depth to be interchanged, so nothing is being lost in this process. The benefit of DSD (SACD) playback, when finally converted to analogue, is that it is very easy for the DAC and requires much less work than multi-bit.
The bit depth *maybe* more important than the physical sample rate, however than is not the debate.
Nope. See above.
However this comes at the expense of the life, vitality, rhythmic pace, bass articulation &timing plus the loss of musical involvement. It also seems to detach the treble from the rest of the frequency spectrum. (imho)
This tends to present a more desirable style of presentation to this portion of the audiophile listening community.
I couldn't agree with you less. Have you heard, say, Brothers in Arms or Selling England By The Pound on SACD?
No one mentions DVD-A in the same vein as SACD do they?
I already did in an earlier post. DVD-A failed because of commercial reasons and SACD already having entered the market. There is nothing wrong with it as a format. Neither caught on because the vast majority of people don't care about hi-res.
Martin, have you read the article that Tony linked to? Its been raised on PFM recently, don't get sucked in by DSD.
I think the comments about mastering are spot on, nicely brought home when I visited Tony last year with John and Martin(#2 !) :) It really is everything...
realysm42
23-05-2013, 10:17
Downloaded (read 'not ripped') redbook can sound alarmingly good.
Martin, have you read the article that Tony linked to? Its been raised on PFM recently, don't get sucked in by DSD.
Not sucked in - I just listen to it! I do agree that mastering is everything on any format. However, hi-res can do more.
Also - the information in that article is not new. Out of band noise shaping was a given when the DSD format was created.
Did you read what I said here:
"Information Theory allows for sampling rate and bit depth to be interchanged".
Frankyc2003
23-05-2013, 11:25
Downloaded (read 'not ripped') redbook can sound alarmingly good.
Indeed, because you have removed all nasty mechanical noises from laser and motor.
Going from solid media to downloaded is night and day. IMHO
:D
Not sucked in - I just listen to it! I do agree that mastering is everything on any format. However, hi-res can do more.
Also - the information in that article is not new. Out of band noise shaping was a given when the DSD format was created.
Did you read what I said here:
"Information Theory allows for sampling rate and bit depth to be interchanged".
Yes it's not new but I suspect not many know about it, it certainly improved my understanding. Yes read what you quoted and understand, however, I feel any benefit high res may appear to have is swamped by improvements in mastering, it's just my view.
---------------------------------
Posted using Tapatalk :)
Indeed, because you have removed all nasty mechanical noises from laser and motor.
Going from solid media to downloaded is night and day. IMHO
:D
Not sure how mechanical noise manifests itself in the data when performing DAE but I may have read your post wrongly. Be careful with blanket statements about the same ripped file vs a downloaded one, they may not be from the same master or mixed the same. You could be comparing apples to oranges.
---------------------------------
Posted using Tapatalk :)
I feel any benefit high res may appear to have is swamped by improvements in mastering, it's just my view.
I probably agree with you, in most cases. Mastering is king.
Hi John
Still as clear as mud...... in what way can you use two Pcs to do this? Can you give a step by step guide as to how this is done? Why you would do it? and in what way its better than a single Pc. Sorry if I am coming across as stupid but it isn't obvious to me how this is done.
Regards Neil
Jplay do a manual on how to use http://jplay.eu/manual/
2 pc set up in my system is the best I got computer audio to sound. But it maybe better getting a Audio PC using Linux I yet to compare. I also thought some of the very top end CD Transports will beat it but cannot be sure until I get the opportunity to test it out. It certainly be a match for any standalone CD player I heard regardless of price and I heard some very good CD players
For me one of the main issues with high res files is just how limited the catalogue is. Most of the music I love is impossible to find on high res digital recordings.
