What is the point of SACD? [Archive] - The Art of Sound Forum

Haselsh1

11-08-2015, 18:15

The Genesis albums on SACD are more than just remastered.
They're remixes, and there's modern day outboard gear other than ADCs incorporated (ie digital delays and digital reverb).
They're not a proper representation of the original albums.

On top of all that these SACD reworkings have been used as the basis of all the current CD masters, so if you want to go out and buy the original mixes you're basically screwed :doh:
The remasters of 1994 were the last time the original mixes were represented, so if it's the originals you want then it's the 1994 remasters you need to get.

Thanks for that Chris. I know that the new issues sound very different to my original vinyl copies when I had them way back when. The level of detail on these new SACD's is incredible. I also love the way that Steve Hackett's guitaring is very much more prominent. I love the SACD version of 'Trick of the Tale' the best but also quite like my all time fave Genesis album 'Selling England' on SACD.

Spectral Morn

11-08-2015, 18:47

Thanks for that Chris. I know that the new issues sound very different to my original vinyl copies when I had them way back when. The level of detail on these new SACD's is incredible. I also love the way that Steve Hackett's guitaring is very much more prominent. I love the SACD version of 'Trick of the Tale' the best but also quite like my all time fave Genesis album 'Selling England' on SACD.

Agreed love Trick of the Tale on SACD

Regards Neil

HackneyRF

11-08-2015, 20:25

I agree that the level of detail particularly on SEBTP on SACD is stunning and for that reason I really like it a lot. I always liked the original recording but always wished that it sounded less 'muddy'. I got my wish. But it's apparently not to everyone's taste. Fair enough. I've not heard the other Genesis albums on SACD. Not fussed about Nursery Chryme, and anything past Wind and Wuthering but I guess you guys would recommend the other albums?

Cheers

Loz

daytona600

11-08-2015, 21:36

Dozens out every week & they make most sense on a good sacd player designed for the task not a universal player
or other means usually in PCM not DSD & ideally from a analogue source as DSD was made for achiving analogue tapes by sony

Most are actually mastered in double or quad DSD these days & as a audiophile format that will not die great care & attention usually paid to the mastering & sound quality in 2ch only
have 100s myself & love them to bits or love them in 1bit

recent examples like analogue productions Amused to death are just stunning
soundstage , clarity & dynamics are just world class - long live sacd

http://snvinyl.co.uk/WebRoot/Daily/Shops/eshop943300/5199/440B/226A/01FE/E207/C31A/5AE3/00EF/atdnewcover.jpg

surv1v0r

12-08-2015, 08:20

WOW! I hadn't anticipated that I had walked into a minefield.

Reading here and elsewhere I now get the feeling that the true primary rationale behind the development of SACD was more robust copy protection / digital rights management.

Various people have suggested that use of SACD makes a modern, significantly more expensive setup essential and this is an advantage - as it would be with CD and stereo.

I accept that multi-channel (e.g. 5.1 & 7.1) may be a valuable feature in certain circumstances (e.g. Stockhausen, Quadrophenia, Tommy, Dark side of the moon, Moody Blues, etc.). However I have not been convinced that it makes a significant difference where stereo is concerned.

If it is true that the mastering for SACD is of higher quality than for CD, that is a very cynical and depressing situation.

Macca

12-08-2015, 11:38

WOW! I hadn't anticipated that I had walked into a minefield.

.

If it is true that the mastering for SACD is of higher quality than for CD, that is a very cynical and depressing situation.

It is not so much a minefield as perhaps a wilfull ignorance on behalf of some to actually understand how it works and to assume that it is the technology delivering the improved sound quality rather than better mastering. Although move away from the 'gi res' debate for a minute and no enthusiast or audipophile will deny that the better the mastering the better the sound, regrdless of format.

That SACDs only technical benefit is that it has extended bandwith compared to red book CD is neither here nor there. Some insist on thinking that it works like digital photography, that there are somehow 'more pixels per frame' - but in a musical sense. Sadly the big corps like Sony have done nothing to contradict this basic misunderstanding.

daytona600

12-08-2015, 21:27

Andrei

12-08-2015, 23:06

get hold or borrow a PS1 or any Sacd player or even a new for about £150
play the cd layer the the dsd layer or visit a dealer & hear the difference ( 99% are dual layer hybrid discs )

then repeat with a Real Sacd player - esoteric , dcs , marantz etc
That's exactly right Scott. If you don't have a good player (and associated equipment as well for that matter) then you will not get the full benefit of the extra resolution. As you say it is easy enough to make the comparison by asking your player to play the CD layer and then you can play the DSD layer. Another benefit is the ability to have 5.1 channels if you have the speakers. One point though, to be pedantic: most SACDs have three layers: Two channel PCM (the CD layer), two channel DSD, and 5.1 channel DSD.

Macca

13-08-2015, 07:54

How is this 'extra resolution' being created? Can you explain the process?

If there is a big difference then it is a different mastering since the addition of frequencies above 22Khz can at best make a tiny difference ( and as far as established psycho-acoustic theory is concerned can make no difference at all) to what you can hear.

What is the difference between my Pioneer SACD player and an Esoteric that means the Esoteric produces the 'extra resolution' and the Pioneer doesn't? The decoding process is exactly the same in both players.

I hate appeals to authority but you should take a look at this:

In the audiophile community, the sound from the SACD format is thought to be significantly better than that of CD. For example, one supplier claims that "The DSD process used for producing SACDs captures more of the nuances from a performance and reproduces them with a clarity and transparency not possible with CD.[38]
In September 2007 the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial, in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and a compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) conversion of the same source material under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8% success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50% that would have been expected by chance guessing alone.[39] When the level of the signal was elevated by 14 dB or more, the test subjects were able to detect the higher noise floor of the CD quality loop easily.[1] The authors commented:

Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.[1][40]
Following criticism that the original published results of the study were not sufficiently detailed, the AES published a list of the audio equipment and recordings used during the tests

a b c Meyer, E. Brad and Moran, David R. "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback". AES E-Library 55 (9): 775–779.

Clive197

13-08-2015, 10:13

Dozens out every week & they make most sense on a good sacd player designed for the task not a universal player.................

I must beg to differ. I play my SACD's on a universal player (OPPO BDP-105D) set to output from the DSD layer. An acknowledged match if not better than a lot of dedicated SACD players.
Most of my discs sound better from the DSD layer than the standard PCM layer but at the end of the day, the mastering is key. I have a few SACD's mainly on the Columbia (Sony) label that are no better than standard CD's

Clive197

13-08-2015, 10:28

.......As an extension to this discussion I would ask if anyone has noticed a difference between HiRes PCM and DSD. I have just been listening to a couple of DVD-A's 24/96 tracks which sound superb and noticeably better than the standard CD, but I have no way I can compare SACD with DVD-A.

Macca

13-08-2015, 11:22

surv1v0r

13-08-2015, 12:06

The same applies to DVD-A as it does to SACD which is that the only additional benefit is the ability to reproduce frequencies beyond 22 kHz. Any obvious differences compared to the CD version will be mastering differences.I would suggest that the ability to reproduce frequencies beyond 22 KhZ is ofpurely academic interest since it appears to be generally accepted that the human ear cannot detect frequencies above 20 kHz.

The human ear can respond to minute pressure variations in the air if they are in the audible frequency range, roughly 20 Hz - 20 kHz. (LINK (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/earsens.html))

There may be other issues related to difference in noise level between CDs & SACDs but I agree that the most important things are likely to be the quality of the original performance and the mastering - GIGO!

Macca

13-08-2015, 12:18

I would suggest that the ability to reproduce frequencies beyond 22 KhZ is ofpurely academic interest since it appears to be generally accepted that the human ear cannot detect frequencies above 20 kHz.
!

There is a speculative theory that reproducing frequencies above that has an effect on audible frequencies. People who have compared identical masters on red book and 24/96 reckon there is slightly more 'air and space' on the 24/96 and I don't think subjective reports such as these should be dismissed out of hand.

As I posted earlier in the AES double blind no-one was able to identify any differences which would indicate that if there is an audible difference it is very, very small. Which leads me to logically conclude that those people reporting obvious differences between red book CD and 'hi rez' versions are without doubt listening to different masterings and not some sort of 'higher resolution' which the technology does not deliver in any case.

We should also take into account that any recording from before, say 1990, will not have any musical signal beyond 20Hz, so anything added by a 'hi-rez' formatting can only be noise. There is nothing on earlier recordings that cannot be reproduced 100% by the CD standard 16/44.1 - it is already as 'high rez' as it is possible to get.

Clive197

13-08-2015, 21:49

Martin

I think you make some fair points but a number of things still bother me.

Recordings made before 1990 don't have any content above 20Hz. I doubt they would go that high, 14-15Hz possibly anything else is probably harmonics.
HiRez 24/96 is not necessarily about hearing above the limit of human hearing, I think its about detail within the frequencies most of us can hear and that's a lot less than 20Hz.
Super Tweeters can produce sound way above the level of human hearing, we can't hear the real frequency but we are able to hear the harmonics of the higher frequencies. To extrapolate from that, 24/96 and higher resolutions can be heard due to these same harmonics.
I would conclude that HiRez does have an advantage even to those old analogue recording because we are not only listening to what was recorded but also the harmonics of that original recording.
CD cannot and does not match a well recorded analogue source as it is does not have the bandwidth to reproduce all the harmonics. Nothing to do with frequency extension.

Audio Advent

13-08-2015, 22:07

Audio Advent

13-08-2015, 22:13

The same applies to DVD-A as it does to SACD which is that the only additional benefit is the ability to reproduce frequencies beyond 22 KhZ. Any obvious differences compared to the CD version will be mastering differences.

And another thing... :) (Sorry - I'm picking on your posts. Don't mean to particularly, just recognise the same points being made from another thread).

You've said that before on another thread and I'm sure there were many replies telling you that the advantages of higher resolutions are NOT about frequency response, maybe even from myself.

It's a shame when despite all the discussions people have on forums, in the main they fall by the wayside and people revert to exactly the same stance as they always had, as if those discussions never happened. Around and around we go!

struth

13-08-2015, 22:18

my hearing only goes up to 11khz now. I'd agree that the mastering will likely be different. I am upsampling my Pi to 24/192, but whether I hear any difference I have no idea but as the dac can do it and it sounds good then why not.

walpurgis

13-08-2015, 23:07

my hearing only goes up to 11khz now.

Mine's about the same I think or not much above. Doesn't seem to affect my ability to tell what sounds right though. I suspect the ear/brain still detect the correct structure of high frequencies from the harmonic shape. What younger people can people can hear higher up is to us what the supertweeter effect is to them. i.e., if it's missing you notice. Even if you can't hear it.

I have a Tannoy (would be wouldn't it) test CD with set tones and sweep tones and I've checked what I can detect.

struth

13-08-2015, 23:24

Not sure what your subconscious or body's nerve ends can detect but I wouldn't be surprised. Humans adapt pretty well to loss of sense in general. It I think makes me more sensitive to low freq as well, so there may well be part of your brain saying there is too much bass when you now cannot hear some of the HF.

Macca

14-08-2015, 07:48

And another thing... :) (Sorry - I'm picking on your posts. Don't mean to particularly, just recognise the same points being made from another thread).

You've said that before on another thread and I'm sure there were many replies telling you that the advantages of higher resolutions are NOT about frequency response, maybe even from myself.

!

My posts are there to be picked on so don't worry about it :)

You claim the advantages of hi rez are not about frequency response - but all the technology provides us with is extended bandwith and wider dynamic range (which is irrlevant for domestic playback. So please be specific as to what other advantage you think it provides? I honestly don't see how anyone who has a basic grasp of how digital audio works can make these claims, but I am willing to change my mind *if* a well -reasoned argument can be presented. If you think digital audio works the same as hi rez photography or hi-def video then probably best to bow out now since that is like saying that sight works the same as hearing.

Macca

14-08-2015, 07:57

Martin

Recordings made before 1990 don't have any content above 20Hz. I doubt they would go that high, 14-15Hz possibly anything else is probably harmonics.
HiRez 24/96 is not necessarily about hearing above the limit of human hearing, I think its about detail within the frequencies most of us can hear and that's a lot less than 20Hz.
Super Tweeters can produce sound way above the level of human hearing, we can't hear the real frequency but we are able to hear the harmonics of the higher frequencies. To extrapolate from that, 24/96 and higher resolutions can be heard due to these same harmonics.
I would conclude that HiRez does have an advantage even to those old analogue recording because we are not only listening to what was recorded but also the harmonics of that original recording.
CD cannot and does not match a well recorded analogue source as it is does not have the bandwidth to reproduce all the harmonics. Nothing to do with frequency extension.

This is contradictory - you accept that older recordings have no content above 20Khz (probably less in many cases) but at the same time you are suggesting that CD cannot match an analogue recording because it does not have enough bandwith, despite it having more bandwith than the analogue tape used to make those recordings. Logically, both statements cannot be correct.

Clive197

14-08-2015, 09:24

This is contradictory - you accept that older recordings have no content above 20Khz (probably less in many cases) but at the same time you are suggesting that CD cannot match an analogue recording because it does not have enough bandwith, despite it having more bandwith than the analogue tape used to make those recordings. Logically, both statements cannot be correct.

Martin, I don't think I've made a contradictory statement. In recording studios back in the day, the equipment and tape was capable of far higher quality than domestic variants due to the speed of recording, usually 15ips or higher. This gave a higher bandwidth than was credited. I still think that vinyl can sound better than CD which many on here may agree. I note that you are a bit of a fan yourself.

CD has always been criticised for lack of resolution when the digital technology was first developed back in the early seventies (14/44.1 later upped to 16/44.1 that we know today). There are many technical papers out there that give full account of this.

Clive

Macca

14-08-2015, 11:25

Let's not get into what sounds 'better' since that is a personal preference.

I would like to know what analogue tape formualtion can record frequencies higher than 22KHz. regardless of the speed it is running at I'm going to say that no such tape exists.

We keep getting this word 'resolution' cropping up which has yet to be defined despite me asking. Now we all know what resolution refers to with a photograph or a video, but there seems to be a misapprehension that the same term, with the same meaning, can be applied to an audio signal. It cannot.

There is nothing missing from a 16/44.1 encoding *except* frequencies over 22 Khz. if the recording medium was not capable of recording frequencies higher than 22Khz then nothing is missing, you have the whole recording, exactly as laid down, on that CD. Increasing the bit depth and/or the sampling rate of the recording (or playback) does not increase the 'detail' in the recording, it does not allow us to hear things that were somehow 'masked' or 'not captured' by the 16/44.1 rendering.

What does anyone imagine the upper frequency response of vinyl is? Do you really think that it is capable of reproducing frequencies (or harmonics or whatever you want to call them since it amounts to the same thing) over 22 Khz?

What is the differece between 14/44.1 and 16/44.1 ? Why was 16 bits decided on instead of 14? What difference did that make to 'resolution'? - Answer: none at all. it allowed an increase in the maximum possible dynamic range, that is all. They opted for 16 bit because Sony had already developed it independantly and so they thought 'why not?'. 14 bit already gives more than enough dynamic range for domestic playback and gives a much higher dynamic range than either vinyl or tape can manage.

Macca

14-08-2015, 12:07

Actually I think a big part of the problem we have here is that many do prefer analogue/vinyl and are looking for technical explanations as to why that may be, the underlying inference being that digital must somehow be technically inferior if it is not subjectively prefered. A further inference is then made that because there exisits 'super-audio CD' AKA 'hi-rez' that is concrete evidence to support the supposition that ordinary CD was somehow flawed all along. Regretably the mainstram literature and the mnaufacturers (of both software and hardware) have played to the gallery with this, in the former case because they don't know any better and can't be bothered to educate themselves, and in the latter case because it allows them to sell new boxes and the same albums to people who already own them.

Obviously in the latter case initiating painstaking re-masterings of the original recordings in order to demonstrate the superiority of the new 'hi rez' format served to muddy the waters just enough so that those who avowedly had no interest in how it worked but were simply interested in the bottom line of 'sound quality' became convinced that higher sampling and bit rates were the reason that their SACD copy of whatever sounds superior to the CD they bought back in 1989.

Clive197

14-08-2015, 12:08

Martin, I'm not a technical guru but I have read various articles and technical papers on the subject over many years. Perhaps I'm not describing things very clearly. We have both used words like bandwidth, frequency and resolution and maybe that's the point of confusion. I'm convinced that the frequency range is irrelevant as already stated, none of us can hear that high. My own limit when tested was just over 14Kz and the specialist told me that I had exceptional hearing for my age. Having said that, I can tell the differences between Analogue, cd and SACD using the same music, CD being my least favourite.

Macca

14-08-2015, 12:16

. Having said that, I can tell the differences between Analogue, cd and SACD using the same music, CD being my least favourite.

But would you not accept that the reason you prefer the SACD over the CD is because the SACD has been re-mastered to sound better?

We all agree that regardless of the format, the quality of the mastering is king in terms of defining how 'good' that recording sounds. Sometimes re-masters do not sound as good (some Genesis re-masters being mentioned earlier in the thread), and the difference is very obvious to us.

Given that, what is more likely? That the SACD sounds better as it is a superior master, something no-one disputes can have a big affect on SQ, or because its abilty to reproduce frequencies beyond audibility somehow improves the sound that we can hear?

Clive197

14-08-2015, 16:12

But would you not accept that the reason you prefer the SACD over the CD is because the SACD has been re-mastered to sound better?

We all agree that regardless of the format, the quality of the mastering is king in terms of defining how 'good' that recording sounds. Sometimes re-masters do not sound as good (some Genesis re-masters being mentioned earlier in the thread), and the difference is very obvious to us.

Given that, what is more likely? That the SACD sounds better as it is a superior master, something no-one disputes can have a big affect on SQ, or because its abilty to reproduce frequencies beyond audibility somehow improves the sound that we can hear?

So how do you explain the superiority of a remastered SACD over the same remastered CD?

Macca

14-08-2015, 18:21

So how do you explain the superiority of a remastered SACD over the same remastered CD?

If it is an obvious difference - then it is not the same master even if it claims to be, or it is hobbled deliberately compared to the SACD master, which amounts to the same thing.

If it was a subtle difference, the sort that would be very difficult to detect in a blind test, but nevertheless convincing over time in relaxed conditions, I would accept that this may be due to the extended bandwidth or some other unknown factor. I've not heard that myself, I know Gary (Gazjam) has. So I'm open minded to that extent. But obvious, easy to hear for anyone differences? No, can't happen unless different masters.

Clive197

14-08-2015, 19:45

If it is an obvious difference - then it is not the same master even if it claims to be, or it is hobbled deliberately compared to the SACD master, which amounts to the same thing.

Sorry Martin, I think your digging your own hole there. Of coarse if you have evidence of this.........

Macca

14-08-2015, 19:55

Well there is the AES paper I pointed to earlier. Whilst I can accept that a blind test will not reveal subtle differences, if the differences were as obvious as some claim they would have been identified. Added to my own subjective experience plus a basic knowledge of how digital audio works.

