View Full Version : 2 channel SACD: worth it? what player should I get?
Gramophonic
26-09-2023, 18:07
I am potentially in the market for a SACD player but only have 2 channels (possibly will use a sub) and intend to keep it that way.
I have lots of SACDs/highbrid SACDs of classical orchestral music in particular, and would like to know:
What player should I get? 2nd hand ideally or under £1000 new
Will it make a difference in my system? I am not sure how I could demo and find out!
I am totally blind: am I going to have to fiddle with on screen menues or anything to make it play the SACD layer?
second hand I'd recommend a Sony SCD-XB790QS
No menus, it will automatically play the SACD layer.
Although the two layers of the hybrid disc usually have the exact same mastering this isn't always true so they may sound different.
Gramophonic
26-09-2023, 19:20
second hand I'd recommend a Sony SCD-XB790QS
No menus, it will automatically play the SACD layer.
Although the two layers of the hybrid disc usually have the exact same mastering this isn't always true so they may sound different.
Hmm, what's the point in highbrid sacds if they have the same mastering on each layer?
Is there a way to research this by label? for example I have lots of BIS, a fair few Linn, Pentatone, it's mostly classical stuff.
Thanks for your recommendation!
I would ask the same of HQCD - is it worth bothering with?
Lawrence001
26-09-2023, 22:40
Hmm, what's the point in highbrid sacds if they have the same mastering on each layer?
Is there a way to research this by label? for example I have lots of BIS, a fair few Linn, Pentatone, it's mostly classical stuff.
Thanks for your recommendation!Because SACD is higher resolution. It depends which camp you're in. Some like Peter Qvartrup think you can't improve on red book CD with a good dac, others think higher resolution sounds better. The only way to know is to try it yourself and see which you prefer.
Sent from my PCT-L29 using Tapatalk
what does 'higher resolution' actually mean?
allthingsanalogue
27-09-2023, 08:35
I’ve ordered a Denon DCD-A110, not really for the SACD playback but it's a nice addition. Although I’m not really a fan of hires music and think standard redbook is more than good enough. I traded my Melco in for it as even in that I found hires was very lacklustre and it's definitely more down to the mastering than the resolution.
i think if your going to do work on it before listening etc then hi-res does help. i noticed when recording my vinyl to file that it all worked much better on hi-res. so all my albums recorded were done in 24/96. trouble is it uses an awful lot of space which are mostly 0's:D
Lawrence001
27-09-2023, 09:41
i think if your going to do work on it before listening etc then hi-res does help. i noticed when recording my vinyl to file that it all worked much better on hi-res. so all my albums recorded were done in 24/96. trouble is it uses an awful lot of space which are mostly 0's:DTrue if it just compressed the file by deleting all the pointless zeros it would be much smaller. I guess the trouble is it might not sound the same.
Sent from my PCT-L29 using Tapatalk
Lawrence001
27-09-2023, 09:43
what does 'higher resolution' actually mean?1/2822.4 Vs 16/44 for CD, so 4x the resolution.
Sent from my PCT-L29 using Tapatalk
dave2010
27-09-2023, 16:26
1/2822.4 Vs 16/44 for CD, so 4x the resolution.
Sent from my PCT-L29 using TapatalkNot quite sure what you mean here - did something get garbled?
Hi res depends on the mastering, which might use 24 or 32 bits resolution and a higher sample rate. The higher sample rate should be a minimum of 48 kHz, but may be oversampled up to 96, 192 or even higher.
Some discs have been sampled at other frequencies - typically multiples of the 44.1 kHz used for CDs.
The encoding does not have to create very large numbers of consecutive zeroes or ones in the bit stream - depending on what approach to encoding and decoding is used.
SACD players probably do not use PCM for the SACD layer, though ultimately they should still drive a standard PCM DAC.
Re sound quality - some people say that a very good CD sounds as good as an SACD or even better, but there are too many possible variables to be sure. Others say that SACDs or even Blu Ray audio sound better.
There are also differences in the circuits and algorithms used, and sometimes perceived quality differences may just come down to one piece of kit being better made [whatever that is] than another - and not really much to do with the CD vs SACD vs Blu Ray at all.
I have heard, but not checked, that most Sony Blu Ray players will also play SACDs - and are good. We do have one - but I just never got round to testing it with SACDs.
GIven the situation it is probably best to audition some kit before deciding what to buy. Some of the Oppo kit - before Oppo pulled out of the rotating disc markets - was reportedly very good - though it may still be expensive in second hand markets.