I probably agree with you, in most cases. Mastering is king.
http://ll-media.tmz.com/2012/04/24/celebrities-thumbs-up-fun-photos-0013-layer-15-480w.jpg
. . . and Steven Wilson is a master ;)
I am more than happy with redbook TBH, but then I'm an old slapper and will take anything these days :eyebrows:
Spectral Morn
23-05-2013, 16:02
Jplay do a manual on how to use http://jplay.eu/manual/
2 pc set up in my system is the best I got computer audio to sound. But it maybe better getting a Audio PC using Linux I yet to compare. I also thought some of the very top end CD Transports will beat it but cannot be sure until I get the opportunity to test it out. It certainly be a match for any standalone CD player I heard regardless of price and I heard some very good CD players
Hi John
Thanks I could actually do this as I have two laptops setup on the same router - wired :) - in the same room - in fact within a metre of each other - the one I write on, surf the net etc and the one I use for computer audio.
I will have a look at Jplay which was the next step :cool: cheers before trying a dedicated server.
Regards Neil
Information Theory allows for sampling rate and bit depth to be interchanged, so nothing is being lost in this process. The benefit of DSD (SACD) playback, when finally converted to analogue, is that it is very easy for the DAC and requires much less work than multi-bit.
Nope. See above.
I couldn't agree with you less. Have you heard, say, Brothers in Arms or Selling England By The Pound on SACD?
I already did in an earlier post. DVD-A failed because of commercial reasons and SACD already having entered the market. There is nothing wrong with it as a format. Neither caught on because the vast majority of people don't care about hi-res.
Hi Martin
Thank you for the your reply regarding the DSD post
In our studio we record in Digital Extreme definition (DXD) which is aftermarket recording and editing suite.
We use DAD AX 24 digital to analogue's for this.
Wiki explanation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_eXtreme_Definition)
DXD white paper (http://www.merging.com/uploads/assets//Merging_pdfs/dxd_Resolution_v3.5.pdf)
AES paper on DSD wide (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9998)
We also record in 24/96 and 24/192 formats (Pro tools) using either Esoteric D-02's or custom units slaved via Rubidium clocks
Personally I prefer 24/176.6Khz standard as this is a direct multiple of red book, for some reason the is a correctness of sound to direct multiples that feel 'right'.
Many of my colleagues in the industry will use 24/192 or DSD wide as with everything personal choice is the key for the individual.
With traditional high resolution methods of recording I feel the bit rate has the most bearing in the overall picture of the finished article.
With regard to the two albums you cited, I have both of these and firmly stand by my above statement.
However I will qualify this for you:-
I have listened to these and other sacd remasters on a great many replay devices from modest to eye watering over eight years or so on many a quality system. Many of these system owners were huge adopter's of the format.
Now some manufacturers have a SACD bias in both sound replay and marketing. In Japan the SACD is still very much alive and kicking, however the vast majority are classical / jazz orientated recordings.
Only in recent years has DSD direct data transfer been readily available, many machines used to re-sample DSD to 88.2Khz.
Others heavily bias the performance of the machine to have greater sacd performance over Red book.
Currently I have four big hitters in the SACD player stakes here, Esoteric, EMM labs, Marantz and TAD with the exception of Ed Mietner's equipment the rest emanate from the land of SACD.
All run full DSD to DSD decoding as well as having the option up-sampling PCM<> DSD on a couple.
Do they sound the same :lol: Er not in a million years.
They range from being ultra mid band lush boarding on soporific to ultra clinical studio orientated highly linear sounding.
This could be down to the digital signal processing sections, implementation, and or analogue stages without question. PLus the old favorite power supplies.
What SACD does do very well is help with unbalanced systems, slightly forward or bright systems, those lacking presence texture and tonality.
Think Metrum Hex dac's, these do the same for red book along with Audio note dac's these are great at ironing out wrinkles in the replay chain with a number of systems. Giving an improved listening experience with a smooth and relaxed presentation with texture and presence .
SACD does indeed benefit systems if they have deficiencies in these areas.
Every time I have listened at length on a high bandwidth, very linear and cohesive systems with low noise floors with identical recordings, SACD always gives the perception of a very polished presentation with bigger fuller bass, smoother sounding and a sparkly hifi treble (not hard or forward). Yet lacks the fluidity, articulation and involvement in the music, I also find the bass lines have greater cohesiveness too.