When you have eliminated the impossible....etc

surv1v0r

14-08-2015, 21:18

I have just finished listening to last Sunday's BBC Radio 3 Prom (#32 - LINK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/events/evxwhn#p02wwc3c)) conducted by Eric Whitacre some of whose compositions were also featured.

Now I can well believe that some of his choral compositions would sound absolutely fantastic in X.1 rather than just stereo - particularly "Cloudburst" and "Deep Field" (LINK (http://ericwhitacre.com/deep-field)).

The Prom is probably not available outside the UK but the latter link may be - well worth a listen

Audio Advent

16-08-2015, 12:20

My posts are there to be picked on so don't worry about it :)

I honestly don't see how anyone who has a basic grasp of how digital audio works can make these claims, but I am willing to change my mind *if* a well -reasoned argument can be presented.

One group of people who arguably have one of the best grasps of digital signal processing, D/A, A/D conversion and THEN applied all that military/space industry knowledge to audio is dCS. In about 1999 they discovered that upsampling the audio to higher resolutions made it sound better! What was their explaination? They couldn't find one and acknowledged it was a discovery made entirely subjectively and which they'd tested again and again, coming to the same conclusion.

This was when they were hidden in the studio industry and didn't have a hifi industry presence other than audiophiles using their studio gear, so can't really put that down to all marketing BS as a very cheap and easy way to dismiss it.

Audio Advent

16-08-2015, 12:31

Anyway, shall I repost the whole of this 27 page thread up as a single post? The Myth of High Resolution (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?37779-The-Myth-of-High-Resolution-audio)

Let's see who started that thread.... OH! The OP was someone called Macca!

In other words, you've asked the same questions and the same people have replied. It would be a waste of those people's time to go over it again. Can't you re-read that thread and post on there?

Audio Advent

16-08-2015, 12:34

Spectral Morn

16-08-2015, 14:04

One possible recording that might work as a comparison piece is Medulla by Bjork, which was released at the same time in SACD, DVDA and CD.

I agree re the possibility that various masters might be producing a false positive in that it is the master and not the format that is causing the preference but regardless I like SACD, I can hear a distinct improvement over normal CDs (for whatever reason) and as such I have bought many SACDs and have the playback equipment (Esoteric P5/D5 and Marantz SA7) to enjoy it.

Re hi Res downloads I still prefer physical media as file playback is a complete pain in the ass, so far in my experience.

Regards Neil

Macca

16-08-2015, 18:46

One group of people who arguably have one of the best grasps of digital signal processing, D/A, A/D conversion and THEN applied all that military/space industry knowledge to audio is dCS. In about 1999 they discovered that upsampling the audio to higher resolutions made it sound better! What was their explaination? They couldn't find one and acknowledged it was a discovery made entirely subjectively and which they'd tested again and again, coming to the same conclusion.

This was when they were hidden in the studio industry and didn't have a hifi industry presence other than audiophiles using their studio gear, so can't really put that down to all marketing BS as a very cheap and easy way to dismiss it.

I've owned an upsampling player. I didn't prefer it to many of the others that I own. It just had it's own sound , different rather than revolutionary. Sorry but it is marketing bullshit unless you happen to prefer that presentation.

surv1v0r

16-08-2015, 23:56

To get back to the OP here, I think that SACD is really getting out of date.

The only advantage of it over a large digital download is the licencing which comes with a physical object like CD or SACD (or vinyl). Downloads can have their listening license revoked and can't be transfered to a new owner etc etc. Physical objects are yours to listen to for as long as it stays non-broken and you can pass them on to friends and family.I agree that SACD has missed the boat. I suspect that it, DVD-A and BluRay Audio were all doomed when the decisions relating to copy protection were made.

CDs had a significant advantage over Vinyl in terms of ease-of-use, size and resilience; any possible loss of audio quality was of no real concern to the mass market - they were a wee bit better than cassettes! I suspect SACD, DVD-A and BluRay Audio don't really have a huge advantage over CDs for most users and the hardware is outrageously expensive.

Despite the licensing issues you describe, selectively downloaded audio, media centres, DLNA, BlueTooth, etc. are the way of the future for the mass market. How many times do most people listen to most CDs?

Vinyl may be making something of a comeback but I predict that SACD will not rise from the grave.

sq225917

17-08-2015, 08:15

eisenach

17-08-2015, 19:01

Vinyl may be making something of a comeback but I predict that SACD will not rise from the grave.

But SACD is not "in the grave". On the classical market it is very much alive and kicking. Much appreciated here, too !

surv1v0r

17-08-2015, 20:14

<SNIP> On the classical market [SACD] is very much alive and kicking. <SNIP>Perhaps . . .

However, the teenage human ear can discern sounds up to about 20 kHz; this ability declines with age. As I understand it, CDs can store and deliver sound above 20 kHz. In my experience, few teenagers are particularly interested in high quality music reproduction in general or classical music in particular and most cannot afford expensive hardware. The upshot of this is that the effective target audience for SACD (or DVD-A, BluRay Audio, etc.) is unlikely to be able to hear anything above 15 kHz which can easily be delivered on a CD.

So . . . what on earth is the point of SACD . . . for classical music at least?

m10

17-08-2015, 20:58

Surround. That's one big plus point. A well made surround recording, on whatever format from DTS-CD, through DVD-A and SACD and on to blu-ray is effortless, lifelike, atmospheric and vivid in a way that still astounds me. I tend to think much of the benefit on stereo is down to the scrupulous recording and mastering that labels like Linn, Channel, BIS, Chandos and the like employ. I think HFPA blu-ray may eventually supplant SACD simply because of the massive installed base of players. But, long may SACD continue (if I may echo the earlier sentiments).

daytona600

17-08-2015, 21:37

But SACD is not "in the grave". On the classical market it is very much alive and kicking. Much appreciated here, too !

Far from dead

10,661 current titles
http://www.sa-cd.net/titles

Rothchild

18-08-2015, 09:07

Far from dead

10,661 current titles
http://www.sa-cd.net/titles

That's pretty niche, apparently there are 20m songs on spotify and 37m on itunes.

PaulStewart

18-08-2015, 09:08

I can believe this, in fact I think it is probably the only USP of SACD, etc.

However, for the most part, surround sound (X.1) on the majority of recordings is just a gimmick. Pink Floyd, The Who, The White Noise, John Cage, Brian Eno and Stockhausen are instances where I have the Vinyl but would consider that surround sound might be of genuine value.

Incidentally, for some strange reason only Stockhausen's Stimmung seems to be readily available on Hybrid SACD, Hymnen isn't even available on CD :scratch:

There are some players where you can choose to hear the CD layer or the SACD recording, try it. It is just so much better, to me high res v. low res is no competition and Blu Ray Pure Audio is better yet, again in my opinion, though the specs bear this out. None gives me the total satisfaction of good vinyl or analogue tape however.

Clive197

18-08-2015, 09:15

Perhaps . . .

However, the teenage human ear can discern sounds up to about 20 kHz (MAYBE?); this ability declines with age. As I understand it, CDs can store and deliver sound above 20 kHz. In my experience, few teenagers are particularly interested in high quality music reproduction in general or classical music in particular and most cannot afford expensive hardware. The upshot of this is that the effective target audience for SACD (or DVD-A, BluRay Audio, etc.) is unlikely to be able to hear anything above 15 kHz which can easily be delivered on a CD.

So . . . what on earth is the point of SACD . . . for classical music at least?

My 66 year old ears CAN hear a difference between CD & SACD. whether that's the mastering or frequency response, I don't really care. "VIVA LE SACD"

Desmo

18-08-2015, 09:21

My 66 year old ears CAN hear a difference between CD & SACD. whether that's the mastering or frequency response, I don't really care. "VIVA LE SACD"

+1 SACD sounds better to my ears too - who cares why!

Macca

18-08-2015, 11:10

+1 SACD sounds better to my ears too - who cares why!

Because you could have had exactly the same quality on CD, at the CD price, and with no need to buy extra hardware to play it.

In other words we've been ripped off by a cynical marketing exercise in which the hi-fi magazines/journalists have been complicit. Proabably through ignorance more than anything but there you have it.

Clive197

18-08-2015, 11:28

Macca

18-08-2015, 11:34

Well is there really another explanation? If the difference between the 2 formats is so marginal that it could not be detected in the AES blind test, what does that tell you?

The fact is they re-mastered a whole chunk of recordings, put them on SACD/DVD-A and claimed the better sound quality was due to the addition of frequencies beyond the range of human hearing, frequencies not even present on the original recordings and which could not, therefore, be present on the SACD.

Take away the improved mastering and no-one can tell the difference. If you have another conclusion to draw from the facts as presented then I would love to read it.

Desmo

18-08-2015, 11:37

ONE mans view.

EXACTLY! I'm happy with SACD, and to me it sounds better, so why try to introduce doubt?

Audio Advent

18-08-2015, 11:49

DCS saying that it sounded better but not being able to provide evidence of statistically valid tests is about as much use as the Brazilian guy claiming he has invented a motorcycle that runs on water. It's just marketing bluster, regardless of whether they were solely pro-audio or not at the time. The AES paper is the largest blinded trial of SACD and the only serious one I know of that downsamples the sacd to pcm to ensure identical mastering.

At the end of the day the only plausible benefit of sacd is the removal of several stages of pcm conversion, that may or may not leave audible tell tales. At best I'd say the differences are no better than swapping digital filters in pcm.

I have lots of sacds, and a fair few classical tracks in DSD, I buy them solely because they tend to be released earlier than the pcm versions of the same music.

An investigation of the sample files from 2l.no should allow you to make an unbiased judgement for oneself. They have many pieces of music from the same recording, with identical (none) mastering in various sample rates and formats.

I don't see why human beings can't remain to be seen as human beings just because they go to work.

If a person or group of people have a subjective opinion, who are you or anyone else to dismiss that simply on the basis of your own predudice against the hifi business? That's a rhetorical question with no ill feeling meant towards you, I know it could read as a confrontation..

Similarly there are many people out there who are not related to commerce and also hear benefits with upsampling as well as recording and playback in high resolutions.

I guess it comes down as per usual for some people hearing things and others not. Whilst it's human nature to assume that one's own perception is the "correct" version of reality (look at those arguments and disbelief over the colour of that blue/brown or white/gold dress online), that's not how things are. It's wrong in my view to dismiss other people's subjective opinion based on your own senses - and if there's money involved then there is no reason for anyone to part with it if they don't want.

We should remember that music and sound is free, and that high-res has absolutely NO extra cost to it these days. We can all record and make our own music or record other's music and try this all out ourselves with no commerce or feelings of being "taken for a ride" entering into it at all.

2l.no is a good place to start for checking whether you personally hear a difference with the high-res without the question of mastering getting in the way.

P.S. I don't see that a PCM recording should necessarily have more conversions than DSD. In fact any editing on DSD will require PCM whilst you can record to any PCM resolution without conversion.

Audio Advent

18-08-2015, 11:55

That's pretty niche, apparently there are 20m songs on spotify and 37m on itunes.

Tracks v titles. So lets at least divide the 20m by about 7... 2.9m titles.

That's a little closer.. :)

Macca

18-08-2015, 11:59

I guess it comes down as per usual for some people hearing things and others not. Whilst it's human nature to assume that one's own perception is the "correct" version of reality (look at those arguments and disbelief over the colour of that blue/brown or white/gold dress online), that's not how things are. It's wrong in my view to dismiss other people's subjective opinion based on your own senses - .

No, it doesn't come down to that at all. We all hear the benefits of the better mastering. No-one is saying they don't. What the SACD fans here are doing is confusing the technology with the better mastering. If your SACD re-issue sounds better than your old CD copy it is the mastering, not the fact that it is on a SACD with a bandwith out to 40 KHz. This is proven by the AES blind test. I really don't understand why some folk are clinging to the idea that it is the format that sounds better since there is absolutely no reason why it should.

Audio Advent

18-08-2015, 12:10

Because you could have had exactly the same quality on CD, at the CD price, and with no need to buy extra hardware to play it.

In other words we've been ripped off by a cynical marketing exercise in which the hi-fi magazines/journalists have been complicit. Proabably through ignorance more than anything but there you have it.

Then what about all the marketing aimed towards better 44.1/16 bit DACs, CD transports, preamps, amps, cables over the decades? Power conditioning - where did that market for multi-thousand pound products come from??

Why is SACD any more expensive to implement in a system than buying an exotic CD player for the supposed sound quality gains as heard by Clive? I think one could only qualify that if your personal system just comprised of a cheap boombox with integrated CD player and you see spending any more than that as a rip off.

And the rrp price of a SACD compares very well with new vinyl - is new vinyl also a massive rip off by a cynical marketing exercise in which the hi-fi magazines/journos have been complicit? My god, there has been a MASSIVE amount of promotion in these mags for stupidly expensive phono stages and stupidly expensive turntables, cartridges and arms, all hyped up by the same old journos. People drooling on forums over their Whest superdooper Reference or whatever.

Personally I think you're seeing the generalised excessive marketing for ALL audiophile equipment with blinkers on and only singling out high-res audio for scorn, whereas perhaps it all is promoted equally zealously.

Gordon Steadman

18-08-2015, 12:15

I wonder if the old chestnut about why analogue is better than CD applies? Whilst we may not be able to consciously hear the sounds, we seem to be subliminally aware of them. No measurements are going to pick this up although I suppose someone could design a suitable experiment.

My hearing is way down now, probably less than 10khtz but I still get more from LP than limited bandwidth CD. P'raps its the same for SACD...p'raps!

Audio Advent

18-08-2015, 12:17

No, it doesn't come down to that at all. We all hear the benefits of the better mastering. No-one is saying they don't. What the SACD fans here are doing is confusing the technology with the better mastering. If your SACD re-issue sounds better than your old CD copy it is the mastering, not the fact that it is on a SACD with a bandwith out to 40 KHz. This is proven by the AES blind test. I really don't understand why some folk are clinging to the idea that it is the format that sounds better since there is absolutely no reason why it should.

That's an assuption you're making. To assume that something is mastered "better" - is that subjectively better? and how is that subjectivity suddenly universal for all SACD advocates? - just because it's an SACD appears to me to be mis-guided.

As Simon said, there are files on the 2l.no website to download in different formats with NO mastering!

Why are SACDs only re-issues? If a classical album is recorded directly in DSD as a straight-through live recording then why is there suddenly worse mastering for the CD layer? Do they take that DSD file and ship it out to a specialised 90's mastering house, all 90s equipment etc? Doesn't make sense. They can simply convert to 44.1/16 as DSD intends (designed for simple conversion to PCM).

Audio Advent

18-08-2015, 12:28

As I understand it, there is absolutely no question that the human ear and brain can detect frequencies within the range 15 to 20,000 Hz (LINK (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ChrisDAmbrose.shtml)). Hearing is most acute up to the late teens and declines with age - and attending rock concerts! The highest frequency that a normal middle-aged adult can hear is only 12 to 14 kHz. I don't believe that this is subjective, it appears to be demonstrable in laboratory conditions. I am sure that there are a few (very few) people whose hearing extends lower and/or higher but these few are the rare exception. Whether or not they work in the Audio industry is probably not relevant to their hearing.

Whatever the range, it seems to be adequately covered by CDs. Perhaps it is not covered by all CD players, Amplifiers and Speakers but that in itself is not a justification for SACD is it?

Why the narrow focus on frequency response? I think the frequency range of the various formats is the least important aspect. I'm not sure why the frequency response figures meme is so prevailant among audiophile discussions.. I can only think it's old habit from age old discussions.

What about the workings of the A/D process and technologies, what about impulse response, what about filter implementation at both ends?

Oversampling was invented from the outset of digital audio as a work around because high enough samples rates were not technically/practically available back in the day, it solved problems caused by too low sample rates to implement perfect filtering. Now that high-res is EASY to implement and cheaply available, we have audiophiles who sucked up the marketing of 80s/90s telling us that high-rates are not needed because oversampling is perfect and does all we need ! Now, who has been blinded by marketing there, that Oversampling negates the need for any resolutions over 44.1/16? Isn't that a crazy situation?

(please don't assume that anyone here is one of the "audiophiles who sucked up the marketing of 80s/90s" - I'm talking about the wider internet opinions :) )

Macca

18-08-2015, 12:46

Clive197

18-08-2015, 13:39

Oh boy, this does seem to be going round in circles so......Mr Smiths mains cable sounds better than Mr Jones cable and certainly better than the cable that came free with the kettle....discuss.

Me, I'm hiding under the table until the flac (or wav.) dies down.

mikmas

18-08-2015, 14:01

Mr Smiths mains cable sounds better than Mr Jones cable and certainly better than the cable that came free with the kettle....discuss.

Are you sure Mr Jones hasn't simply got the better kettle ... or perhaps his local water supply is softer than Mr Smith's?

Macca

18-08-2015, 14:44

Oh boy, this does seem to be going round in circles so.......

I don't think we are going round in circles here. I think we have established that there is no inate advantage in SACD over Red Book CD and that any differences heard can only be down to the mastering.

In 8 pages absolutely no evidence or argument has been offered to contradict what has been established. No-one has even attempted to debunk the null result from the AES blindtest, something that is the first thing you would need to do in order to begin to establish a credible counter-argument.

here is the conclusion from the AES test:

Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests

I appreciate that this will have burst bubbles for some, but better now rather than later.

Pieoftheday

18-08-2015, 14:53

struth

18-08-2015, 15:30

I had a dvd player that did sacd and had a few cds that had both redbook and sacd on them. Admittedly people have said it was a poor machine, although i thought it was quite good(a denon 2900) ....I hate to say i never heard much difference in them and in the case of the dsotm i actually preferred my older redbook version to the w on the sacd version.
I am happy to accept it may be my heating at fault but i can normally hear differences in other things

Audio Advent

18-08-2015, 19:06

which is better, flac or wav?:sofa:

Mwahahahaha ! The Evil Questioner speaks from the darkness..

mikmas

18-08-2015, 19:25

I don't think we are going round in circles here. I think we have established that there is no inate advantage in SACD over Red Book CD

I think the discussion has been very useful; since reading it I have ordered a copy of John Coltrane's 'A Love Supreme' on Blu-Ray Audio.
I would never have even considered it until reading this thread - but at £11.62 plus postage it seemed churlish not to ......

Audio Advent

18-08-2015, 19:31

Sam, I really don't un derstand where you are coming from with these replies. You haven't addressed any of the points I have made. However I will respond to yours:

Are there other hi-fi products that are also hype over substance? Yes, plenty of them. It is still a big market and people want a piece of it. The 'I don't care how it works' brigade in hi-fi make it an especially lucrative area for the bullshit marketers.

Is new vinyl also a rip off by cynical marketeers? To an extent, yes it is.

Am I singling out hi-res audio for scorn? No, it is the specific topic of this thread. I could equally bang on about five grand turntables with 1% speed variation, or ten grand mains cables but it would be o/t

The premise of many of your points are based on things I consider to be wrong or not necessarily the case - therefore they can't be addressed. In other words they rely on certain assumptions being made...