1/2822.4 Vs 16/44 for CD, so 4x the resolution.
Sent from my PCT-L29 using Tapatalk
it was the meaning of 'resolution' I was after.
Obviously the higher the sampling frequency the higher the frequency that can be encoded and played back, but since CD already manages 22Khz which is higher than we can hear and higher than the vast majority of speakers can output, where is the advantage? All it's doing is pointlessly heating up the voice coil in the tweeter.
As Dave says it's the mastering that makes the audible difference, but you could just put that master on a CD.
Gramophonic
27-09-2023, 17:40
I can hear the difference between 24-96 and 16-44. I wasn't sure if the same mastering was just being upscaled or it was literally redbook on the sacd layer as well!
I wish there was sort of cheap, decent way of trying this out. I do like my few Linn titles that are HDCDs, which my Arcam DV88 can decode.
it was the meaning of 'resolution' i was after.
Obviously the higher the sampling frequency the higher the frequency that can be encoded and played back, but since cd already manages 22khz which is higher than we can hear and higher than the vast majority of speakers can output, where is the advantage? All it's doing is pointlessly heating up the voice coil in the tweeter.
As dave says it's the mastering that makes the audible difference, but you could just put that master on a cd.
resolution is usually classed as bit depth. Whether it sounds different in its self is i suppose up to the listener. It is certainly useful in mastering and suchlike
I can hear the difference between 24-96 and 16-44. I wasn't sure if the same mastering was just being upscaled or it was literally redbook on the sacd layer as well!
I wish there was sort of cheap, decent way of trying this out. I do like my few Linn titles that are HDCDs, which my Arcam DV88 can decode.
Unless you have some 'pure' SACD discs that you can't listen to without a SACD player I wouldn't bother, especially as you wisely don't want to spend a lot.
If you have decent headphones there's some tests on line where you can see if you can hear differences between the same mastering in 16/44.1 and 24/192. I couldn't, even though I was pretty confident that I could before attempting it.
Lawrence001
27-09-2023, 23:17
Not quite sure what you mean here - did something get garbled?
Hi res depends on the mastering, which might use 24 or 32 bits resolution and a higher sample rate. The higher sample rate should be a minimum of 48 kHz, but may be oversampled up to 96, 192 or even higher.
Some discs have been sampled at other frequencies - typically multiples of the 44.1 kHz used for CDs.
The encoding does not have to create very large numbers of consecutive zeroes or ones in the bit stream - depending on what approach to encoding and decoding is used.
SACD players probably do not use PCM for the SACD layer, though ultimately they should still drive a standard PCM DAC.
Re sound quality - some people say that a very good CD sounds as good as an SACD or even better, but there are too many possible variables to be sure. Others say that SACDs or even Blu Ray audio sound better.
There are also differences in the circuits and algorithms used, and sometimes perceived quality differences may just come down to one piece of kit being better made [whatever that is] than another - and not really much to do with the CD vs SACD vs Blu Ray at all.
I have heard, but not checked, that most Sony Blu Ray players will also play SACDs - and are good. We do have one - but I just never got round to testing it with SACDs.
GIven the situation it is probably best to audition some kit before deciding what to buy. Some of the Oppo kit - before Oppo pulled out of the rotating disc markets - was reportedly very good - though it may still be expensive in second hand markets.
No, I mean SACD is 1 bit depth at a sample rate of 2822.4 kHz (DSD) while CD is 16 bit/44kHz.
The resolution is a function of both bit depth and sample rate. If it was just bit depth then CD would be 16x better than SACD! SACD has 4x more "information" than CD despite the lower bit depth.
SACDs can't play through most DACs although you can now use HDMI to get the digital stream of them whereas originally they were designed to not allow digital copies to be made so you were limited to the DAC in the player.
If you can rip the DSD data you can also play it as DSD over PCM (DoP) with a compatible DAC.
Regarding sound quality, I'm assuming the resolution of the master is at least as good as SACD (analogue or DSD mastering). So in theory the SACD should be "closer" to the master than the lower resolution CD.
Sent from my PCT-L29 using Tapatalk
dave2010
28-09-2023, 03:35
Regarding sound quality, I'm assuming the resolution of the master is at least as good as SACD (analogue or DSD mastering). So in theory the SACD should be "closer" to the master than the lower resolution CD.
Sent from my PCT-L29 using Tapatalk
Indeed - SACD players use a so-called bit stream method for storing the data. There are even further complications depending on how the SACDs have been made.