Now these are my findings and many of you will have different ones, if you didn't this thread would have died long ago!
The huge majority of SACD's we play for customers which are their own are classical / jazz.
Martin
Have you compared Floyd's SACD 30th anniversary DSOM against the red book layer at all?
Your thoughts would be most interesting.
Also Purple's Machine head (This is possible one if the very best transfer's of music in existence)
The Derek and Dominoes Layla SACD to?
If any one wishes to hear this for themselves happy to facilitate.
Tony
PM if you need help Neil. Use CAT 7 cable if you can. You will need to disable your firewall on the audio pc just make sure you not have the audio pc connected to the net
Haselsh1
23-05-2013, 16:06
Who the hell says it is better...? It is truly different but that does NOT make it better...!
John's comment on software is very true.
The issue is the music, many back catalogs are still waiting to brought into the 21st century.
However Record companies are paranoid at missing out on royalties, for those with long memories "Home taping is killing music"
I am fortunate to have all three formats in good order, it took close to four years to make the PC audio have the performance it does today for me.
An ideal player would a small digital transport playing from flash drives only powered by a power supply with is ultra clean and regulated fed by decoupled mains feeding the dac/amplifier via cat 7.
We can can dream can we not :mad:
John's comment on software is very true.
The issue is the music, many back catalogs are still waiting to brought into the 21st century.
However Record companies are paranoid at missing out on royalties, for those with long memories "Home taping is killing music"
I am fortunate to have all three formats in good order, it took close to four years to make the PC audio have the performance it does today for me.
An ideal player would a small digital transport playing from flash drives only powered by a power supply with is ultra clean and regulated fed by decoupled mains feeding the dac/amplifier via cat 7.
We can can dream can we not :mad:
Yes we can dream :)
Who the hell says it is better...? It is truly different but that does NOT make it better...!
Please read anything I say as IMHO or to my preferences ;)
Have you compared Floyd's SACD 30th anniversary DSOM against the red book layer at all?
Your thoughts would be most interesting.
Also Purple's Machine head (This is possible one if the very best transfer's of music in existence)
The Derek and Dominoes Layla SACD to?
I have all three and will play them again. I will say that the DSOTM on SACD is absolutely the very best version I have heard, including the Mobile Fidelity vinyl which in my opinion is bloated and lacking in definition. I also have the Alan Parsons quad mix DVD-A for comparison.
Surprised you don't mention my Ayre player amongst your hardware tried, it is often rated as the best DSD/red book player of them all and sounds it.
Hi Martin
Thank you.
The DOSM on the SACD layer has many extra's in the mix.
Just watch the levels too if you have a dB meter match them up.
Tony
Spectral Morn
23-05-2013, 16:50
PM if you need help Neil. Use CAT 7 cable if you can. You will need to disable your firewall on the audio pc just make sure you not have the audio pc connected to the net
Thanks John
I bought Belkin Cat6 cable to hook up to the router but I can buy some Cat7. How do I remove the firewall from the Audio Computer when it will be connected to the Router? I don't do wifi or wireless in the house.
I will need help lol
Regards Neil
Edit Ok I see the bit in Jplay about how to do that, but as the audio laptop will be on the network wired how do I protect it?
No need to use a router just use LAN ports from each PC I guide you through this via PM
Cat5e or 6 is more than enough, anything else is overkill and may be detimental if theres an overal shield coupling grounds between end points.
No offence Neal but there a big difference in this type of set up which I heard a few times with others who have travelled a similar path and CAT 7 is not exotic
No offence taken John! What was the distance and connection speed between the two computers? My concern is the galvanic connection between the computers....thinking about it, maybe its of benifit :scratch: In that case Cat5e STP would be sufficient...maybe something to try?