By talking about high-res in context of the rest of the subjective nature of hifi and the hifi business, you will see that asserting that SACD is a load of marketing BS is no different to age-old arguments about all amplifiers sounding the same with all the ABX blind testing malarkey which "proved" that point back in the day too. Yet despite that evidence that all amps sound the same, here we are (and I'm pretty sure you too) on this forum discussion the sound differences of gear which shouldn't exist based on those blind tests either ...

In context of this forum and every member's subjective experiences, your assertions about high-res are nothing but a drop in a sea of voices and opinion - in other words, it is no different to being your own subjective opinion, no matter how much you believe it to be backed up by this or that theory.

And so we end up with a circular argument about subjective experience.

Why are SACD only re-issues? They are not only re-issues and I never said they were. Why is that relevant?

You said this
If your SACD re-issue sounds better than your old CD copy it is the mastering, not the fact that it is on a SACD with a bandwith out to 40 KHz. This is proven by the AES blind test

When a new performance is recorded as DSD and a CD made of it why do you think they would pay twice for two different masters being made? There should be NO mastering differences and yet people in this thread are telling you that they prefer the SACD layer to the CD layer (but you keep insisting they are mastered seperately and differently?)

I can only think that you are only talking about SACD re-issues of old recordings with the mastering sessions separated by years or decades..

If it is a DSD recording then why is there suddenly worse mastering on the CD layer? There is no reason why there should be. But ask yourself why they are putting out a SACD in the first place. The engineers know that there is no appreciable difference on domestic playback but they are exploiting a niche market of hi-res supporters and what better tactic to use to keep them on the hook than to issue a CD with the SACD *which doesn't sound as good*.

Furthermore I'd like someone who owns one of these issues where the CD and the SACD are supplied together and check the box and the literature that comes with it and see if anywhere it is explicitly stated that the SACD and the CD are the same master. My guess is that it is simply implied, because they will not be the same. I would be interested to know if I am wrong about that.

There is NOT suddenly worse mastering on the CD layer. I don't know why you insist on that conclusion. Could it just be that the CD layer doesn't sound as good as the SACD layer with the mastering being exactly the same? That would be an equally resonable conclusion too wouldn't it?

People record new material in DSD because it sounds better on playback. Progress in sound quality is their aim. There is also the ability to convert to an PCM of any 44.1 sample rate mulitple from the DSD file without any format conversion problems - DSD is the first step of 1-bit delta-sigma A/D conversion for PCM anyway, but is a neutral format so that a decision of WHICH PCM rate can be made at a later date, hence a DSD file format was conceived for archiving.

Audio Advent

18-08-2015, 19:34

I think the discussion has been very useful; since reading it I have ordered a copy of John Coltrane's 'A Love Supreme' on Blu-Ray Audio.
I would never have even considered it until reading this thread - but at £11.62 plus postage it seemed churlish not to ......

On that note, how does one play Blu-ray Audio? I don't remember seeing any hifi aimed players, only A/V equipment. Is that what you use or can they be ripped somehow to HDD?

...... £11.62? There's one born every minute...

:stalks:

Macca

18-08-2015, 19:49

There is NOT suddenly worse mastering on the CD layer. I don't know why you insist on that conclusion. Could it just be that the CD layer doesn't sound as good as the SACD layer with the mastering being exactly the same? That would be an equally resonable conclusion too wouldn't it?

People record new material in DSD because it sounds better on playback. .

No it would not be a reasonable conclusion because

1) There is no technical reason why it should sound better.
2) In a double blind test were it was ensured that the source material was identical, no-one could tell when the DSD was downsampled to 16/44.1 - no-one could tell This seems to be something of an elephant In the room, I don't know why. What it means is that even if there is a difference which could not be detected in the test it can only be small. I am willing to accept that there is a very small difference that is not at all obvious, unlikely though it may seem.

People do not record in DSD because it sounds better on playback. See 1 and 2 above. There are practical recording issues that it facilitates. Someone who knows more about that than me would need to explain it in detail, though.

PaulStewart

18-08-2015, 20:09

On that note, how does one play Blu-ray Audio? I don't remember seeing any hifi aimed players, only A/V equipment. Is that what you use or can they be ripped somehow to HDD?

...... £11.62? There's one born every minute...

:stalks:

Many Blu-Ray players have really excellent 2 channel audio playback, my OPPO BDP83 is the Russ Andrews modified version and is thebest digital disc player I've heard. It will also play DSD downloads.

Pieoftheday

18-08-2015, 20:11

Having bought a new SACD player I thought I'd look for some albums I liked on vinyl and CD from a while back, New Gold Dream by simple minds being a favorite, £109 cock in quid!!!!!! Fook that:eek:d

Audio Advent

18-08-2015, 20:27

No it would not be a reasonable conclusion because

1) There is no technical reason why it should sound better.
2) In a double blind test were it was ensured that the source material was identical, no-one could tell when the DSD was downsampled to 16/44.1 - no-one could tell This seems to be something of an elephant In the room, I don't know why. What it means is that even if there is a difference which could not be detected in the test it can only be small. I am willing to accept that there is a very small difference that is not at all obvious, unlikely though it may seem.

There seems to be an elephant in the room regarding point 2): The recordings were all recorded as DSD..

It leaves very open the possibility that the sonic advantages of DSD and higher resolutions is exactly at the A/D recording stage! This - as I've said often - is nothing to do with frequency range but everything to do with impulse response of the necessary input filters for the A/D stage.

Even so, what about the "elephant in the room" that all amplifiers sound the same, a "fact" which was "proven" by the famous Quad blind test way back? There are other blind tests out there "proving" too that people can't discern between attenuators either (didn't you test some attenuators for your pre once?), nor cables. Why choose one test result as gospel and forget about all the others? It's surely all or nothing..

People do not record in DSD because it sounds better on playback. See 1 and 2 above. There are practical recording issues that it facilitates. Someone who knows more about that than me would need to explain it in detail, though.

Recording engineers are also enthusiasts of the recording chain as we are in the replay chain! That's why they have passions for Neve desks or this or that equipment. This extends to digital equipment and data rates too. Some want analogue tape excusively - recording engineers are as subjective as we are.

There are plenty of personal testimonies on studio geek forums of people finding their own recordings in DSD to be superior to the same material recorded at other PCM resolutions. There are recording engineers outside of forums who are equally passionate about the sound of high resolution audio who only speak of it when asked what gear they use.

Of course there are also others on the same forums who shout out loud that those same people are imagining things because they personally don't hear any difference to 44.1/16 and refuse to record at any higher rate because it's "all marketing BS". And there are many in between who stop at say 24/96.

So those engineers who DO hear a difference record in DSD because they perceive a sonic advantage. These engineers are human beings with their own passions and people who follow their passions too. You appear to make them out to all have a completely objective and robotic attitude and that any decisions they make about recording format (and presumably equipment too? ) is all about marketing or practicalities. You appear to reduce recording engineers to non-humans..

Believe me, it's most practical to record in 44.1 or 48kHz and save thousands of pounds!

Audio Advent

18-08-2015, 20:29

Many Blu-Ray players have really excellent 2 channel audio playback, my OPPO BDP83 is the Russ Andrews modified version and is thebest digital disc player I've heard. It will also play DSD downloads.

And relatively cheap in stock form it looks like (2nd hand).. interesting.

Rothchild

18-08-2015, 21:25

- is nothing to do with frequency range but everything to do with impulse response of the necessary input filters for the A/D stage.

What's the difference between frequency and impulse?

mikmas

18-08-2015, 22:45

On that note, how does one play Blu-ray Audio?

Howzabout a Blu-Ray player?

...... £11.62? There's one born every minute...

:stalks:

Yep - I got bored ... and the bookies woz shut

Audio Advent

19-08-2015, 00:20

What's the difference between frequency and impulse?

In the context of this, the frequency response (or frequency bandwidth to use another phrase) is simply the audio frequencies which can be reproduced by the sampling frequency given perfect reconstruction filters etc.

The impulse response is about how quickly a signal can stop and start without ringing on (or pre-ringing) It's effectively a measure of the timing accuracy especially when turning the analogue signal into the digital data (i.e. at the recording end).

They are related - the larger the bandwidth, the faster the impulse response and hence a more accurate and precise timing of the audio.

Audio Advent

19-08-2015, 00:23

Howzabout a Blu-Ray player?

Ah. Ain't got one so don't know what they do.. Dont have a tv either so all these combined Audio/Video products seem like a waste of money. Shame they don't make cut-down audio only versions..

mikmas

19-08-2015, 00:44

Shame they don't make cut-down audio only versions..

Mines quite tiny - just a transport really with coax and hdmi out and usb in. Takes a shedload of disc formats but can also play files via usb, also has wifi for accessing t' interweb - quite handy really for not much dosh :)

Audio Advent

19-08-2015, 00:56

Here's an interesting anecdotal quote about the sound of someone's own recordings (from a thread on Gearslutz.com):

difference between 44 and 192 k is rather subtle.
44k and 5,6mhz dsd is a more easily hearable

did you test a dsd or a 384 k recorder?

most obvious differences are: you hear the attacks of piano in a different way.
I suppose the initial attack is being translating more naturally.

In a small room with lots of closeby wall reflections 44k sounds bad....
with dsd , you can perceive this reverb actually better, and it doesn't sound that bad anymore.

And the follow up post by the same person expanding further:

Hi David,

Subtle spatial information "reverb/room tone/reflections" is better represented in high res than low res: in this way a bad acoustic once sounded a tiny bit better in his res then low res.

The first sound-reflections in my piano study room (8x4x3.2 meter) Pleyel 1875, 220cm grand piano, happen after 7.5 milliseconds, so this is not a good place to record. The only way is to use the nulls of a fig 8 pattern mike, to avoid reflections of the side walls, and record closer then 1m.

I made a recording with a Soundfield SPS422 in cardio pattern, into Korg MR 1000 @ DSD 5.6mhz, distance to piano 50 cm, to diminish the amount of room sound in the signal.

listening to the converted signal in 44k I heard no room tone, but it just sounded close, muddy and not-usable.

I listened back to the DSD source file. A subtle improvement: I could clearly hear a little bit of reverb "reverb" around the piano with the headphones, that was absent or masked by other audio 44k.

I am not stating it at all that high res audio will allow to record bad acoustics and make it a good acoustic! But I just noticed, by A/B 44k and DSD, that the high res file give more information, a tiny little bit of a clearer picture of the room in which the piano was recorded.

My theory for this difference between both audio files is, that the fact that the attack of the hammers on the strings, and the initial start of the vibration of the snares translate much better in high res, and thus are more accurately translating the impulse responses the early reflections that are superposed on this audio signal, hence are better translated as well, they suffer less from this impulse response distortion and the masking effects of this IR distortion.

In my humble opinion this is more important than recording sound above human hearing range.

Firebottle

19-08-2015, 05:24

I've been thinking all along that the differences will be down to the construction/deconstruction of the signal into the analogue domain.

This of course is going to be affected by filter responses, the important one being the impulse (or 'speed' of if you like).

:)

Rothchild

19-08-2015, 06:31

In the context of this, the frequency response (or frequency bandwidth to use another phrase) is simply the audio frequencies which can be reproduced by the sampling frequency given perfect reconstruction filters etc.

The impulse response is about how quickly a signal can stop and start without ringing on (or pre-ringing) It's effectively a measure of the timing accuracy especially when turning the analogue signal into the digital data (i.e. at the recording end).

They are related - the larger the bandwidth, the faster the impulse response and hence a more accurate and precise timing of the audio.

So the difference between the frequency response and the impulse response is simply between the theoretical frequency bandwidth and the practically usable bandwidth? (with the latter being a function of how far down in to the audio spectrum the filter reaches)

This is just about moving the filter 'out of the way'. Why should the encoding method make any difference (assuming a high enough sample rate in the PCM encoding)?

Stratmangler

19-08-2015, 08:37

Your WHAT is quite tiny?

Well the USB in could be describing anything - USB seems to be the adopted method for charging lots of devices :eyebrows:
Coax out and HDMI indicates some sort of AV source device.
I have two bigguns under the TV and one quite tiny one :)

mikmas

19-08-2015, 08:56

Well the USB in could be describing anything - USB seems to be the adopted method for charging lots of devices :eyebrows:

see:

... but can also play files via usb ...

mikmas

19-08-2015, 08:57

Your WHAT is quite tiny?

wouldn't you like to know ... :lol:

Clive197

19-08-2015, 09:07

which is better, flac or wav?:sofa:

Just popped my head out from under the table for this one.

I have never heard any difference between flac or wav. (that might start another argument but ha ho). I only use flac because it copes with the metadata better than wav.

Stratmangler

19-08-2015, 09:20

I have never heard any difference between flac or wav. (that might start another argument but ha ho). I only use flac because it copes with the metadata better than wav.

I have never heard any difference.
I make sure that the drivers and settings are correct.
And I've blind A/B/X/Y tested it too.

Jimbo

19-08-2015, 09:41

There is no point in SACD , just switch back to vinyl and a good well mastered analogue or digital recording and forget about all that digital nonsense.:)

Macca

19-08-2015, 12:14

There seems to be an elephant in the room regarding point 2): The recordings were all recorded as DSD..

It leaves very open the possibility that the sonic advantages of DSD and higher resolutions is exactly at the A/D recording stage! This - as I've said often - is nothing to do with frequency range but everything to do with impulse response of the necessary input filters for the A/D stage.

Even so, what about the "elephant in the room" that all amplifiers sound the same, a "fact" which was "proven" by the famous Quad blind test way back? There are other blind tests out there "proving" too that people can't discern between attenuators either (didn't you test some attenuators for your pre once?), nor cables. Why choose one test result as gospel and forget about all the others? It's surely all or nothing..

Recording engineers are also enthusiasts of the recording chain as we are in the replay chain! That's why they have passions for Neve desks or this or that equipment. This extends to digital equipment and data rates too. Some want analogue tape excusively - recording engineers are as subjective as we are.

There are plenty of personal testimonies on studio geek forums of people finding their own recordings in DSD to be superior to the same material recorded at other PCM resolutions. There are recording engineers outside of forums who are equally passionate about the sound of high resolution audio who only speak of it when asked what gear they use.

Of course there are also others on the same forums who shout out loud that those same people are imagining things because they personally don't hear any difference to 44.1/16 and refuse to record at any higher rate because it's "all marketing BS". And there are many in between who stop at say 24/96.

So those engineers who DO hear a difference record in DSD because they perceive a sonic advantage. These engineers are human beings with their own passions and people who follow their passions too. You appear to make them out to all have a completely objective and robotic attitude and that any decisions they make about recording format (and presumably equipment too? ) is all about marketing or practicalities. You appear to reduce recording engineers to non-humans..

Believe me, it's most practical to record in 44.1 or 48kHz and save thousands of pounds!

So you reject the evidence of the specific AES blind test that I linked to because some unspecified blind test which you povide no reference to came up with the conclusion that all amps sound the same? There is no such test, how could you blind test 'all amplifiers'? No doubt there are some amplifiers that sound indistinguishable, however that is not what we are discussing.

No major labels release SACD any more, only minor labels, some of whom have gone to great expense to tool up to make their own SACDs purely aimed at a small audiophile market. So no vested interest there in trying to promote their little niche? People have to eat, they have mortgages and school fees, don't kid yourself that they will not say *anything* people want to hear in order to get a sale.

Have you checked yet to see if the combined SACD/CD packages state specifically that they are the same master?

As I said before recording at a higher rate has benefits in the recording process. It is not expensive (relatively) to purchase recording equipment that will do 24/96 and has not been for many years.

I can't really go any further with this. Hopefully those who are interested will do a little reading of their own and become fully informed. Knowledge is power, after all. I think it is important on hi-fi forums that both sides of any argument/debate are fully expressed, after that it is up to people to make up their own minds.

This may be a subjectivist forum but that does not extend to allowing people to make unsubstatiated claims about better sound quality/ the wonders of 'high resolution' audio. There has been a great amount of misinformation put out about this subject over the years, both on forums and in the magazines, and it is, frankly, depressing to see people take this as gospel.

I was brought up to think for myself, to question authority, to take nothing at face value and to do my own research. In the world of hi-fi, where so many unsubstantiated claims are made on such a regular basis, I regard this approach as essential.

Yomanze

19-08-2015, 13:41

Macca

19-08-2015, 13:51

All masters get compressed once transferred to a home repaly medium like vinyl or indeed CD. If you have ever heard a CD of tracks that have not yet been compressed the dynamics are quite scary. In home use this doesn't really work since you will increase the volume to be able to hear the quite bits and the climaxes will then take your head off, or overload your amp and/or blow your speakers. You are forever turning the volume up and down whilst listening. This is why you don't really need more than 16 bit resolution for home playback, 16 bit, giving over 90dB of dynamic range, is actually overkill for that purpose.

So there is nothing wrong with a bit of dynamic compression it is when too much is applied to make the sound more punchy and 'levelled' on the consumer crap equipment most civilians listen on that you start to notice it as an actual degredation.

In cases were the SACD and the CD are different masterings this may not be so much different as you might think. It certainly won't involve 2 entirely seperate processes, since you already have your recording made in DSD. Rather the CD version will be tweaked, possibly by adding more dynamic compression compared to the SACD. Essentially it is only necesary to do enough to it to make it sound noticeably different from the SACD in order to demonstrate the 'superior sound' of the SACD version.

Rothchild

19-08-2015, 15:41

Please have a read of:

http://homerecording.com/bbs/equipment-forums/gear-reviews-and-questions/dsd-vs-pcm-head-engineer-phillips-179930/
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/sacd-fundamentally-flawed.26075/

I've never bought into SACD as being superior just because it has "Super Audio" in the acronym.

Also, we need to be mindful, as covered in-depth in this thread, that SACD is often remastered, making any direct comparison moot.

...all things aside though, considering that 99% of the music I listen to isn't released on SACD, this kills it for me.

Interesting, I particularly like:

TH:
What do you say when you hear audiophiles make comments that DSD has all the "air" and "smoothness" of analog?

BP:
In my own experience, high speed PCM also produces the air DSD has, while the "digital glare" of some PCM can even be solved at low speeds. It is caused by the narrow alias-band that is present between 20 and 24.1kHz. Removing this band prior to playback restores naturalness and focus.

I don't suspect DSD of any "euphonic" effects, although, who knows, the HF noise?

Admittedly, the DSD camp has been able to mobilise more audiophile designers (folks like Ed Meitner), resulting in the analog circuitry of the best DSD converters sounding better than that of most available PCM converters. Doing a straight shoot-out is actually quite challenging technically, as the two formats normally use different converters, necessarily producing a different sound. This is another reason for me to do this 352.8kHz converter, because its output can be converted to either DSD or 192/24 while compromising the performance of neither. This would finally allow a direct comparison.

Which again seems to be pointing to filter design as the decisive aspect of the sound of a digital recorder.

With regards to mastering there's a good primer here: https://www.izotope.com/en/community/blog/tips-tutorials/2014/06/what-is-mastering/

It's much less of a craft skill / art form than it was in the days of vinyl but it's still an important part of finishing a recording.

Audio Advent

19-08-2015, 22:15

Interesting, I particularly like:

TH:
What do you say when you hear audiophiles make comments that DSD has all the "air" and "smoothness" of analog?

BP:
In my own experience, high speed PCM also produces the air DSD has, while the "digital glare" of some PCM can even be solved at low speeds. It is caused by the narrow alias-band that is present between 20 and 24.1kHz. Removing this band prior to playback restores naturalness and focus.

I don't suspect DSD of any "euphonic" effects, although, who knows, the HF noise?

Admittedly, the DSD camp has been able to mobilise more audiophile designers (folks like Ed Meitner), resulting in the analog circuitry of the best DSD converters sounding better than that of most available PCM converters. Doing a straight shoot-out is actually quite challenging technically, as the two formats normally use different converters, necessarily producing a different sound. This is another reason for me to do this 352.8kHz converter, because its output can be converted to either DSD or 192/24 while compromising the performance of neither. This would finally allow a direct comparison.

Which again seems to be pointing to filter design as the decisive aspect of the sound of a digital recorder.

With regards to mastering there's a good primer here: https://www.izotope.com/en/community/blog/tips-tutorials/2014/06/what-is-mastering/

It's much less of a craft skill / art form than it was in the days of vinyl but it's still an important part of finishing a recording.

What you've quoted above is saying that the problems with low res PCM people have heard over the years is down to the alias band between 20 and 24.1 kHz - That's the band when using 16/44.1 .

He's saying that this isn't a factor ruining the sound when you go to high resolution like 192 or 384 (he quotes 352.8 in this case as that is the rate coined DXD, used by Merging's digital audio workstation). That's exactly what I've been saying - the benefits of high resolution have nothing to do with playing high frequencies to the human ear, nothing at all.

Interesting how he's saying that technically doing a comparison between DSD and 44.1kHz is technically very difficult because you necessarily need different convertors to play back - any results will be as much to do with the different sound of the convertors than anything else. That blows away any conclusions of blind tests which assume it's the thing they are testing for which is causing the result and not other factors they've failed to control.

Audio Advent

19-08-2015, 22:24

All masters get compressed once transferred to a home repaly medium like vinyl or indeed CD. If you have ever heard a CD of tracks that have not yet been compressed the dynamics are quite scary.

That's not true at all.

Most music does not have that much dynamic range! A band playing together actively listen to each other and play at the same basic level throughout the song. Rarely will a group/band/singer/electronica producer deliberately go really quiet and then get really loud. It rarely rarely happens. It is more common in classical music or something avant-garde but that's all and that is simply because in general people don't want music which goes really quiet and then really loud - it's tiring, the musicians don't want it, the listeners don't want it.

I'm not sure where you get that idea from.

Compression is used by label engineers to make songs appear louder overall and therefore more punchy and lively but that's a different thing and completely different reasoning. For vinyl, some things are compressed because you risk creating a record that most people's carts can't play so the vinyl get's returned for causing the needle to jump out the groove, unplayable.

Audio Advent

19-08-2015, 22:47

Thanks for your consistent patience and comment Macca, it is much appreciated. The one thing about which I am still very confused is the whole question of "Mastering".

It has always been my understanding that a performance is recorded, to two or multi-track tape in the past but presumably nowadays to multi-track digital storage. This is then "mixed" down to two or more "tracks" to create a "master" and this is then used to produce the distribution medium (Vinyl, CD, SACD, etc.). I believe that because of the limitations of cassette tapes, in the past, at this stage the mixed recording was further modified (e.g. for Dolby processing). I suspect that there may also have been some compression applied to vinyl? have no idea why this mixed master would be downgraded from what is used to generate SACDs in order to produce CDs - that really makes no sense at all.

If you, or anyone else, is in a position to throw any informed, comprehensible light of the question of "Mastering" I would be very interested to read it.

Thanks again.

Great topic for your own thread then . . .

The "Master" is the recording which goes to the plant to be turned into vinyl/cd/sacd whatever. You've jumped to the term "master" and "mastering" too soon in your example. Mastering happens AFTER it is mixed down - another process afterwards. It's just called "the mix" once it's mixed down.

Essentially Mastering is the final stage of tweeking the overall sound of the recording whilst the individual tracks and instruments are adjusted in the recording and mixing stage.

There is a lot to consider when mastering though. You have to think about the medium it's being distributed on and making sure the audio is suitable for that medium. For example, for it to be pressed on vinyl you have to make the lower bass mono so that the groove walls aren't too thin with large stereo movements of the disc cutter and you have to compress the dynamics so that the average listener's needle doesn't mistrack and jump out of the groove. I'm sure there are specific things for CD, DVD-A, downloads (especially "Mastered for iTunes" downloads) etc etc.

If it's going to be a top-10, high energy dance track, you will likely compress the audio to make it sound louder and more energetic than all your other top-10 rivals, push up the bass for young bass-heads - lots of marketing points.

Audio Advent

19-08-2015, 23:27

There is no such test, how could you blind test 'all amplifiers'?

Quite! And yet you appear to say that this blind test you have faith in represents ALL SACDs in the world ever! You've just perhaps clicked at what I'm trying to say. There are holes in the reasoning that this test prooves what you claim it prooves.

All the test shows is that these people in that room weren't able to reliably and consistantly pick between the specific SACD and 44.1Khz tracks which were downsampled from the DSD, that they were played on that system and in that environment. To then extrapolate that this means that there is no difference between the sound of 44.1 recorded material and DSD recorded material is complete logical nonsense! The test didn't even use 44.1khz recorded material at all!

This test could be equally framed to tell us that the brand of downsampler was complete rubbish. It could tell us the DSD dac they used wasn't as good as the 44.1 DAC they used. It could tell us that most benefits of DSD are in the recording stage and that 44.1khz A/D converters are rubbish in comparison. It could tell us that the system they used didn't show differences, it could show us that the room sounded crap, it could tell us all sorts of psychological factors of being tested in such an environment and set-up.. etc etc.

There simply aren't enough controls or a wide enough sample size for you to draw any conclusions from this test that SACD is all marketing BS and that they sound no different or no better than CD.

Regarding the amplifier blind test - if you wanted a link you would have Googled it and found it (it's a pretty famous Quad claim and then blind test experiment). That you haven't says to me that me doing the leg work would be a waste of time because you're not really that interested.

No major labels release SACD any more, only minor labels, some of whom have gone to great expense to tool up to make their own SACDs purely aimed at a small audiophile market. So no vested interest there in trying to promote their little niche? People have to eat, they have mortgages and school fees, don't kid yourself that they will not say *anything* people want to hear in order to get a sale.

No major brands make obscure, speciality cheeses either - have you seen Cathedral Capra Nouveau? No, they just do cheddar. Major labels sell downloads the masses and the odd CD to old school fans. Small boutique labels press fancy vinyl pressings with handmade covers on limited runs - major labels don't. Boutique labels make special, high-quality digital recordings and release them on Blu-ray Audio or SACD.

Just like the small cheese maker who puts a lot of time and effort into the details which make the subtle flavours of their cheeses and sells only a few and has to charge a fair amount because of the care taken and low sales, a small boutique label charges more for their speciality recordings. Likewise they promote their boutique products for the exquisite and above ordinary taste/sound.

If you want everything to be bland and homogenous then please just go for the mainstream, mass production stuff - the choice is yours.

Have you checked yet to see if the combined SACD/CD packages state specifically that they are the same master?

I don't have any - if you're interested, you should really do the leg work yourself. I have DSD material as downloads.

As I said before recording at a higher rate has benefits in the recording process. It is not expensive (relatively) to purchase recording equipment that will do 24/96 and has not been for many years.

.......

I was brought up to think for myself, to question authority, to take nothing at face value and to do my own research. In the world of hi-fi, where so many unsubstantiated claims are made on such a regular basis, I regard this approach as essential.

The fact that high-resolution is cheap means that there is no reason to stick with low resolution! No longer are you having to spend thousands of pounds with the fear of being conned by some marketting drone who's magically controlling your thoughts. It's as cheap as chips and so you no-longer have to fight "the man", DIY, kits, cheap R Pi units - you're not paying any corporate entity to use high-res. High-res releases are mostly via boutique labels so equally you are not paying corporate marketing monopolies for the material.

I wasn't brought up to think for myself at all, I just do that anyway and my parents do that too - must be in the genes. Seems to me that on the internet there are so many people calling high-res to be some conspiracy theory that to join in isn't really thinking for yourself. It appears to me to be being convinced by others. Thinking for yourself would necessarily involve taking notice of people - friends on the forum for example - who do hear a difference and taking that on board...

If you're too used to fighting authority, sometimes it can become a habbit and end up fighting ghosts who aren't there.

mikmas

20-08-2015, 00:32

Sony didn't dream up SACD to bring cheap, high quality audio to anyone.

They included SACD support in their PS3 gaming console, hardly the conserve of the uber-rich.
Corporations of their magnitude didn't get where they are by producing elitist toys - if their products can't be punted to the mass market they make no big bucks. Apple nearly died by sticking to the niche, only when they (finally) attained mass appeal through the iPod/iTunes combination did they really take off.

I find this disproportionate animosity towards a (largely failed) project verging on conspiracy theory - all the marketing hype in the world cannot redeem a product that no one really wants ..... consider if you will the Apple Watch :lol:

Bottom line is - if you don't want to buy in to the SACD thing, don't. Those that did seem to like it .... if they are off their trolleys, so what?

Light Dependant Resistor

20-08-2015, 07:21

That's not true at all.

Most music does not have that much dynamic range! A band playing together actively listen to each other and play at the same basic level throughout the song. Rarely will a group/band/singer/electronica producer deliberately go really quiet and then get really loud. It rarely rarely happens. It is more common in classical music or something avant-garde but that's all and that is simply because in general people don't want music which goes really quiet and then really loud - it's tiring, the musicians don't want it, the listeners don't want it.

I'm not sure where you get that idea from.

Compression is used by label engineers to make songs appear louder overall and therefore more punchy and lively but that's a different thing and completely different reasoning. For vinyl, some things are compressed because you risk creating a record that most people's carts can't play so the vinyl get's returned for causing the needle to jump out the groove, unplayable.

Well it can, you just have to use the right equipment like a DBX type 1 capable of real time play, or a hard disk recorder like a Yamaha CDRHD1500 to retrieve what was recorded, but otherwise hidden.

Thankfully most recordings contain dynamics that every day equipment cannot manage. If it was the other way there would be no fun at all, and I would get to bed early every night.

Regarding LP's with dynamics find yourself a copy of Thelma Houston Pressure Cooker, Iv'e got the music in me, plays perfectly at this end of the world
loaded with dynamics, and better still with a DBX.

There are answers, you just have to look

Cheers / Chris

Macca

20-08-2015, 07:35

Marco

20-08-2015, 07:41

So only classical music has louder and quieter passages?

Lol... That's bollox. It happens in ambient/electronica music too, all the time, and in many other types of music. As a popular example, go and play 'Oxygene', by JMJ, and you'll hear plenty of 'quiet passages' before the crescendos!

Marco.

Macca

20-08-2015, 07:43

Yes, the point I was making is that it is a bollocks statement.

Marco

20-08-2015, 07:53

I know, dude. I was agreeing with you. Sam does sometimes have some rather 'unusual' views! ;)

Marco.

orbscure

20-08-2015, 07:56

You are perhaps unfairly attributing animosity towards those who are dismissive of a largely failed project. This is a discussion forum, not a Sony fan club. Personally I had largely ignored the SACD concept until I realised that it was refusing to do the decent thing (c.f. BetaMax). As a result of starting this thread I have learnt quite a bit about the possible future direction of High Resolution and would certainly consider downloads and media centres to be where we are going.

With all due respect Aaron, but how can you offer the suggestion that a format should no longer exist when you haven't even tried it? And no, just because I have a dedicated SACD player (which also superbly spins normal CD's too) that doesn't mean that I'm a SACD/Sony fanboy. Indeed, despite having tried to embrace the format, if there is any benefit to SACD's over normal CD's or FLAC files, then in my system, the perceived improvements I think I can here are minimal... :)

orbscure

20-08-2015, 08:59

Second hand dedicated SACD players can be found on the popular auction website for less that £60... but failing that, I note that your in London Aaron... I'm on the South London/Surrey border, so your more than welcome to pop around and experience my 2 channel SACD set-up first hand... at least before the format is written off for good and drifts into the hifi sunset ;)

mikmas

20-08-2015, 09:12

I wonder how many people bought a Game Console on the basis that it allowed them to enjoy the delights of SACD :scratch:

You are putting the cart before the horse - an awful lot of people bought the PS3 which coincidentally included SACD support. We bought one to play games but use it now to play DVDs, including Blu-Ray, since my daughter moved on to a heavy duty PC games rig. Saved us buying a separate DVD player and it also gives us access to iPlayer, NETFLIX, etc. so the negligible investment has long since been rewarded in full. Now I've discovered it probably plays SACD a new avenue has opened up to exploit it for little cost. Win-win as far as I'm concerned :)

This is a discussion forum, not a Sony fan club.

Duh - where are the hoard of Sony fan boys you think are posting here :lol: As far as I can see this thread has been a discussion about an audio format with some very opposing views being put forward. I haven't read anyone pushing Sony as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

mikmas

20-08-2015, 11:13

Personally I had largely ignored the SACD concept until I realised that it was refusing to do the decent thing (c.f. BetaMax).

Possibly not the best example to bring up; VHS didn't win the consumer format war because it delivered the best video quality - quite the opposite, even Phillips Video 2000 delivered superior image quality. The VHS victory was just another example of how mass consumers don't necessarily buy products that are even remotely 'state of the art' or deliver the best viewing or listening experience; the other that springs to mind being the overwhelming dominance of MP3 - a fairly shite audio experience as I'm sure you'd agree ......

Macca

20-08-2015, 11:22

VHS won because it got more licenses from the film companies and got more titles into the rental stores. If Betamax had done that we would all of been using that instead. Most people buy what's on the shelves; technical performance is a minority interest at best.

mikmas

20-08-2015, 11:38

Most people buy what's on the shelves; technical performance is a minority interest at best.

Isn't that technical performance and 'minority interest' at the very heart of what this forum is all about?

mikmas

20-08-2015, 11:47

VHS won because it got more licenses from the film companies and got more titles into the rental stores.

That's the generally received view although only a part of the full picture. VHS offered twice the recording time for domestic recording and had already gained substantial ground well before pre-recorded films kicked in seriously via shops and the rental boom. Also (if we want to delve into conspiracy territory) a group of manufacturers had allied around JVC to push a much wider range of machines than Sony could offer in order to defeat their dominance. Didn't really work in the professional market though - VHS was a non-starter for serious users and SVHS didn't do much to change that.

Macca

20-08-2015, 11:59

That's interesting. I still have a decent 6 head Philips effort that gets used occasionally for viewing my 'legacy' video collection.

I remember my father renting a new VHS machine and banging on proudly about it having remote control. Except it wasn't remote because it only worked when it was attached to the machine with a wire. Nevertheless being able to go down to the off-licence and rent a film was the most exciting new thing in the world at the time.

Marco

20-08-2015, 12:06

That's the generally received view although only a part of the full picture. VHS offered twice the recording time for domestic recording and had already gained substantial ground well before pre-recorded films kicked in seriously via shops and the rental boom.

Indeed, but the picture and sound quality was crap in comparison... It's that old chestnut again of 'quality vs convenience'. I know which matters most to me, but sadly as Macca's pointed out, the 'great unwashed' couldn't give a stuff about.

Also (if we want to delve into conspiracy territory) a group of manufacturers had allied around JVC to push a much wider range of machines than Sony could offer in order to defeat their dominance. Didn't really work in the professional market though - VHS was a non-starter for serious users and SVHS didn't do much to change that.

Yup, "serious users", in those days, would always have opted for Betamax. Interesting, though, what you're saying about JVC. I'm sure that the likes of Paul Stewart could offer some valuable insight into that one.

Marco.

Macca

20-08-2015, 12:11

Regardless of that, what happened with Beta/VHS was that it wasn't the consumers who got to choose which would be a success. If you had a Betamax, when you went down the off-licence to get a film you were stuffed because they would only have VHS. So all the early adopters who bought a Betamax because it was better ended up having to get a VHS machine as well.

Similar to vinyl/CD really. I stuck with vinyl until 1995 and only bought a CD player then because the local music shops had stopped stocking vinyl alltogether. How times change.

Marco

20-08-2015, 12:16

Regardless of that, what happened with Beta/VHS was that it wasn't the consumers who got to choose which would be a success. If you had a Betamax, when you went down the off-licence to get a film you were stuffed because they would only have VHS. So all the early adopters who bought a Betamax because it was better ended up having to get a VHS machine as well.

Yes, but that didn't make it right. As usual, the discerning and quality conscious amongst us have to slum it and pander to the desires of the lowest common denominator....! :rolleyes:

Marco.

struth

20-08-2015, 12:20

I was in the wwrkshop working when the tape revolution began. the Philips system was by far the best..think it was called system 2000 or similar. Betamax was next and jvc s vhs stunk. they cornered the market in films and won. Sony learned their lesson as you may have noticed....philips who are or were one of the most innovative companies never learned

Marco

20-08-2015, 12:27

I just resent being controlled by the banal desires of the 'mass market', which is why I rebel against them and usually do the precise opposite... Long live free-thinkers! ;)

Marco.

mikmas

20-08-2015, 12:38

Regardless of that, what happened with Beta/VHS was that it wasn't the consumers who got to choose which would be a success.

That's where I would disagree - it was exactly because it was the consumers who did get to choose that made VHS the victor. If you were stood in a shop looking at two machines - one offers tapes of one hour duration, the other two hours (and cheaper) which do you think peeps would go for? Think on that many would be using the recorders to tape films off of TV - how many films can you think of that are only an hour long - and how long is you average football match for instance?? Another use was recording programmes when you were out; given that timers were often non-existent or unreliable in the early machines, setting it to run before you went out was the best fail safe (I did it frequently). Once that ball started rolling the end was nigh for other formats... film distributors did offer other formats in the early days but would have followed the winner as a matter of course.

Consumers had plenty of options and standards to choose from in the early days and they voted with their wallets based on what was most convenient for their use - little changes on that score.

Macca

20-08-2015, 12:53

yes setting the timer... as you say much easier to stick in a 3 hour tape and let it run.

When you think we now have a box that you just select on the menu, press a button and it tapes whatever you want, without needing to hunt around to find a tape that you could use (i.e not one marked 'Coronation Street DO NOT TAPE OVER') - it is a convenience that was unimaginable back then.

mikmas

20-08-2015, 13:19

... as you say much easier to stick in a 3 hour tape and let it run..