WOStantonCS100
23-05-2013, 19:50
PCM vx. DSD
More in depth comparisons resulted in my preference of 24/96 PCM over 2.8MHz DSD; however, only by a slim margin. I found the high end of DSD to be just a wee bit tame, smooth; but, less realistic than PCM. And, to wit, I sometimes wish PCM could be a bit more tame. The powers that be don't seem to be too concerned with a happy medium. This becomes less of an issue as the resolution goes up, say from 24/96 to 24/176.4 and so on, as I would expect to be the case going from 1x DSD to 2x DSD or anything in between.
What I still don't have in my home system is a proper comparison of 24/192 PCM to 5.6MHz DSD; so, I simply won't say anything about that 'til I do.
What I can say unequivocally, is that 24/192 PCM is currently a cut above anything that isn't vinyl or reel to reel, in my system.
MASTERING
To my ears, a greatly mastered recording still sounds better on a higher resolution format. A greatly mastered recording transferred to a stretched out 8-track tape full of dead spots still sounds like crap to me. Likewise, a poor mastering will sound even worse on that same "past it's prime" 8-track BUT will at least be a truer representation of that poor quality master on a higher resolution format.
Also Purple's Machine head (This is possible one if the very best transfer's of music in existence)
Agreed, it's quite stunning. I've just been playing Smoke on the Water on the SACD and it's knockout: the fuzzed guitar intro left-channel followed by the cymbals centre stage and then the bass entry and drums, it sounds amazingly immediate.
I cannot equate any ideas of softness or niceness with this: the SACD is punchy and dynamic and very thrilling!
Audioman
23-05-2013, 23:13
I think most people who listen to vinyl will prefer DSD to hi-res PCM.
WOStantonCS100
24-05-2013, 00:22
I think most people who listen to vinyl will prefer DSD to hi-res PCM.
I guess that leaves me out of the "most people" group. :lol: But, it depends on what we're talking about?
We need to clarify "DSD" and "hi-res PCM" (but too often don't in these discussions) as there are, at least, two levels of DSD and several levels of hi-res PCM. So, it's far from specific to just say "DSD" or "hi-res PCM". Depending on which level is compared to which level the answer of preference can change greatly.
Comparing 24/48 to single rate DSD isn't exactly a fair comparison. Likewise, single rate DSD to 24/192 isn't a fair comparison, either.
I tried Cat 5 and CAT 6 the only thing I can think of is that the connection on CAT 7 Jason the sides metal rather than plastic is making a difference. When I tried it I was very surprised by the difference its not subtle and is repeatable
I think most people who listen to vinyl will prefer DSD to hi-res PCM.
Vinyl and SACD do have similarities in the way they go about making music.
I tried Cat 5 and CAT 6 the only thing I can think of is that the connection on CAT 7 Jason the sides metal rather than plastic is making a difference. When I tried it I was very surprised by the difference its not subtle and is repeatable
Yes, the shield is connected at both ends thats why my after thought was to try CAT5e STP....anyhow glad its working for you John! http://theartofsound.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif
Audioman
24-05-2013, 09:55
I guess that leaves me out of the "most people" group. :lol: But, it depends on what we're talking about?
We need to clarify "DSD" and "hi-res PCM" (but too often don't in these discussions) as there are, at least, two levels of DSD and several levels of hi-res PCM. So, it's far from specific to just say "DSD" or "hi-res PCM". Depending on which level is compared to which level the answer of preference can change greatly.
Comparing 24/48 to single rate DSD isn't exactly a fair comparison. Likewise, single rate DSD to 24/192 isn't a fair comparison, either.
By DSD I am referring to SACD - don't know if that is level 1 or not. I think comparison to 24/96 would be more relevant as 24/192 is very limited in availability on disc or file rather than in the studio. Also I am talking in terms of mid range equipment used to play SACD and DVDA formats which is most relevant for consumers. Obviously things may be different in the studio using state of the art converters and playback.
I think it is what is available at reasonable cost to consumers that is more relevant in terms of recommending formats. Certainly in my limited experience there is a large improvement over CD using affordable equipment- stuff that can be bought used on Ebay for little outlay btw.
Agreed, it's quite stunning. I've just been playing Smoke on the Water on the SACD and it's knockout: the fuzzed guitar intro left-channel followed by the cymbals centre stage and then the bass entry and drums, it sounds amazingly immediate.
I cannot equate any ideas of softness or niceness with this: the SACD is punchy and dynamic and very thrilling!
Hello Martin
This morning I have been setting up for demonstration and slipped in said disc:-
The killer track on the album is Lazy, with Lord's C3 being pushed into new audio territory by using tube distortion and overdrive feeding a set of marshal stacks to obtain that sound. Rather than the tradition Leslie amps associated with the Hammond organ.
Most systems fall apart with the dynamic contrasts, sheer scale and the inability to really to glue the whole intro together, before Blackmore comes gently (Sic lol) in with the hook.
If you were looking to lecture to would be recording engineers and sound technicians, this would a prime example of how to do things the way ALL recordings should be made.
However due to I-pods, MP3's, boom boxes and car stereo's the law of compression rules.
Back to the SACD debate, the DSD versions has a larger and deeper sound stage, much less 'raw' sounding and ploddy in comparison.
The CD layer presents are more realistic presentation in terms of sheer intimacy and being there without question.
Another poster made a point regarding Vinyl lovers being more akin to SACD, I would agree with this.
Some one who has listened to vinyl for over twenty or so years will have a preference for this format, compared to early CD's the vinyl offers greater texture, depth, better tonality and a warmer sound.
However digital has moved on a long way since then.
In the last fours years I personal feel that the replay chain has finally caught up / surpassed the recording stage.
Some of the tracks today sound in a way, not even the original recording artists would have heard their work in such glory compared to when it was originally cut.
Tony
The killer track on the album is Lazy
I'll give that a listen tonight, Tony, and will make comparison with the CD layer. One question: are you using replay equipment that plays DSD natively (like my Ayre) or does it use a PCM DAC, like my Pioneer or the Oppo Blu-ray players? The latter never produces the best results.
Stratmangler
24-05-2013, 13:06
The killer track on the album is Lazy...
Ooh, I don't know :eyebrows:
My personal favourite is whichever song is playing, 'cos they're all great.
For me the weakest song on the album is the band's biggest hit (yes, I do mean Smoke On The Water) ;)
Hi Martin
This morning listen was with was with an Esoteric P/D-02 combination which does direct dsd processing.
I have owned many pieces of Ayre over the years Martin, I like their MXR mono-block's a very nice pair of amplifiers.
My own observations with Ayre over this period has been nice articulation, detail and cohesiveness. The bug bear for me is they can be somewhat dry sounding (particularly with their sources, QB9 especially) This will we change with different system synergy.
Possibly the SACD replay in your system gives you that extra presence and texture that the CD replay does not, therefore for you much more preferable.
Actually recalling a conversation I had with Alan Sircom last year, he felt Ayre have a sound that Naim should be making by now.
Looking forward to thoughts
Tony
Downloaded the 24/96 version of "Graceland" off HDtracks today and it was an interesting experience. I have a Paul Simon CD compilation that can sound rivetting and I can't honestly say that the hires download sounded any better - different certainly but it was a real swings and roundabouts situation. Really felt as though I was listening to the studio engineers interpretation rather than a "better" replay overall. The LP, that I had many years ago, I remember as being more earthy and velvety.
I'll listen to it again tomorrow and see if it grows on me a bit more. Does look though as mastering is everything.
Hal55
Stratmangler
25-05-2013, 11:52
Downloaded the 24/96 version of "Graceland" off HDtracks today and it was an interesting experience. I have a Paul Simon CD compilation that can sound rivetting and I can't honestly say that the hires download sounded any better - different certainly but it was a real swings and roundabouts situation. Really felt as though I was listening to the studio engineers interpretation rather than a "better" replay overall. The LP, that I had many years ago, I remember as being more earthy and velvety.
I'll listen to it again tomorrow and see if it grows on me a bit more. Does look though as mastering is everything.
Hal55
If the Paul Simon stuff is from recent remasters then you'd have done as well to burn the money you spent on the files.
The recent remasters are shite, and that's being nice about it.