And end up with a wall full of tapes, mostly without labels and mostly never watched again - those were the days :lol:

Marco

20-08-2015, 13:33

Would you rather be controlled by the commercial interests of Multinationals?

Aeron, I don't allow myself to be controlled by *anyone*... ;)

Marco [Forever a free-thinker and staunch rebel against 'the system'].

Colin151

20-08-2015, 14:22

I agree that classical recordings can often have a far wider dynamic range/bigger dynamic swings than other genres. Considerably more. Like 20-30 dB swings or more.

That also makes classical more demanding on amp power in general, and you also might have to adjust the volume during a piece. Vocal/choral classical with big dynamic swings can be particularly demanding on amp power (more so than orchestral) as the human ear is a lot more sensitive to midrange distortion than freq extremes,

Not saying other music doesn't have dynamics - just less than most classical. Usually an awful lot less.

Not sure how much compression techniques are involved in this. (Though I'm sure classical recordings usually use less or none compared to other stuff). Talking about the end result of what's on the recording.

Yomanze

20-08-2015, 14:33

Yep, SACD was only on the 1st edition PS3.

mikmas

20-08-2015, 15:04

Yep, SACD was only on the 1st edition PS3.

I guess that nobbles it then, ours is a later model.
Ah well - you don't miss what you never had (or some such)

At the moment I'm waiting for a Blu-Ray Audio version of a John Coltrane album to arrive (A Love Supreme). I have the original vinyl release so should be able to do a direct comparison. I doubt whether I'll buy into the format big time but at just short of £12 it was worth a punt out of sheer curiousity - nothing ventured, etc etc

Macca

20-08-2015, 15:11

I agree that classical recordings can often have a far wider dynamic range/bigger dynamic swings than other genres. Considerably more. Like 20-30 dB swings or more.

.

Yes, no doubt. But plenty of non-classical recordings have big dynamic swings. Off the top of my head what about Issac Hayes 'Hot Buttered Soul'?

Colin151

20-08-2015, 15:12

Yep, SACD was only on the 1st edition PS3.

Yes it was the first "phat" 60 GB version. The only one that can also play PS2 games (they all play PS1 games AFAIK)

Somebody brought out a firmware hack for this 60 GB PS3 in 2011 to enable SACDs to be ripped. Only way possible I believe.

mikmas

20-08-2015, 15:19

I have just had a look at SACD players on the (allegedly) popular auction website. Would you buy an electrical / mechanical audio player of any sort there?

Not only would but do ... I have been buying from ebay for about 15 years and only encountered two scoundrels worthy of the name. Caveat Emptor is the guiding principle (as with everything hifi)

Colin151

20-08-2015, 15:24

Yes, no doubt. But plenty of non-classical recordings have big dynamic swings. Off the top of my head what about Issac Hayes 'Hot Buttered Soul'?

Not familiar with that but sure, I know what you mean and agree, but in my experience no other genre comes close to classical in terms of the sheer large dB range of the dynamics. It can really throw amps if using slightly insensitive speakers. For example on my Maggies even a 30 watt tube amp is fine for most material (even bass heavy stuff ) but put on some classical with a v dynamic midrange and I get clipping within seconds on a peak!

Big dynamics are a natural integral part of classical music and more so anyway than other genres. I just read around and apparently a little compression is sometimes used on classical mastering but apparently often not too. SACD is useful as the higher dynamic range available on the format is handy for classical.

For CD, big classical works released in the 1980s on the TELARC label often had an insane dynamic range. No way you could listen without often adjusting the vol, - unless you want hearing damage... There are other audiophile classical labels that don't use compression either.

I recommend Jongen's Symphonie Concertante or Durufle's Requiem on the TELARC label. Amazing dynamic range.

Also any Organ Music on a big organ with loud and soft passages. Try Boelmann's Toccata from the CD "Romantic Organ Music Vol.2" (the last track on the album) and tell me how many times you have to turn down the vol as the piece gets progressively louder.. (Organist is Peter Hurford, My favourite).

mikmas

20-08-2015, 15:35

"A format some thought was long gone, when SACD proved unable to replace CD in the mass-market, is staging something of a comeback as a computer audio option." (LINK (http://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/how-sonys-playstation-3-could-save-your-sacd-collection))

Fascinating article and food for thought ... the first PS3 we had was one of the early type and indeed suffered 'the yellow light of death' - I doubt I could be bothered to go down that route but am curious whether my 'new generation' Toshiba BluRay player will play DSD files ... time for some Googling methinks

Colin151

20-08-2015, 15:40

Fascinating article and food for thought ... the first PS3 we had was one of the early type and indeed suffered 'the yellow light of death' - I doubt I could be bothered to go down that route but am curious whether my 'new generation' Toshiba BluRay player will play DSD files ... time for some Googling methinks

Not sure about blu ray players but any computer can play DSD files using foobar if you have a DSD capable DAC to put it through. Better if you have a faster PC. There are sites online where you can buy tracks in the DSD format (DSF, DFF and SACD ISO files).

PaulStewart

20-08-2015, 16:10

Yup, "serious users", in those days, would always have opted for Betamax. Interesting, though, what you're saying about JVC. I'm sure that the likes of Paul Stewart could offer some valuable insight into that one.

Marco.

Firstly, when it comes to mastering, SACD comes after the time I was regularly recording and mastering tracks so I made some enquiries of friends and colleagues in the industry as to whether different masters were ever used for the CD layer of a SACD. I was assured that in all cases the same master is used, it is merely down sampled to 16/44.1 for the CD layer. In no case that I could find, and I have spoken to a fairly extensive number of people in the industry about this, was there a “mythical” inferior master being used for the CD layer. My findings echo those that have found a distinct lack of the digital glare associated with CD on Hi Res recordings. This month and next month’s Hi Fi News contain some interesting words from Ken Kessler on the subject.

On the VHS v Beta v Video 2000 front, for those that don’t know, I was an executive at JVC (UK) Ltd at the launch of VHS. JVC’s determination at the time of the launch was to put convenience and reliability ahead of all else. We even called VHS a "video compact cassette", hooking into people’s knowledge of how convenient the humble audio compact cassette was, even though it was by no means compact, being larger than the Beta cassette and on a par with the Phillips V1500 system though I suppose marginally smaller than that.

Having determined quality and reliability were there, having the larger cassette allowed us to get 3 hrs into the machine which again scored over our main rival, Sony with Beta, though later, Phillips came up with V2000 which allowed you to turn the tape over, which I believe gave you a maximum of 4 hours at launch. Despite the fact that the track width was only half that of VHS, the Philips picture quality was higher because they had adopted a technical thing called "dynamic track following" where the heads were mounted on piezo chips and they were able to follow the information slice on the tape better. But by then, VHS had become the dominant force in the market and there was no way for Phillips to penetrate that, however, JVC did licence the DTF technology from Phillips and this enabled them to get VHS picture performance up to that of the rival systems. Another innovation was to FM encode the audio, which again, brought the sound quality up.

However, something that Marco alluded to in his comment, and the reason for VHS becoming the dominant force was a phone call I received at JVC from a major film company in the very late 70s. They were enquiring about the possibility of buying tapes in bulk so as to actually sell movies to the public. Having literally, that morning been talking to somebody about record clubs, in the course of the conversation, I had what I can only term, a complete epiphany and between the two of us we worked out the whole tape hire business and the way it would go for the future. The question at the end of the conversation was just how cheaply we could supply 1million tapes to a major film company. Suffice to say, I convinced the powers that be at JVC to do it at a massive discount, thus VHS dominated the sales and hire market and the UK became the breakout area for VHS, followed by Europe then by the United States when usually, that trend would have been reversed. As Marco says, we knew Beta was better, and I bought a top of the range one, then did my job so well, I ended up putting it on a skip.

To return to Box 13s, I’m sorry I mean Aaron’s original post, the reason for SACD and other hi res formats is simply they sound better and exhibit less digital glare. If you have a problem with that, don’t listen to them. The fact is, and there have been numerous technical papers written on the subject, not least of all by me, that were backed by extensive research in the early 80s that showed that intermodulation between the frequencies existing on a recording beyond the limits of human hearing and those frequencies in the audible band, are highly important for our perception of the genuineness or reality of the reproduction. Amongst other papers you should look up the work of Graham Holliman discussing “Infra-Bass" as I have mentioned on this forum some time ago.

PaulStewart

20-08-2015, 16:50

Based on your experience with VHS, why have "SACD and other hi res formats" with their superior sound and reduced digital glare failed to make the breakthrough?

Perfect is the enemy of satisfactory?

The download, rip and steal generation came along. Twunts like Napster, Pirate Bay et al, destroyed the money for investment and if you care nothing of quality, because you have never heard it, mp3s are OK, play a kid who has only ever heard mp3 ultra compressed crap on ear buds, the same tracks on a real system, from proper sources and watch the jaw drop.

mikmas

20-08-2015, 17:28

Not sure about blu ray players but any computer can play DSD files using foobar if you have a DSD capable DAC to put it through. Better if you have a faster PC. There are sites online where you can buy tracks in the DSD format (DSF, DFF and SACD ISO files).

thanks Colin - will look at the Mac equivalent of foobar, although I think it probable that my Pi/IQaudio player can handle DSD. Have found a list of sites offering downloads so might give it a whirl ...

mikmas

20-08-2015, 17:31

To return to Box 13s, I’m sorry I mean Aaron’s original post,

:hmm:

orbscure

20-08-2015, 17:47

Remember the days of analogue recording where music came with visceral energy, raw power and musicality that has been lost with digital recording? ;)

I'm confused again Aaron... you've previously commented in this thread that you've "learnt quite a bit about the possible future direction of High Resolution and would certainly consider downloads"... so is this latest perception of digital music as an entity lacking raw power and musicality based on personal experience or what you've read here on AoS or seen elsewhere on the .net? If its the latter, how can you pass judgement without having any experience of the digital format? :)

surv1v0r

20-08-2015, 17:57

I'm confused again Aaron... Context is everything . . . http://www.paulstewart.media/?page_id=193

orbscure

20-08-2015, 18:04

It might be handy Aaron if when quoting from elsewhere, that you clearly attribute your source... :rolleyes:

Macca

20-08-2015, 18:36

, the reason for SACD and other hi res formats is simply they sound better and exhibit less digital glare. If you have a problem with that, don’t listen to them. The fact is, and there have been numerous technical papers written on the subject, not least of all by me, that were backed by extensive research in the early 80s that showed that intermodulation between the frequencies existing on a recording beyond the limits of human hearing and those frequencies in the audible band, are highly important for our perception of the genuineness or reality of the reproduction. Amongst other papers you should look up the work of Graham Holliman discussing “Infra-Bass" as I have mentioned on this forum some time ago.

And so how do you explain the results of the AES blind test?

PaulStewart

20-08-2015, 18:52

Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference.

Subjectively, I hear a difference, on the set up I have here and on others. On the system in my car, which is pretty crap, even when playing high res Wavs, I can't tell much difference at all, if any. You pays your money, you takes you choice. If you don't want to listen to High Res files, then don't. I will continue to enjoy them, as will many others. Your talk about different quality of masters for the CD layer, is frankly risable, time is money and who would waste it in such a way. You remind me of a mate of mine, he's been bitter and twisted since, the government suppressed the fact he'd invented the conspiracy theory :lol:

PaulStewart

20-08-2015, 18:54

Context is everything . . . http://www.paulstewart.media/?page_id=193

FFS, I don't know wether to be flatterd or feel stalked :scratch:

struth

20-08-2015, 19:00

Deffo stalked [emoji3] welcome to the. .........

Macca

20-08-2015, 19:02

Subjectively, I hear a difference, on the set up I have here and on others. On the system in my car, which is pretty crap, even when playing high res Wavs, I can't tell much difference at all, if any. You pays your money, you takes you choice. If you don't want to listen to High Res files, then don't. I will continue to enjoy them, as will many others. Your talk about different quality of masters for the CD layer, is frankly risable, time is money and who would waste it in such a way. You remind me of a mate of mine, he's been bitter and twisted since, the government suppressed the fact he'd invented the conspiracy theory :lol:

I'm not bitter and twisted yet, give me a few years.

So you are saying that either the test was flawed in that it did not use good enough equipment and/or listeners or the differences are so subtle they might well not show up in a blind test?

Incidentally I didn't at any time claim that different masters are used I was suggesting it as a possibility, since it would not be at all difficult or costly to do it. And I am not taking about major label releases but smaller houses with a vested interest.

Stratmangler

20-08-2015, 19:15

Martin

Without poring over the AES paper it's impossible to draw any conclusions.
There may well be flaws in the methods employed during the tests.
Comparing DSD and PCM might be akin to comparing apples and oranges.

Is the paper you keep mentioning freely available on the internet, and can you provide a link to it please?

Macca

20-08-2015, 19:28

Here you go

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195

Stratmangler

20-08-2015, 19:36

I asked if the paper was freely available on the internet, not if you could point me somewhere to buy the paper.

Macca

20-08-2015, 19:39

You have to either buy it or join the AES

Stratmangler

20-08-2015, 19:43

Yes, that's what I read too.
English is my native tongue.

So you're banging on and pointing at a paper that is not widely available on the internet.
Have you read the paper yourself?

Macca

20-08-2015, 19:48

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

In September 2007 the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial, in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and a compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) conversion of the same source material under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8% success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50% that would have been expected by chance guessing alone.[39] When the level of the signal was elevated by 14 dB or more, the test subjects were able to detect the higher noise floor of the CD quality loop easily.[1] The authors commented:

Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.[1][40]

Following criticism that the original published results of the study were not sufficiently detailed, the AES published a list of the audio equipment and recordings used during the tests.[41]

Stratmangler

20-08-2015, 20:22

I'll take that as a no then!

mikmas

21-08-2015, 01:08

Not sure about blu ray players but any computer can play DSD files using foobar if you have a DSD capable DAC to put it through. Better if you have a faster PC. There are sites online where you can buy tracks in the DSD format (DSF, DFF and SACD ISO files).

Thanks for the heads up Colin - having checked that the Pi was indeed DSD capable I went to this site:
http://bluecoastmusic.com/free-downloads

I opened an account and downloaded one of the free tracks (28 Psalms) and dropped it onto my SSD, plugged it into the Pi and pressed play. Initial reaction after one track - pretty darned impressive. Obviously will need to hear more but first impressions are that it sounds ... well, very 'analogue' with none of the brittle overtones I associate with most CDs I own.

Fascinating - thank you again :)

Audio Advent

21-08-2015, 01:10

Lol... That's bollox. It happens in ambient/electronica music too, all the time, and in many other types of music. As a popular example, go and play 'Oxygene', by JMJ, and you'll hear plenty of 'quiet passages' before the crescendos!

Marco.

No it's not bollox!

JMJ is exactly the type of musical exception I was pointing out and including as avant-garde or prog rock or synth-rock and even then that is not that dynamic at all!

Go to this page on the loudness wars website and the original vinyl copy of Oxygene has a dynamic range in the middle of their chart, not reaching even a "good" dynamic range! http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Jean%20Michel%20Jarre

Yes you can turn these things up so they are loud but the quiet bits really aren't as quiet as you think, definately not reaching anywhere near the range of CD.

Audio Advent

21-08-2015, 01:21

So only classical music has louder and quieter passages? 'It rarely, rarely happens' - WTF? Are we through the looking glass here or what? I give up.

I have no idea what kind of music you listen to but I certainly guess you don't play in a band or ever have done.

You play together. You rarely go from stupidly quiet to massively loud unless you are prog-rock, some avant-garde outfit or deliberately trying to shock or be grandiose. And if you do that every song, it gets absolutely TIRESOME. So you don't. You don't even do it for the majority of your songs, you do it rarely and leave it for special tracks when it artistically seems necessary.

But forget even that, the vast vast vast majority of music out there is for the masses. Does Cliff Richard to massive dynamics? Madonna? One Direction? Take That? Coldplay? U2? No they do not.

Does Marvin Gaye? Stevie Wonder? Can you think of any soul singer/group who does? Any folk group? Anything in the charts in the last 10 years? Funk? Not really either.

If you think that dynamic range of most music can easily reach 96db (not including silences..) you're taste in music is obscuring reality.

(I'm listening to Oxygene in the background - it's very relaxing and un-dynamic, even the crescendo at the beginning was pretty benign)

Audio Advent

21-08-2015, 01:28

I just resent being controlled by the banal desires of the 'mass market', which is why I rebel against them and usually do the precise opposite... Long live free-thinkers! ;)

Marco.

Going back to the SACD discussion, the free thinkers would be those still buying and enjoying SACD releases despite it not really taking off and it being a pretty niche thing. Many have dismissed if as a mere gimick which died a deserved death (neither of which appear to be true in reality).

Audio Advent

21-08-2015, 01:47

Yes, no doubt. But plenty of non-classical recordings have big dynamic swings. Off the top of my head what about Issac Hayes 'Hot Buttered Soul'?

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Isaac%20Hayes - the original vinyl versions get a max dynamic range rating of 15 on their scale out of 20 and only just ventures in to the "good" dynamic range catagory.

According to the data for the album, the peak volume is only 17db above the average volume. Yes, average volume could mask all sorts of tiny quiet moments, but still peak variation from average is a good general indication.

Audio Advent

21-08-2015, 02:06

Firstly, when it comes to mastering, SACD comes after the time I was regularly recording and mastering tracks so I made some enquiries of friends and colleagues in the industry as to whether different masters were ever used for the CD layer of a SACD. I was assured that in all cases the same master is used, it is merely down sampled to 16/44.1 for the CD layer. In no case that I could find, and I have spoken to a fairly extensive number of people in the industry about this, was there a “mythical” inferior master being used for the CD layer. My findings echo those that have found a distinct lack of the digital glare associated with CD on Hi Res recordings. This month and next month’s Hi Fi News contain some interesting words from Ken Kessler on the subject.

....

To return to Box 13s, I’m sorry I mean Aaron’s original post, the reason for SACD and other hi res formats is simply they sound better and exhibit less digital glare. If you have a problem with that, don’t listen to them. The fact is, and there have been numerous technical papers written on the subject, not least of all by me, that were backed by extensive research in the early 80s that showed that intermodulation between the frequencies existing on a recording beyond the limits of human hearing and those frequencies in the audible band, are highly important for our perception of the genuineness or reality of the reproduction. Amongst other papers you should look up the work of Graham Holliman discussing “Infra-Bass" as I have mentioned on this forum some time ago.

Thanks for that post - good to read some proper informed writing to debunk the odd conspiracy theory that was being brought up in this thread, that of deliberate inferior mastering on all SACDs. There is just no evidence for it other than the odd reasoning that the better sounding SACD is that very evidence... :mental: It's kind of like insisting that your car (which is stationary, brakes on) is moving backwards when the reality is the other vehicles are moving forward.

The last point you made is particularly interesting to me as it was same reasoning I also came up with as being plausible regarding the replay of frequencies traditionally thought of as beyond human perception by any means. Although despite that, it still seems that microphones won't necessarily be picking up much of that high frequency info (unless the specs simply disregard high frequency response because it's outside of the -3db mark?).

Audio Advent

21-08-2015, 02:18

I'll take that as a no then!

:doh:

So all this faith in a test result without even having read the report..

Colin151

21-08-2015, 03:41

Thanks for the heads up Colin - having checked that the Pi was indeed DSD capable I went to this site:
http://bluecoastmusic.com/free-downloads

I opened an account and downloaded one of the free tracks (28 Psalms) and dropped it onto my SSD, plugged it into the Pi and pressed play. Initial reaction after one track - pretty darned impressive. Obviously will need to hear more but first impressions are that it sounds ... well, very 'analogue' with none of the brittle overtones I associate with most CDs I own.

Fascinating - thank you again :)

Glad you got it working on your mac, what DAC do you have?
What you are hearing is a lack of PCM digital edge. It makes the sound more natural. You'll also be hearing higher resolution than redbook although IMO not quite up to the standards of vinyl. There also aren't the added texture and harmonic additions (that are helpful musical additions) you get with some vinyl setups but put through DSD some appropriate tube amplification and you get some. It can sound very nice.

You can also convert standard WAV and Flac PCM 16 bit 44.1 kHz redbook files to DSD on the fly in foobar, and also eliminates digital edge. Not quite as good as a proper DSD file but still an improvement IMO. Not sure how you'd do that on a mac though. Pre converting PCM files to DSD first is an option but is time consuming and hogs disk space.

Marco

21-08-2015, 07:36

No it's not bollox!

JMJ is exactly the type of musical exception I was pointing out and including as avant-garde or prog rock or synth-rock and even then that is not that dynamic at all!

Go to this page on the loudness wars website and the original vinyl copy of Oxygene has a dynamic range in the middle of their chart, not reaching even a "good" dynamic range! http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Jean%20Michel%20Jarre

Yes you can turn these things up so they are loud but the quiet bits really aren't as quiet as you think, definately not reaching anywhere near the range of CD.

That's not the point I was arguing. You were saying that the only music that has louder and quieter passages is classical. That is *solely* the point I was disputing [which clearly is nonsense], not one about dynamic range - and I gave you one valid example of electronic music which proves that that particular assertion of yours was wrong.

You can now return to discussing the issue of dynamic range, which has nothing to do with the point I had raised.

Marco.

Macca

21-08-2015, 07:43

If you think that dynamic range of most music can easily reach 96db (not including silences..) you're taste in music is obscuring reality.

)

How about responding to what I actually said rather than what you think I might think.
I already pointed out that due to compression most popular music does not use anything like the available dynamic range of CD. I already explained that if you listen to a recording that has not yet been mastered the dynamics will overwhelm a typical domestic set up. Your point about 'playing in a band' is totally irrelevant and the fact that you don't realise this speaks volumes (pun intended).

The fact that this 16 bit dynamic range is not used makes the ability to replay at 24 bits resolution utterly pointless.

Re the AES blind test. I introduced this to the thread in an attempt to stop the discussion going round in circles and perhaps centre on on something concrete that could be discussed. I have not read the paper however I have firstly linked to a praisee of it and I have now pasted that praisee into this thread. I am unsure as to what additional relevant information may be in the full paper, perhaps someone could enlighten me?

In any case as I said it was meant as a starting point for discussion, not a way of saying 'I am right and this proves it', since I accept it does no such thing. Nor am I particularly concerend about being right however the responses so far have amounted to nothing more than thinly disguised ad hominem attacks and wild nonsense about there being no dynamic range on recordings. Very disappointing.

Unless someone can do better my posistion remains (and I am not alone in this) that at best SACD offers a subtle difference (that some may subjectively prefer) to 44.1/16, so subtle that it cannot be reliably detected in a blind test, and that those claiming to hear obvious improvememt with the SACD of the same master are either not listening to the same master or are making exaggerated claims for what they hear.

Marco

21-08-2015, 08:00

How about responding to what I actually said rather than what you think I might think.

Unfortunately, that seems to be his problem :doh:

Marco.

anthonyTD

21-08-2015, 09:02

From my own experiences, and having owned a few diffrent SACD players over the years,including some top of the range,
SACD recordings to a certain degree do have a more analogue presentation, in that they are easier on the ear, but also seem to have a bit more precence, and depth, when comparing the same recordings to standard red book, i have a few disks that have both formats recorded, so i guess this would be the best way i could test for diffrences, and played on the same machine etc, however, the diffrence is not night and day, and i feel would only be fully appreciated with the best recordings available.
In my experience, the further you push the boundaries as in frequency response, stereo seperation, signal to noise etc, the more rewards available.
Just my ramblings...:)

Stratmangler

21-08-2015, 10:51

Macca

21-08-2015, 11:02

But how subtle are these advantages and would you consider that in blind test conditions they may not be audibly apparant?

Stratmangler

21-08-2015, 11:08

They are subtle.
Get more than a couple of people together in a room and the subtleties would be lost.
The noise of a group of people breathing could be enough of a distraction to mask the subtleties.

Colin151

21-08-2015, 14:54

Last night I played an album I have by Claire Martin, "No Alibi".

The disc has a CD HDCD layer and a SACD layer.
I ripped the HDCD layer myself, and I found a PS3 ISO rip on the internet, and converted this in Foobar to PCM @ 24/88.2 .

So I was comparing 24/44.1 PCM against 24/88.2 PCM.
The 24/88.2 files consistently revealed greater air and presence, and the bass frequencies benefited from this by gaining better articulation, slam and attack.

Is the improvement in presence down to the DAC's filters being changed to one higher up the frequency band? Probably.
It's widely known that CD's sample frequency requires a brick wall filter at 22.05KHz, so double the sample frequency to 88.2KHz and the filter frequency reaches up even higher into the inaudible bands. The cut off filter falls at 44.1KHz at the higher sample frequency.

Would lowering the cut off filter to 22.05KHz for both sample rates remove the advantages I hear from the 24/88.2 material? Possibly.
Would I want to remove the advantages? No!

This is interesting as the higher res version will have some resolution advantages but this is still not fairly comparing 24/44.1 to the DSD/SACD format as the 24/88.2 file you made will have reintroduced some PCM digital edge into the sound. Better to compare to the SACD ISO file directly though a DSD capable DAC.

Another good point mentioned is that the SACD and CD layer on a disc often has different mastering, so it v hard to know what you are comparing on a test, but after having compared a lot, and also converted PCM files to DSD I prefer DSD in general. Less edgy and more analogue like. Somewhat subtle difference but it's there.

How much difference there is to someone will depend on a lot of factors. How sensitive they are to PCM digital edge is the main one I think (some people aren't so sensitive to it), and how revealing the kit is etc.

Audio Advent

21-08-2015, 15:26

That's not the point I was arguing. You were saying that the only music that has louder and quieter passages is classical. That is *solely* the point I was disputing [which clearly is nonsense], not one about dynamic range - and I gave you one valid example of electronic music which proves that that particular assertion of yours was wrong.

You can now return to discussing the issue of dynamic range, which has nothing to do with the point I had raised.

Marco.

:scratch: I never said that. That would a be a sureal point to make.. I'm not sure where that came from. Of course all music has louder and quieter passages.

I was responding to a point that Macca made about CD audio not having massive dynamics as proof of such and such.

The point I was making to counter was that music in general doesn't have massive dynamics anyway, certainly not those which he was describing which have you reaching for the volume control to turn up one minute and then have you reaching to turn it down the next - human beings in general don't find that relaxing and enjoyable so they don't make music like that either, in general. Dynamics like that are rare in music itself and nothing to do with the medium it has been mastered for.

I guess you have to go further back to see what people are responding to in order not to get Chinese whispers .

Rothchild

21-08-2015, 15:28

Last night I played an album I have by Claire Martin, "No Alibi".

The disc has a CD HDCD layer and a SACD layer.
I ripped the HDCD layer myself, and I found a PS3 ISO rip on the internet, and converted this in Foobar to PCM @ 24/88.2 .

So I was comparing 24/44.1 PCM against 24/88.2 PCM.
The 24/88.2 files consistently revealed greater air and presence, and the bass frequencies benefited from this by gaining better articulation, slam and attack.

Is the improvement in presence down to the DAC's filters being changed to one higher up the frequency band? Probably.
It's widely known that CD's sample frequency requires a brick wall filter at 22.05KHz, so double the sample frequency to 88.2KHz and the filter frequency reaches up even higher into the inaudible bands. The cut off filter falls at 44.1KHz at the higher sample frequency.

Would lowering the cut off filter to 22.05KHz for both sample rates remove the advantages I hear from the 24/88.2 material? Possibly.
Would I want to remove the advantages? No!

Would you be able to indulge us a little further? Could you run the high res file through a spectrum analyser and grab a screenshot so we can get a look at how much content there actually is, in the recording, above 20kHz.

Free spectrum analyser: http://www.voxengo.com/product/span/
Free demo of suitable program to run it in: http://reaper.fm/download.php

It's interesting to try and get an idea if it's 'just' the sound of the filter or if it's that + the fact that there's so much missing musical information above 20kHz

Audio Advent

21-08-2015, 15:33

Macca

21-08-2015, 15:51

Audio Advent

21-08-2015, 15:54

How about responding to what I actually said rather than what you think I might think.
I already pointed out that due to compression most popular music does not use anything like the available dynamic range of CD. I already explained that if you listen to a recording that has not yet been mastered the dynamics will overwhelm a typical domestic set up.

This is the exact point I was responding to. And it is not true at all. The dynamics of a live band in the recording studio won't overwhelm you or your gear if it was recorded straight and played back without mastering. All you have to do is get any demo tape from a loud band and listen to that unmastered audio. Even better, make that music yourself and listen back to it unmastered!

There are loud instruments being played very often, but the dynamics (the difference between those volume levels) are not that great because everyone effectively plays at a ballpark volume between each other and also a ballpark level throughout the passage of a track.

If you compare live sound to recorded sound, what is often missing are leading edges, the speed of the transients not the dynamics of those transients. Those hard edges to sound are softened all along the chain (the mic, the reverb of the room, the speed of the analogue electronics in equipment etc). They are then further compromised by recording in the standard lower resolutions as opposed to high resolution which makes a much much better attempt to get those fast transients down.

Those transients in a A/D process are determined by the impulse response of the A/D and it's filters - the higher res you go, the faster the impulse response.

Personally I think you are mistaking these fast transient leading edges for dynamic range. They are different. You can get the same softening effect by listening to the reflection of a sharp sound and listening directly to it - the reflection is more akin to listening to a recording.

Colin151

21-08-2015, 16:28

It's v hard to generalize here. This all depends on what band/what the live music is in question. I went to see a Courtney Barnet gig (got the ticket free!) and there were no dynamics. It was all one volume. Just very loud, -,all the time (and on a separate note not hi fidelity from those hugely efficient pa horn type speakers.) Having such little dynamics can obviously be typical of rock type stuff and is just the nature of the music., in the same way classical has a wider dynamic range in general than most other music.

Other bands and other music can be different and certainly can have some dynamics, and afaik compressors are very often used to some extent in mastering, and obviously even more with radio etc.

Red book PCM digital can add a somewhat fake artificial edge to transients that people can get used to that is not real. The quantization process (especially at lower bitrates) can affect harmonic structure and add that fake edge on top that can sound like somewhat enhanced transients, and add a "sharpness" to the sound. Metallic sounding guitar on CD for example. Far more natural sounding on vinyl (and DSD to a lesser extent), where the real harmonic structure is more in tact.

As for what happening in the studio with recorded vs live it's hard to tell, without hearing both live studio and the recorded sound in situ.

daytona600

21-08-2015, 16:33

Macca

21-08-2015, 16:39

Sam I agree about the transient response but that is not what I am talking about. Take a track that begins with a softly struck cymbal and a vocal, nothing else, and ends up with every instrument going hell for leather and the vocalist belting it out. If the recording has a wide dynamic range and you have volume high enough to clearly hear the opening vocal and cymbal, the climax of the track will come across as very loud, so much so that you might finf yourself turning it down. This is why compression is applied, so that you can hear the quiet bits and the loud bits don't blow your head off. Pparticularly useful if you are somewhere with high ambient noise levels or if you are listening on cheap kit that eill start to distort.

With no compression at all the difference between the quitest and loudest part of the track can be enourmous. You mentioned the 14db dr on the Issac Hayes album. That's a lot of range compared to most pop records. And thst will have had compression applied in the mastering to make it listenablr on a wide variety of kit. With no compression at all, and depending on the programme, obvioudly, it can get quite scary, particularly if deep bass is involved.

Stratmangler

21-08-2015, 20:06

This is interesting as the higher res version will have some resolution advantages but this is still not fairly comparing 24/44.1 to the DSD/SACD format as the 24/88.2 file you made will have reintroduced some PCM digital edge into the sound. Better to compare to the SACD ISO file directly though a DSD capable DAC.

I do not have a DSD capable DAC, so it suits me to have converted the DSD to PCM.
The object of the exercise was to see if I could hear a difference, which I did, and that difference enhanced my listening experience.
Something will have been lost in the transcoding process, but there's sufficient data in the DSD stream to provide additional information which although inaudible if you listen to specific high frequencies has an effect on harmonics working back down the line to very audible frequencies.

In effect, if your bass is lacking definition sort out the integration and phase of the tweeter. Bass guitar has harmonics that extend upwards into the higher reaches of your tweeter.

Another good point mentioned is that the SACD and CD layer on a disc often has different mastering

The different resolutions on this disc are sourced from the same studio master - the gain structures are the same - so no tinkering around other than being run through different conversion processes.

so it v hard to know what you are comparing on a test, but after having compared a lot, and also converted PCM files to DSD I prefer DSD in general. Less edgy and more analogue like. Somewhat subtle difference but it's there.

How much difference there is to someone will depend on a lot of factors. How sensitive they are to PCM digital edge is the main one I think (some people aren't so sensitive to it), and how revealing the kit is etc.

Converting PCM files to DSD is an interesting exercise - there will be no enhanced harmonics from 16/44.1 PCM, so you're gaining nothing in that respect.

Stratmangler

21-08-2015, 20:18

Would you be able to indulge us a little further? Could you run the high res file through a spectrum analyser and grab a screenshot so we can get a look at how much content there actually is, in the recording, above 20kHz.

Free spectrum analyser: http://www.voxengo.com/product/span/
Free demo of suitable program to run it in: http://reaper.fm/download.php

It's interesting to try and get an idea if it's 'just' the sound of the filter or if it's that + the fact that there's so much missing musical information above 20kHz

Here are a couple of screenshots I did using Audacity

http://i960.photobucket.com/albums/ae88/Stratmangler/How%20Can%20I%20Be%20Sure%2024_44.1_zpsbv6z43fy.pn g (http://s960.photobucket.com/user/Stratmangler/media/How%20Can%20I%20Be%20Sure%2024_44.1_zpsbv6z43fy.pn g.html)

http://i960.photobucket.com/albums/ae88/Stratmangler/How%20Can%20I%20Be%20Sure%2024_88.2_zpsvswfjuel.pn g (http://s960.photobucket.com/user/Stratmangler/media/How%20Can%20I%20Be%20Sure%2024_88.2_zpsvswfjuel.pn g.html)

As you can see from the upper plot (24/44.1) there is a steep rolloff just below the brickwall filtering.

On the lower plot (24/88.2) you see the natural rolloff extending just a little bit higher. The noise further up the scale is generated by the DSD conversion process, but it's at a significantly higher frequency, and its harmonic beat down would probably be insignificant.
The upper harmonics on the way up to 25KHz would have an audible beat down effect.

Stratmangler

21-08-2015, 20:31

Was the HDCD being played as HDCD (I think Foobar might have an HDCD decoder to switch on and off?)?

To be a pedant, HDCD is still only 16 or 15 bit audio but the dither and the noise shaping give it an effective bit-depth of 19/20 bits (not 24 bit). So were you comparing noise-shaped and dithered 16 /44.1 (effective 19 bit) against non-noise-shaped and non-dithered 24/88.1?

The HDCD content was not played as HDCD, using a DAC with a HDCD chip.
The CD layer was ripped using dbPoweramp with the DSP plugins installed, and detect HDCD was enabled. And you're right, HDCD doesn't yield 24 bit depth. The ripping process adds insignificant bits to increase the bit depth, because modern DACs operate better with the increased bitdepth.

When I play the disc using Foobar on my laptop I get all the HDCD flags indicating - it's still not true HDCD, because there's an element compression expansion involved in the HDCD process that can only be resolved by proper HDCD decoder.
And HDCD DACs are not going to flood the market anytime soon, because Microsoft bought the company (Pacific Microsonics) a while ago and own all the rights - who wants to add a royalty cost into a piece of equipment when it's not absolutely necessary?

Stratmangler

21-08-2015, 20:41

What is the point of SACD? is the name of the thread
if not in DSD but PCM not a Sacd

I think you've missed the point of my exercise Scott.
The point of my exercise was purely to test whether I could hear differences in material that was production mastered for different formats.

I could hear beneficial differences in the sound quality, and what's more if you look at the plots I posted you will see that the DSD to PCM conversion process is sufficiently transparent to show where the beneficial enhancements lie (ie. a much more natural rolloff to high frequency content) and less of a need for steep filtering. The DSD to PCM conversion process is also robust enough to show the spurious ultrasonic noise injected by the DSD operating process.

Colin151

21-08-2015, 20:51

I do not have a DSD capable DAC, so it suits me to have converted the DSD to PCM.
The object of the exercise was to see if I could hear a difference, which I did, and that difference enhanced my listening experience.
Something will have been lost in the transcoding process, but there's sufficient data in the DSD stream to provide additional information which although inaudible if you listen to specific high frequencies has an effect on harmonics working back down the line to very audible frequencies.

In effect, if your bass is lacking definition sort out the integration and phase of the tweeter. Bass guitar has harmonics that extend upwards into the higher reaches of your tweeter.

The different resolutions on this disc are sourced from the same studio master - the gain structures are the same - so no tinkering around other than being run through different conversion processes.

Converting PCM files to DSD is an interesting exercise - there will be no enhanced harmonics from 16/44.1 PCM, so you're gaining nothing in that respect.
It's good you know the mastering on the layers is the same so it a fair test. Like I say the thing you are going to be reintroducing by converting to DSD to PVM is PCM digital edge (DSDs main advantage IMO is that this is not preset) but fair play if you still hear an worthwhile improvement in resolution with the 88.2 KHz file.