They're louder than hell, and limited and compressed as far as possible :eek:
Shame, as the original Graceland on vinyl is excellent.
WOStantonCS100
25-05-2013, 12:39
Downloaded the 24/96 version of "Graceland" off HDtracks today and it was an interesting experience. I have a Paul Simon CD compilation that can sound rivetting and I can't honestly say that the hires download sounded any better - different certainly but it was a real swings and roundabouts situation. Really felt as though I was listening to the studio engineers interpretation rather than a "better" replay overall. The LP, that I had many years ago, I remember as being more earthy and velvety.
I'll listen to it again tomorrow and see if it grows on me a bit more. Does look though as mastering is everything.
Hal55
Then again, if they used (would use) the original masters, the outcome would be much different.
If I record my LP to 24/96 or 24/192, I think I can safely say I'd feel let down by the CD, original or remastered.
Yes, I wasn't bowled over by the download at all, and 1.38gig is a hell of a lot of disc space to devote to a "soso" piece of music. Certainly there was nothing in the experience to tempt me away from my SP10. I'll give it another listen but I really did feel I was listening to another interpretation rather than a better rendering of the original album.
Hal55
After another listen Diamonds on the soles of her shoes and Homeless were the only tracks I rather liked - all the rest seemed inferior to my vinyl memories of the disc. In this case 24/96 sure didn't live up to expectations.
Hal55
Stratmangler
26-05-2013, 12:29
Have you not got the original CD to compare it to?
Looking forward to thoughts
I listened to the Machine Head SACD again and there is definitely a sense of immediacy, a real feeling of being there in the hotel room and a sense of potency (especially in the drums) that are represented in the CD but not fully realised.
By the way, good as Lazy is, I don't think it's the best track on the album, although if truth be told it's a pretty awesome album all the way through.
Have you not got the original CD to compare it to?
Unfortunately no, nor do I have my vinyl album although I'll try and get a good condition copy. On a more positive note, the Watoto Chlidrens Choir are performing where I live so I'll get to hear some nice African music live this Thursday. Should be good.
Hal55
jandl100
30-05-2013, 10:26
Interesting stuff, I've only just picked up on this thread.
My own thoughts and responses, particularly to the Mr C / MartinT debate are that ...
a) the particular playback implementation is crucial - different machines sound way different to each other, as Tony has mentioned. These differences far exceeding differences in the inherent sound of the underlying technology, imo. An Ayre will not sound like an Esoteric, for example, no matter what recording tech is used!
b) CD and (say) SACD playback may well be a to a very different standard dependent on the player (as Tony has also said). Saying one recording tech is better than another may just be comparing the specific ability of the playback device.
and c) personal taste and preference are playing a huge role. Martin has quite a specific type of sound that he likes, so his choices are naturally oriented to equipment and music recordings which produce that. The choices Martin makes may be good for him, but will not have universal applicability! The same of course applies to everyone's preferences.
You guys have been debating the classic comparison between apples and oranges, imo! ;)
Yes, but it's a fun debate and I don't think we're taking ourselves too seriously!
With regard to presentation, my system meets my particular ideals of scale, dynamics and clout for both classical and modern, and I've selected components, like the Ayre, that do those things particularly well.
However, the supposition was made that SACD sounds somehow soft and lacking in visceral dynamics and I believe that my system counters that argument.
jandl100
30-05-2013, 11:41
However, the supposition was made that SACD sounds somehow soft and lacking in visceral dynamics and I believe that my system counters that argument.
Yes, I agree. I've heard SACDs that are horribly mushy and ill-defined, but I've also heard (a few) that are the epitome of hi-rez and superb definition.
In my limited experience, the best SACDs may well sound better than the best CDs, but the vast majority of SACDs I have heard are not to that standard.
In my limited experience, the best SACDs may well sound better than the best CDs, but the vast majority of SACDs I have heard are not to that standard.
Yes, that's my experience too.
jandl100
30-05-2013, 11:56
... I might even be so bold as to suggest that the average CD is significantly better than the average SACD.