As for PCM to DSD. It's indeed interesting and well worth doing if you have a DSD capable DAC (in order to get rid of digital edge). Here is a more technical friend's interpretation of it:

"What DSD is doing on conversion from PCM is defacto interpolation. The quantization phase error comes from the random alignment of digital sampling with the harmonics (and the rare HF fundamentals) in the signal. The phase difference between a harmonic sine wave and the fundamental is not accidental and is part of the tonal character of each instrument. The quantization makes for errors in the reconstructed signal in the relative phase between harmonics and fundamentals as well as among the harmonics. It is similar to the problem with a midrange bandpass filter in 3 way speaker when it goes into higher order crossovers. The phase alignment of harmonics is shifted within the band. The result is a nonsensical harmonic structure to the ear. If you are used to hearing live acoustic voice and instruments then the difference matters. If you don't (which is true for most) then it is far less likely it would matter to you. The other issue is quantization of the shorter transients having a rise time of 0.01 ms or less, which would have one or two samples (or none) on it which are randomly located in the progression. Those are simply lost and turned into "edge" as they randomly pick up an encoded peak value at PCM playback. The longer transients still suffer from having too few samples to have them reproduced properly. Interpolation to DSD creates a smooth progression to the peaks in transients so that even if they are mistimed at least they do not show up as digital edge. If you are insensitive to digital edge then obviously none of this matters. The point is that things like the closely repeated releases of a violin string from the sticky rosin on the moving bow are barely picked up by CD standard PCM."

Listened to some string music on vinyl the other day. So much more fine detail and realism there than with digital (even native DSD files).

Jimbo

21-08-2015, 20:58

It's good you know the mastering on the layers is the same so it a fair test. Like I say the thing you are going to be reintroducing by converting to DSD to PVM is PCM digital edge (DSDs main advantage IMO is that this is not preset) but fair play if you still hear an improvement with the 88.2 KHz file.

As for PCM to DSD. It's indeed interesting and well worth doing if you have a DSD capable DAC (in order to get rid of digital edge). Here is a more technical friend's interpretation of it:

"What DSD is doing on conversion from PCM is defacto interpolation. The quantization phase error comes from the random alignment of digital sampling with the harmonics (and the rare HF fundamentals) in the signal. The phase difference between a harmonic sine wave and the fundamental is not accidental and is part of the tonal character of each instrument. The quantization makes for errors in the reconstructed signal in the relative phase between harmonics and fundamentals as well as among the harmonics. It is similar to the problem with a midrange bandpass filter in 3 way speaker when it goes into higher order crossovers. The phase alignment of harmonics is shifted within the band. The result is a nonsensical harmonic structure to the ear. If you are used to hearing live acoustic voice and instruments then the difference matters. If you don't (which is true for most) then it is far less likely it would matter to you. The other issue is quantization of the shorter transients having a rise time of 0.01 ms or less, which would have one or two samples (or none) on it which are randomly located in the progression. Those are simply lost and turned into "edge" as they randomly pick up an encoded peak value at PCM playback. The longer transients still suffer from having too few samples to have them reproduced properly. Interpolation to DSD creates a smooth progression to the peaks in transients so that even if they are mistimed at least they do not show up as digital edge. If you are insensitive to digital edge then obviously none of this matters. The point is that things like the closely repeated releases of a violin string from the sticky rosin on the moving bow are barely picked up by CD standard PCM."

Listened to some string music on vinyl the other day. So much more fine detail and realism there than with digital (even native DSD files).

Love the last sentence:):thumbsup:

Audio Advent

21-08-2015, 21:00

Another good point mentioned is that the SACD and CD layer on a disc often has different mastering,

I disagree! That is a very BAD point because it isn't necessarily true and quite likely "often" should be changed to "occasionally" or "rarely" .

Paul who is involved in the music industry or was to an involved level said in this thread that he has asked around, prominent engineers working on SACD - they have confirmed that they use the SAME master and do nothing more than downsample to 44.1/16.

The mastering point was Macca's own conclusion as to why SACD sounded better (that the CD mastering was deliberately mucked up, a consipracy to promote SACD) but he provided no evidence and indeed the evidence which has been presented appears to completely contradict that.

Colin151

21-08-2015, 22:31

I guess it's hard to tell on this one for sure unless you asked every place and saw the tech details of every release. A friend of mine said the mastering was usually different on the a DSD layer compared to Redbook to make the most of the DSD format's extra dynamic Rang compared to Redbook CDe. I'll ask him where he got the info from, but I guess sone of it will be that the Redbook layer uses more compression than the DSD layer on a release where the mastering of the two is different. I guess it might be more common on classical releases, where the music has a higher level of dynamic contrast in general than other music.

I think it's possible in general that on a SACD release the mastering attention/quality can be of a higher standard than the norm as people are expecting the sound to be good. Both layers can therefore have better quality sound than usual, regardless of any mastering or format differences.

Stratmangler

21-08-2015, 22:38

PLEASE explain this assertion, it keeps floating to the surface and frankly sounds VERY unlikely.

Pink Floyd's 30th anniversary release of Dark Side Of The Moon release is a good case in point.
The digital release was a hybrid CD/SACD.
The CD layer is mastered to output a much higher volume level than the DSD layer.

Colin151

21-08-2015, 22:42

Pink Floyd's 30th anniversary release of Dark Side Of The Moon release is a good case in point.
The digital release was a hybrid CD/SACD.
The CD layer is mastered to output a much higher volume level than the DSD layer.
I have this disc and haven't heard it for a while. From what you say it sounds like there is more compression used on the Redbook layer mastering vs the SACD layer. Both layers sound good though, but I have the vinyl version of this same reissue and prefer that, even if it's been through the AD to DA conversion process.

Saw an original 1st vinyl pressing of DSOTM in a shop in a London today (the one with the solid triangle on the record label). Ex condition. They wanted £600 for it... Is it really that good sounding?! Or just rare?!

struth

21-08-2015, 22:43

Stratmangler

21-08-2015, 22:53

I have this disc and haven't heard it for a while. From what you say it sounds like there is more compression used on the Redbook layer mastering vs the SACD layer. Both layers sound good though, but I have the vinyl version of this same reissue and prefer that, even if it's still been through the AD to DA conversion process.

Saw an original 1st vinyl pressing of DSOTM in a shop in a London today (the one with the Solid strangle on the record label). Ex condition. They wanted £600 for it... Is it really that good?! Or just rare?!

I don't know about more compression being used, and I can't comment on the gain structure either, but the level of the CD layer is significantly higher than the DSD layer.
With Floyd being known for having decent production values I can't see them signing off something that's been significantly altered either.

£600 is far too much for an original pressing, unless it's in immaculate condition and hasn't been played.
I'd expect that many originals had ash from rollups of a herbal kind all over the groove, which doesn't bode well for general handling.
And they'll have literally been played to death.
That said, my first copy, bought new in 1974 is by far the best sounding vinyl copy I have.

Stratmangler

21-08-2015, 22:55

Ive got that release as well as the original. I prefer the original tbh. Vinyl is better than both

See my above post Grant :cool:

struth

21-08-2015, 22:59

PLEASE explain this assertion, it keeps floating to the surface and frankly sounds VERY unlikely.

A quote from Werner on Pink Fish 4 years ago

walpurgis

21-08-2015, 23:04

Dunno about DSTM, but I've got a new (early eighties) Music For Pleasure high resolution pressing of 'Wish You Were Here' unopened in its cling film wrap (and a Rickie Lee Jones first album).

struth

21-08-2015, 23:09

See my above post Grant :cool:

I must dig them out and have a re listen; cant do the sacd at moment as I dont have a unit connected.

Colin151

21-08-2015, 23:16

I don't know about more compression being used, and I can't comment on the gain structure either, but the level of the CD layer is significantly higher than the DSD layer.
With Floyd being known for having decent production values I can't see them signing off something that's been significantly altered either.

£600 is far too much for an original pressing, unless it's in immaculate condition and hasn't been played.
I'd expect that many originals had ash from rollups of a herbal kind all over the groove, which doesn't bode well for general handling.
And they'll have literally been played to death.
That said, my first copy, bought new in 1974 is by far the best sounding vinyl copy I have.

So do you have solid triangle vinyl version of DSITM? Or a 2nd/3rd pressing? If the solid triangle first pressing is the best sounding version of all then that's a pain, as it makes me want get it, but not for £600...

I suppose it's a bit like the rare 1st pressing of Led Zeppelin I with the Turquoise writing. £1500 in mint condition. It's supposed to be the best sounding one in general from what I read on it.

Stratmangler

21-08-2015, 23:23

Dunno about DSTM, but I've got a new (early eighties) Music For Pleasure high resolution pressing of 'Wish You Were Here' unopened in its cling film wrap (and a Rickie Lee Jones first album).

Are you sure about Music For Pleasure, Geoff?
Music For Pleasure was a low cost label. Fame was a subdivision of Music For Pleasure.

It might be worth double checking those records - if they're Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs (who were in operation at the time) then they might well be worth a few bob!

Stratmangler

21-08-2015, 23:28

So do you have solid triangle vinyl version of DSITM? Or a 2nd/3rd pressing? If the solid triangle first pressing is the best version of all then that's a pain, as it makes me want get it, but not for £600...

I suppose it's a bit like the rare 1st pressing of Led Zeppelin I with the Turquoise writing. £1500 in mint condition. It's supposed to be the best sounding one in general from what I read on it.

Mine is probably a 3rd press, maybe a 4th press.
I know a chap with a 1st press - I'd love to get my hands on it and give it a good scrub - it didn't sound all that spectacular when I heard it, but I reckon it was because of all the accumulated crud over the years.

It would be nice to have a 1st press Led Zeppelin, but to be honest the recent press sounds spectacular, and it would leave you with a lot of change from £1500.

walpurgis

21-08-2015, 23:30

Colin151

21-08-2015, 23:44

Mine is probably a 3rd press, maybe a 4th press.
I know a chap with a 1st press - I'd love to get my hands on it and give it a good scrub - it didn't sound all that spectacular when I heard it, but I reckon it was because of all the accumulated crud over the years.

It would be nice to have a 1st press Led Zeppelin, but to be honest the recent press sounds spectacular, and it would leave you with a lot of change from £1500.

Yeah I bet a 2-4th pres DSOTM vinyl would still be good, and much better value. Need to read up on how to identify those from the matrix nos etc. Good to know that a 3rd (or maybe even 4th press) was from as early as 1974.

When you talk about the recent Led Zep presses are you talking about the ones released last year? or the Classic Records reissues done in early 2000s with all tube kit? I have a Classic Records Led Zep 4 and it's superb. Dearly wish I'd had the money for the 45 RPM Classic Records boxset that came out at the time. They don't press Led Zed anymore as they only had the license for a limited time.

Colin151

21-08-2015, 23:47

You may be right. I haven't looked at them for about ten years. :)

I'll have to look at my DSTM and Zep 1 albums too. They're early. Most of my albums are original releases. Rather a lot of late sixties, seventies and eighties stuff. Some rare ones there too.

Just remembered. I've got an original copy of 'James Newton Howard and Friends' Sheffield Labs release. I believe that's getting a bit sought after. Stunning sounding album!

Let me know if have anything you might sell then...:eyebrows:

Would be interested to know what Led Zep 1 you have. Plum/orange label with orange writing on the cover is the second pressing I believe. Turquoise writing on the cover is the first pressing.

Stratmangler

21-08-2015, 23:56

Yeah I bet a 2-4th pres DSOTM vinyl would still be good, and much better value. Need to read up on how to identify those from the matrix nos etc. good to know that a 3rd (or maybe even 4th press) was from as early as 1974.

I'll have to check the matrix numbers on my copy.
All I know is that it seriously rocks when compared to my later "Audiophile" pressings.

When you talk about the recent Led Zep presses are you talking about the ones released last year? or the Classic Records reissues done in early 2000s with all tube kit? I have a Classic Records Led Zep 4 and it's superb. Dearly wish I'd had the money for the 45 RPM Classic Records boxset that came out at the time. They don't press Led Zed anymore as they only had the License for a limited time.

I am referring to last year's release.
I have an early (Plum Atlantic) copy of Led Zeppelin II, and the recent reissue compares favourably with its recent counterpart.
I'd expect the same of the reissue of Led Zeppelin.

I wasn't too smitten with the Classic Records versions I heard - a bit too polite was my impression.
I had the impression they were pressing for an audiophile audience, not a music loving audience.
The life and vitality of those recordings was stifled a bit with those pressings.

Colin151

22-08-2015, 00:12

I'll have to check the matrix numbers on my copy.
All I know is that it seriously rocks when compared to my later "Audiophile" pressings.

I am referring to last year's release.
I have an early (Plum Atlantic) copy of Led Zeppelin II, and the recent reissue compares favourably with its recent counterpart.
I'd expect the same of the reissue of Led Zeppelin.

I wasn't too smitten with the Classic Records versions I heard - a bit too polite was my impression.
I had the impression they were pressing for an audiophile audience, not a music loving audience.
The life and vitality of those recordings was stifled a bit with those pressings.

Thanks a lot for the info on last years Led Zep releases. Sounds good. Look like I should probably get those then....

You could be right about Classic Records releases. Will be interesting to compare them. I guess the new releases are much better than the barcode 90s reissues?

If you could also let me know your DSOTM matrix nos when you get a min would be much appreciated. Sounds v good from what you say about it. I'm not buying a solid triangle one for crazy money, even if it sounds slightly better.

Stratmangler

22-08-2015, 00:18

if you could also let me know your dsotm matrix nos when you get a min would be much appreciated. Sounds v good from what you say about it. I'm not buying a solid triangle one for crazy money, even if it sounds slightly better.

shvl 804 a-5
qhvl 804 b-1

There's also AP (Alan Parsons?) pressed into the side 1 deadwax.
It has The Gramophone Company on the label.

Colin151

22-08-2015, 00:49

shvl 804 a-5
shvl 804 b-1

There's also AP (Alan Parsons?) pressed into the side 1 deadwax.
It has The Gramophone Company on the label.

Thanks for the info :thumbsup: Will keep an eye out.

Colin151

22-08-2015, 01:56

Ive got that release as well as the original. I prefer the original tbh. Vinyl is better than both

Do you have an early vinyl pressing of DSOTM?

I didn't like the first (80s?) CD version. The hybrid SACD was much better though not as good as any vinyl version.

Clive197

22-08-2015, 08:22

I have 2 vinyl copies of DSOTM. One is a EMI 180grm pressing of the 2002 remaster and the other a early Japanese pressed Mobile Fidelity. I think the later copy could be worth a bit. Also 2 CD copies. One being the 21st anniversary edition and the CD/SACD Hybrid.

As for Led Zep 1, my copy is (I think) a 2nd pressing (orange lettering, Polydor purple label). My copies of Led Zep III,IV & V are all first pressings. (I know this because they were each bought on day of release). I did have Led Zep II 1st pressing but sold it (stupidly). Now have an American pressing which sounds OK, BUT!

daytona600

22-08-2015, 08:36

Yeah I bet a 2-4th pres DSOTM vinyl would still be good, and much better value. Need to read up on how to identify those from the matrix nos etc. Good to know that a 3rd (or maybe even 4th press) was from as early as 1974.

When you talk about the recent Led Zep presses are you talking about the ones released last year? or the Classic Records reissues done in early 2000s with all tube kit? I have a Classic Records Led Zep 4 and it's superb. Dearly wish I'd had the money for the 45 RPM Classic Records boxset that came out at the time. They don't press Led Zed anymore as they only had the license for a limited time.

http://www.popsike.com/pix/20141209/151507618723.jpg

Led Zeppelin 45rpm Road Case (From Classic Records’ Archive)

End price:

USD

8300

End date:

2014-12-16

(GBP

5553)

Start price:

USD

10

Start date:

2014-12-09

Number of bids:

43

Auctioned at:

ebay

struth

22-08-2015, 10:09

Do you have an early vinyl pressing of DSOTM?

I didn't like the first (80s?) CD version. The hybrid SACD was much better though not as good as any vinyl version.

Cant remember Colin. Not sure where it is tbh. not seen it for a while. got too many records tbh and i dont listen to floyd these days very often. I will have a look for it today alo!g with the cd versions.

struth

22-08-2015, 10:36

Found it. Its just a run of the mill id think. . Got 2 posters but no cards. Record is ex. Cover has only age related wear..overall ex. Probably a 4th or 5th issue at a guess

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/08/22/7ab77e8c2f305d417e7870b78083b362.jpg

Stratmangler

22-08-2015, 10:58

Found it. Its just a run of the mill id think. . Got 2 posters but no cards. Record is ex. Cover has only age related wear..overall ex. Probably a 4th or 5th issue at a guess

What's in the deadwax, Grant?
Both sides.

Stratmangler

22-08-2015, 11:06

Not exactly related to SACD but I noticed that there is a huge thread discussing using the Raspberry Pi as the basis of a media server (LINK (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?37480-Analog-Dinosaur-succumbs-to-the-joys-of-FBA-enter-Raspberry-Pi-2-IQ-Audio-DAC-!!)). I asked a question there about connecting a BluRay player to the Raspberry Pi and was pointed to the element14 Wolfson Audio Card for Raspberry Pi (LINK (http://www.element14.com/community/docs/DOC-55903/l/element14-presents-wolfson-audio-card-for-raspberry-pi)).

I guess that such a setup would allow one easily and relatively cheaply to access High Definition BluRay Audio?

It would be easier if you could rip the audio from Bluray disc.
You'd need a Bluray read drive http://www.amazon.co.uk/External-Netbook-Notebook-Desktop-macbook/dp/B00441HOVO and a program to rip from the disc http://www.dvdae.com/

That way you'd have straightforward FLAC files to play using the RasPi.

struth

22-08-2015, 11:12

What's in the deadwax, Grant?
Both sides.

A9 and B7 Chris what ever that. works out as but certainly not early i would have thought.. it fairly lightweight vinyl. sou!ds good though...found the 2 versions of cd as well so should be able to compare

can also make out HTM on side 1,which is the engineers name i think

Stratmangler

22-08-2015, 11:43

A9 and B7 Chris what ever that. works out as but certainly not early i would have thought.. it fairly lightweight vinyl. sou!ds good though...found the 2 versions of cd as well so should be able to compare

can also make out HTM on side 1,which is the engineers name i think

Harry Moss, one of the EMI backroom boys.
Cut the lacquers for The Beatles first time around.
http://richmondaudiosociety.com/2012/07/02/dead_wax_inscriptions/

Stratmangler

22-08-2015, 11:46

That external USB 2.0 BluRay drive costs less than half as much as the Pioneer BDC-207DBK internal drive, also on Amazon? Insane!

I agree, it's total madness.
It's probably NOS that didn't shift because Bluray didn't really take off for computers.

struth

22-08-2015, 11:54

Harry Moss, one of the EMI backroom boys.
Cut the lacquers for The Beatles first time around.
http://richmondaudiosociety.com/2012/07/02/dead_wax_inscriptions/

Did a search on Harry t Moss. apparently he died in early 90s it seems an worked at abbey rd . worked all through 60s to 80s. some quotes
On first meeting The Beatles -
Harry Moss: “The Beatles came here in 1962 for an artist test in Studio 3 and that was the first time I met them. Around that era, before anybody was put on to tape to be recorded by a big organisation, they did a test first and I attended hundreds of these tests. I was blasé about it because of every hundred that you had to sit through and suffer; there would only be one that was any good. Frankly I wasn’t impressed by The Beatles at that time.”

On cutting records that could be tracked on the primitive playback equipment prevalent in 1960s Britain -
Harry Moss: “We made records so that they could be played on a Dansette, and we used to argue that instead of making our records inferior to suit an inferior machine, we should tell Dansette to make better players or just go out of business. The arm was too light, there wasn’t enough volume in the speakers and the whole mechanism was too stiff. With a few pounds in the making, they could have made a great deal of difference to the actual product.”

Observing Shirley Bassey in the recording studio -
Harry Moss: "When Shirley's in a studio, whether it's Take 1 or Take 10, she will give a performance as if she were on stage. Most singers who record with a big orchestra need the separation for their voice, so the artist sings in a sound booth. However, Shirley liked to sing against a 50-piece orchestra in the big Studio 1 without a sound booth and so you can imagine the volume she was putting into that microphone. She always gave her best performance when she could see and hear the orchestra, and the could see and hear her."

Colin151

22-08-2015, 12:12

A9 and B7 Chris what ever that. works out as but certainly not early i would have thought.. it fairly lightweight vinyl. sou!ds good though...found the 2 versions of cd as well so should be able to compare

can also make out HTM on side 1,which is the engineers name i think

Thanks for the info Grant. I guess this was also from the mid 70s? I suppose this LP had to be repressed a lot as it sold a lot. I bet that even finding a 2nd pressing would cost a bit. Will look up all the codes online.

Colin151

22-08-2015, 12:14

http://www.popsike.com/pix/20141209/151507618723.jpg

Led Zeppelin 45rpm Road Case (From Classic Records’ Archive)

End price:

USD

8300

End date:

2014-12-16

(GBP

5553)

Start price:

USD

10

Start date:

2014-12-09

Number of bids:

43

Auctioned at:

ebay
This is depressing. I could have bought his for (relatively) peanuts back in 2003...

Ver nice indeed.

Colin151

22-08-2015, 12:18

It would be nice to have a 1st press Led Zeppelin, but to be honest the recent press sounds spectacular, and it would leave you with a lot of change from £1500.

I read up ontne recent Zep releases. Some mixed view but pretty +ve in general. Gotta get at least one vinyl to try.

I have a great DSD rip of Led Zep II done from a R to R. Much more natural sounding than the CDs. Not compared to vinyl yet though.

Really wish I had got that Classic Records 45RPM Zep boxset....

Colin151

22-08-2015, 12:20

Not exactly related to SACD but I noticed that there is a huge thread discussing using the Raspberry Pi as the basis of a media server (LINK (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?37480-Analog-Dinosaur-succumbs-to-the-joys-of-FBA-enter-Raspberry-Pi-2-IQ-Audio-DAC-!!)). I asked a question there about connecting a BluRay player to the Raspberry Pi and was pointed to the element14 Wolfson Audio Card for Raspberry Pi (LINK (http://www.element14.com/community/docs/DOC-55903/l/element14-presents-wolfson-audio-card-for-raspberry-pi)).

I guess that such a setup would allow one easily and relatively cheaply to access High Definition BluRay Audio?

I've heard about this before. A guy told me there is something about the digital out of the raspberry pi hats better than a normal computer (so you get better sound.). I had a pi mk1 at one stage which I used for streaming video but didn't like the operating system much. Pretty slow.

struth

22-08-2015, 12:27

Thanks for the info Grant. I guess this was also from the mid 70s? I suppose this LP had to be repressed a lot as it sold a lot. I bet that even finding a 2nd pressing would cost a bit. Will look up all the codes online.

i am doing a comparison with my 3 copies of dsotm on this system which ive never heard any before.. first 3 tracks of each.

struth

22-08-2015, 12:55

1st up was the 80s version cd . On this system it was fine. normal output i would expect on a cd ... It however didnt sound as good as i remembered but am using different gear so that may be it... mastering was imo nothing special..... next up the redbook layer of the 30th anni ersary dual cd/sacd ... output was a fair bit higher, possibly trying to improve dynamics. It had an almozt 3d effect especially on time(yes i actually did 4 tracks). preffered it here to the 80s one...not said that b4:lol:
Last my vinyl copy. i cleaned it but it could do with another tbh, still it was not bad. Dynamics were in comparison through the roof and this was why i loved this album originally. better than both cds by a distance. no 3d like the 30th version, but so good I didnt want it to stop. Its true that my hearing doesnt go up as high as it used to but i have to say both discs could happily be sold.. i will keep. he vinyl and may try and find a better pressing

edit. i tried the rb layer that was ripped to the pi played at various upscalings and normal. thought it sounded better at 24/88.2 tbh but still not as good as vinyl

PaulStewart

22-08-2015, 15:17

Back on topic, what did Harold think about SACD?

FFS, Sorry but you are some kind of fool, SACD was introduced in 1999 and my dear old mate Harry, died in about '92. He was a great mastering engineer and there are not many left.

Audio Advent

22-08-2015, 15:47

Struth - what is this all about?? Have you edited someone's post in order to create a better impression of yourself? That's my first reaction... sorry!

Back on topic, what did Harold think about SACD?

Last edited by struth; Today at 13:08. Reason: i didnt say that

Think you should explain what you've edited out here and why...

Marco

22-08-2015, 16:30

Marco

22-08-2015, 16:36

Aeron, you too. That's enough of the catty remarks, which yes, I've removed.

If I see any more crap written on this thread that has nothing to do with the thread title, it'll be removed without further warning - and if some folk can't behave, then holidays will be getting handed out!

Now, I insist we return to discussing the subject of SACD - and nothing else other than what relates to that.

Marco.

Audio Advent

22-08-2015, 22:27

Sam, since when were you put in charge?

Grant is a moderator here, and as such is fully entitled to edit, delete or move the posts of any member, if he considers it necessary. Therefore, he doesn't have to justify his actions to you or anyone else.

FYI, Grant removed a reference to a pub quiz from Aeron's post, which he considered was unwarranted and off-topic. He's perfectly entitled to do that. Therefore, please wind your neck in, worry about your own input, and get back to discussing the thread topic.

Ta! :)

Marco.

There's no neck to be wound in Marco - You've read the tone of my post wrongly.

I wouldn't want to have my posts edited just because I mis-quoted someone, someone in charge. So a simple explaination was all I asked for - changes the whole feeling of the forum if that's what happens, an air of difference between discussing audio topics with mods and non-mods.

I enjoyed reading the few pages about vinyl pressings between Struth and Colin151 in this thread too! I don't see that either of them should receive a ban for it - thread drift is good! Good for the forum too in my opinion.

Colin151

22-08-2015, 22:53

To be fair, taking about vinyl is relevant on this thread IMO, as the subject is what is the point of SACD, and a logical part of that is how it compares to other formats. I bought a 70s vinyl pressing of DSOTM myself in a shop today for £25 in nice condition (likely a 4th +pressing), so I now have the 80's CD, the dual layer SACD reissue, vinyl 30th anniversary reissue and the 70s vinyl. I'll do a comparison soon. I have a Philips DVD player that can play SACDs so I can compare the SACD layer to all the others. Will post up my thoughts soon.

Thanks for your comparisons Grant. V interesting stuff. Good to hear the vinyl won and sounded more dynamic. I suspect my two vinyl versions will also top any of the digital versions (even the SACD version)

Macca

22-08-2015, 22:54

A remark was made that was considered derogatory by the person it was made to. So it was removed. Regrettably that is necessary sometimes even on a forum like this.

There is no problem with the thread drift into vinyl in fact it is a little ironic given the subject of the thread.

Marco

23-08-2015, 06:19

Precisely, Martin.

Sam, did you read my last post, #226? If so, which part of this bit didn't you understand [the question is of course rhetorical]:

Now, I insist we return to discussing the subject of SACD - and nothing else other than what relates to that.

Sometimes you have way too much to say for yourself and don't know when to stop. Moderators make careful decisions about editing other people's posts, and if taken, aren't carried out lightly - and most importantly, don't need justified afterwards by onlookers!

Now, this is your final warning. Any further 'back chat' about the matter, and your posts will not only be removed, but you'll be out for a week.

Marco.

Marco

23-08-2015, 06:26

To be fair, taking about vinyl is relevant on this thread IMO, as the subject is what is the point of SACD, and a logical part of that is how it compares to other formats. I bought a 70s vinyl pressing of DSOTM myself in a shop today for £25 in nice condition (likely a 4th +pressing), so I now have the 80's CD, the dual layer SACD reissue, vinyl 30th anniversary reissue and the 70s vinyl. I'll do a comparison soon.

My money's on either the SACD or 70s vinyl. Colin, check the dead wax (the shiny bit of vinyl in between the label and the run-out grooves) and see which pressing you have (1st, 2nd, etc), and also whether it has anything else written there, such as 'Porky' :)

Marco.

AlfaGTV

23-08-2015, 10:51

Some thoughts on the subject;
SACD, or to be more specific, "the potential advantage of DSD over PCM"
Could it be the simpler decoding of DSD that makes the format sound better? I mean basically you could run a DSD signal through a lowpass filter into analog amplification and get decent output. I may very well be wrong but isn't the process quite like ClassD amplification?
PCM/Red Book audio is very well suited for storing, manipulating and handling in the digital domain but when decoding you DO need more complex conversion methods and filtering, which introduce phase shifting and other peculiar effects.

When talking about high res audio in general, the content of information in the upper frequency bands, above 20khz, are often referenced as the evidence of high rez. In my opinion and interpretation the increased 'resolution' also affects the audible frequencies in two very critical terms, quantization errors in the encoding phase and then timing/transient representation within the time domain.
So whether the signal contains info in the 20khz-90khz is not the important issue, just that the filters in use in production have been less malign and most probably introduced less phase shifting in the audible registers..

As for the question about what sounds best, DSD, PCM or Vinyl...
Well, choose your poison. To me, vinyl mostly sound most authentic and believable, but i can thouroughly enjoy PCM files too! I did have a DSD capable DAC for a while, an ESS based Pioneer N-70A. When fed with hi quality DSD files i for sure felt it created a most convincing presentation of the venue! When playing SACD discs i use a Pioneer SACD player of mid class quality and to be quite honest, the differences between layers are very small. I still prefer the ripped Red Book layer played through my media playing solution over the SACD layer through the Pioneer (unfair comparison though, my media player is quite xpensive, about ten times the price of the Pioneer PD-D6)

And lastly, the dynamic range in different formats.
What does it matter if the nominal range for Red Book is about 96dB and the vinyl LP is well below that, mostly refered to about 50dB.
Good quality recordings don't use the full range in either case...
We all like dynamic music, im sure. But it needs to be listenable on a normal stereo, as well as in the car and on your phone through in ears.
The vinyl i like are mostly mastered and mixed for replay on a decent home stereo, which means most 70's records. Since CD's introduction (and Walkmans, portable audio et al) most recordings have been compressed harder and harder, with the exception of some 'audiophile ambition' music. I believe the loudness war is in it's decline though after the worst examples like Metallica - Death Magnetic, RHCP - Californication.
Thanks to the new generation of quality aware listeners i belive high quality audio is in it's infancy still, whatever format is your cuppa!
Whether you choose to listen to your musical fix through a streaming system, a high quality head phone kit or on a modern turntable doesn't really matter. Choice is yours!

Colin151

23-08-2015, 11:59

My money's on either the SACD or 70s vinyl. Colin, check the dead wax (the shiny bit of vinyl in between the label and the run-out grooves) and see which pressing you have (1st, 2nd, etc), and also whether it has anything else written there, such as 'Porky' :)

Marco.
Wow, you wake up much earlier than I do on a Sunday!

I've got
shvl 804 a-2
shvl 804 b-8

And also HTM (like Grant's one)

Not sure which pressing it is. I guess this might mean it's younger than Grant's but later than Chris one.

I'll look online to see if there is a guide to these nos for DSOTM.

The SACD was pretty good the last time I heard it. Good bass and good resolution. Will be interesting to compare (early next week)

Macca

23-08-2015, 12:05

.
So whether the signal contains info in the 20khz-90khz is not the important issue, just that the filters in use in production have been less malign and most probably introduced less phase shifting in the audible registers..

!

I've searched for references to this phase shifting with PCM and can't find anything but it does keep getting referred to, Can anyone point me to some information on this?

AlfaGTV

23-08-2015, 12:50

I've searched for references to this phase shifting with PCM and can't find anything but it does keep getting referred to, Can anyone point me to some information on this?

There are quite a lot written on the subject but i cant seem to find any evidence either. At least not some that i can grasp... ;)

Some claim that phase shifts does not happen within the audible range when using FIR filters. Other say that phase shifting is introduced when you use apodizing filtering which on the other hand lessens the pre-ringing which we all have seen pictured. Strangely enough most people seem to prefer these filters to the linear phase filters...
Ayre have described this;
https://www.ayre.com/pdf/Ayre_MP_White_Paper.pdf

Sterophile has written some notes on the subject to;
http://www.stereophile.com/content/ringing-false-digital-audios-ubiquitous-filter-page-2#q0QWQ2JdzpkmqtpU.97

Some guy on positive feedback makes a point of this as a non issue using oscilloscope images;
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue14/digital.htm
What bothers me with this one is the fact that he is using a 1khz signal on one channel and a 20kHz on the other. To me the interesting part is whether you can identify phase shifting when the to signals are overlayed onto one channel (or both of them in a stereo situation of course)

Finally i found a pretty descriptive white paper on the whole digital audio subject;
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~erick205/Papers/paper.html

Rothchild

23-08-2015, 13:30

Not PCM per se but the relationship with EQ (filters) and phase is well known (and another holy war about what one can hear or not)

http://ethanwiner.com/EQPhase.html

Obviously it's also worth noting that if you run speakers with a crossover in them that crossover is also affecting the phase of the bands of audio that are directed to each driver in the speaker.

mikmas

23-08-2015, 16:11

Glad you got it working on your mac, what DAC do you have?.

Sorry Colin, I know this is way back but I've been off for a couple of days hols (Bakewell to be precise - marvellous :))

The DSD (or .dfs) file I downloaded wouldn't play on my Mac but opened and played no probs via my Rasperry Pi with IQAudio DAC. Not concerned about playing them via the Mac anyway so this was super ;)

PaulStewart

23-08-2015, 17:18

Just to go bsck to the DSOTM thing for a minute, I rebuilt the system on a new rack today and finally got to sit (well collapse to be honest :) and listen. Played the original CD, SACD, MoFi 1/2 speed master, A2/B3 second press and an A10/B9 also from the 70s which I bought new back then (still got the posters etc.,) The original CD is frankly pants, brittle and squeezed. The SACD's CD layer is better mixed but lacks dynamics and "air" in comparison to the SACD output. The early vinyl is great, better dynsmics and depth than all the dig sources and the newer 70s pressing is to me the best sounding. Interesting comparrison, and my neighbours now hate me and Floyd, not sure in which order :lol:

AlfaGTV

23-08-2015, 20:24

Hehe Paul!
Did exactly the same thing even if i didn't have the exact same source material as you!
I listened to the 2008 Discovery box CD and the 2003 SACD's Red Book layer, both of these ripped to files and played back on my Bladelius Embla. Those were compared with my two UK LP pressings, the oldest an A3/B3 and the newer A8/B7. And i agree the newer UK press sounds very good, probably the best of this lot.
My older press is a bit noisy due to more use, but if one can bear with that it sounds brilliant!
The Discovery remaster sounds a little bass heavy and compressed compared to the 2003 SACD Red Book layer...
To be quite honest, it's a bit :mental: having six vinyl different vinyl issues and three digital ones!

Macca

23-08-2015, 21:09

No wonder Pink Floyd are millionaires...

Stratmangler

23-08-2015, 21:15

No wonder Pink Floyd are millionaires...

Just wait for the 50th anniversary editions to come out :)

struth

23-08-2015, 21:21

Just wait for the 50th anniversary editions to come out :)

I'll be dead by then fortunately;)

Macca

23-08-2015, 21:24

Don't be so optimistic...

Joe

23-08-2015, 21:49

No wonder Pink Floyd are millionaires...

Re-issue! Re-package! Re-package!
Re-evaluate the songs
Double pack with a photograph
Extra Track (and a tacky badge)
A-list, playlist
"Please them, please them!"
"please them, please them!"
(sadly, THIS was your life)
But you could have said no
If you'd wanted to
BPI, MTV, BBC
"Please them!, Please them!"
(sadly, this was your life)
But you could have said no
If you'd wanted to
You could have walked away
...couldn't you?

Macca

23-08-2015, 22:02

Coincidentally DSOTM was the first record I ever heard on CD. Christmas 1985 on an Akai stack system a neighbour had bought himself as a pressie. CD player, tuner, graphic equaliser. spectrum analyser, double cassette deck, amplifier and linear tracking turntable that slid out, all in a sesame-seed bun. Only he reckoned the TT was crap so he had also bought an SL1200 for vinyl duties..

struth

23-08-2015, 22:09

Have to say I was late to cd, and I had not used one till I started fixing jukeboxes and we had some cd jukes come in. They were mostly Rowe- Ami from the States. Have to say they sounded rather good and I caught the bug for a while

Macca

23-08-2015, 22:31

In 1990 I twice had the chance to compare Cd and vinyl on 2 different systems, using the same albums on each medium. Those 2 sessions convinced me that CD was not something I was interested in. It was flat and lifeless by comparison. Also back then the vinyl version cost less than a CD. It was only years later I started to appreciate digital.

Jimbo

24-08-2015, 12:23

It still hurts me when I think of the decision I made in 1981 to get rid of all my vinyl and go CD even though I hadn,t really evaluated it. I committed and spent 25 years trying to make it sound listenable without success.

I gave up 2 years ago and went totally vinyl and have never had so much enjoyment from my music. Feel sad I wasted 25 years on digital hence I AM DEEPLY SCEPTICAL OF ALL DIGITAL FORMATS. It would take a quantum leap for me to now accept any digital format as my main source for enjoying music.

I think I will stick with vinyl for the next 25 years and then re evaluate:lol:

Macca

24-08-2015, 12:43

yes I used to regard my CD player in the same way as my tape deck: Not as good as vinyl but handy for playing those things I didn't have or couldn't get on vinyl. You make the mental adjustment and then you can enjoy it.

That always confused me since on a technical basis CD should be a lot better and all the musicians I knew (with one exception) were scathing about vinyl and reckoned it lost a lot of what they had laid down in the studio. (I should point out that those of them who actually had turntables had really crappy turntables that were not set up properly). But aside from that they had issues about the surface noise, the noise floor, and other stuff only musicians fret about.

I only got to really apreciate the benefits of digital when I started using passive pre-amps. If you asked me now I would say digital is closer to the recording, but vinyl is closer to the music. It is something of an intellectual/emotional divide. The intellectual side of me wants to hear the structure of the recording, the emotional side wants, well, the emotion of the music.

Of course the two can cross over, digital can do emotion and vinyl (if you spend enough) can show you the recording, but I sometimes wonder if our personal preference towards emotional or intellectual is not at the root of the old 'obj/subj divide'.

Jimbo

24-08-2015, 12:59