But that's just with classical music, I have no experience with non-classical SACDs.
And I have a vague suspicion that with my current McCormack disc spinner, SACD playback is not up to the same standard as its CD playback. I did have the same feeling about the merits of SACD/CD with previous SACD players, though.
Not my experience, Jerry. At least there is an attempt at mastering SACDs well. Many modern 'remastered' CDs are vile.
Not my experience, Jerry. At least there is an attempt at mastering SACDs well. Many modern 'remastered' CDs are vile.
Hi Martin
I would agree with a yes and no! :D
A great many cd are remastered by lazy sod mixing engineers just churning out x, y and z music for the weeks 'rehashing' list.
I have three Gary Moore classic albums on original early 90's releases, I also have the Virgin remasters, I feel my 17 year old son with PC cue base and one of those £300 Arcam dac's a whole load of sumner patch leads could produce better results blind folded.
SACD has so few quality titles that the record companies / small independent labels (on the whole) will spend the time to obtain the results.
One of my very good friends is one of the bigwigs in Sony, (Blue note and legacy labels) are their audiophile sections if you like.
The represent less than 0.5% of all their sale world wide, the age group of 14-24 purchases 85% of all music sold world wide.
Law of economics here gents,
For me SACD has always been an "elongation of the truth" designed to smooth out audiophile whinging that CD was not the perfect sound for ever :lol:
The vast majority of audio system can not genuinely truly reproduce either SACS/DVD-A/Blu Ray (24/96Khz~24/192Khz) to its fullest potential.
I will also put to you, if you have an identical file used to create the optical disc to which you are listening (sacd/dvd-a/blu ray) it will NEVER as good as the same file played on a well sorted PC streaming system using the same dac as the optical transport.
The issue is NOT the digital information
built the medium it is played from, optical media as good as it can be has too many issues, the raw original file played via SSD storage /Ram <>memory player is far better way of listening to music. (IMHO)
However, the amount of hassle involved in getting to this stage for the vast majority of listeners is a non starter. I have yet to hear a commercially available player to demonstrate the following.
Ease of use
Intuitive use interface
Great sound quality
Very quiet
Manageable size
at least a minimum of 5Tb worth of no hassle connectable storage
The wife can use without a remote have two gazillion buttons.
Is affordable (by that I mean under £6K)
I am very fortunate to have a highly desirable Turntable, Tuner and CD reply system, yet over 70% of my listening is due by PC derived music (Red book master and higher) I have over 400TB's worth of music stored now, none of which has been ripped.
However many people feel that vinyl is the one true medium and that every thing else is waste of material.
Room for all, the biggest issue O feel for my preferred method of listening which has been said before lack of software, which again is record company issue.
Audioman
30-05-2013, 13:52
Yes, I agree. I've heard SACDs that are horribly mushy and ill-defined, but I've also heard (a few) that are the epitome of hi-rez and superb definition.
In my limited experience, the best SACDs may well sound better than the best CDs, but the vast majority of SACDs I have heard are not to that standard.
Frankly there never has been a vast number of mainstream SACD releases to come to that conclusion except maybe in the classical field. An area where I would have expected greater care in producing a high res recording. I know there were some releases that used converted or upsampled PCM. I don't doubt a very well mastered CD played on the best CD players may be better than SACD on a lesser machine.
I have even come across one SACD that competes with the worst CDs for loud mastering. In the real world SACD mastering is usually superior to CD for rock music titles. Certainly can run vinyl a close second in terms of musical satisfaction.
jandl100
30-05-2013, 15:00
Well, I guess I have heard a few dozen classical SACDs.
Most of them I sold straight on as the sound was vague and unfocussed, or the performances weren't worth re-hearing.
... actually, that's the main problem I have with SACDs. On classical music, they usually have to compete artistically with other recordings of the same music on plain old CD. All too often, SACDs simply cannot compete on those terms. And I cannot be bothered with performances that aren't worth listening to, regardless of the sonics.
icehockeyboy
30-05-2013, 15:59
Yes, that's my experience too.
And mine.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.