Some are made from PCM masters, which are recoded into DSD format for the SACD. Some are made - or have been made - so I hear - with analogue from the microphones going straight to DSD, and any CD is then done by a conversion to PCM.
There are supposed advantages of the SACD encoding, but not all people can hear the differences. Arguments based on faithfulness to the original master then fail as often the end user has no good way of knowing whether an SACD was made by encoding directly with DSD or contains a DSD stream which was derived from PCM - or even in some cases analogue - masters. There were some Sony/CBS SACDs of earlier recordings which were claimed by some to be better than equivalent CDs. It is probably fairly safe to say that some recordings issued on SACD from performances made before [say] 1975 are going to be reworked from either early digital masters, or from analogue masters. Later as recording companies moved more of their mixing and mastering to digital, there will have been digital masters in various forms - some PCM, some DSD and some other variante.
Some very plausible explanations are given in this article - https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/
This article also throws more light on the situation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital and mentions wider forms of bit stream processing which are also possible within suitably equipped studios.
Re storing long lengths of zeros or ones an a storage medium, such as a rotating SACD disc, I can't remember - if I ever knew - whether these were digitally compressed to save space. Run length encoding works for long repeated patterns of bits, so if there are 5021 zeros in a "bit stream", that can be represented by coding for the bit value - "0" plus the number of 0s to regenerate. Similarly for ones - the bit value "1" is encoded, together with a numeric code for the run length. If it were desired to have different patterns, such as "0101010101" etc., these could also be encoded using run length encoding. In this case the base pattern would be "01" and the run length would be 5. Run length encoding is a lossless digital compression method used widely in different digital processes - such as JPEG image processing. Even though some processing - such as JPEG is actually lossy, some of the digital coding embedded is actually lossless. The data losses arise from other aspects of the encoding/decoding process.
Some have also claimed that the processing to reconstruct data streams even from "obviously" lossless methods, such as run length encoding, introduces perceptual quality disturbances. If these are "real" they almost certainly result from side effects, such as slight jitter or timing errors in the data streams or alternatively possibly from varying power demands within the systems. These explanations are now getting very esoteric, though perhaps can't be ruled out for very high quality media.
The first article suggests that in fact some of the processes and "standards" arose more because of a perceived need to create high quality videos, rather than high quality audio. This is plausibly possible as an explanation.
Regarding end user acceptance - well - firstly now clearly neither CD nor SACD, nor even Blu Ray video are favoured by consumers nowadays. The money has shifted to streaming - and very probably introduced quality losses which purists would find unacceptable. Films and TV shows are different from music, and few people watch videos over and over, so the [perhaps cynical] commercial view is that "hardly anyone really cares about high quality - and audiophiles are a minute part of our market, so we just give everyone something which is "OK" for most people. That kind of thinking may well have spread to other areas too, such as radio broadcasting, and why I now find that listening to my car radio - whih seems to switch randomly between FM and DAB often sounds worse to me that older FM radios 20-40 years ago. The broadcasting companies - many of them - are not seriously interested in quality, but rather on maximising profits, which in many cases [sadly and stupidly IMO] seem to come from adverts.
So does SACD sound better than CD? There have been many different comparisons over the last decade or two, with few "definitive" answers. Just as with other "hifi" kit, some units do actually sound better than others, but the reasons may be hard to discern. Some listeners may be more sensitive, and better able to hear problems than others. Also the nature of the recording proesses and the styles of recorded music may have an effect. The articles above refer to the need for filtering out high frequencies in the processing chain. In the case of PCM encoding this is to minimise anti-alilasing effects, while in the case of bit stream DAD noise shaping shifts a lot of noise up into "inaudible" regions, but it may still come back to cause problems in other ways, so should be filtered out. If the original sounds actually don't have much very high frequency conent then at least PCM recordings should always sound reasonably good.
It is also clearly the case that some listeners can hear differences between different methods, and our OP here may be one of them. The perceived differences could be immense for such people - though they may be described as "subtle" by some reviewers, and many users may not even notice them at all. I have heard recordings which to me sound great on some kit, and merely "ordinary" on other systems, and I was able to identify passages in the music where these differences occurred. I shall avoid a sexual reference, but shall we say that in some cases the difference can be between a really great mind blowing experience, compared with a very ordinary one.
So after all this all I can recommend is that our OP - who does seem able to hear "subtle" differences, does do the slog of listening to different systems, and making his mind up as to whether it is worth investing time and money into SACD or other hi-res systems for music reproduction - and also note that this may be manufacturer and system specific.
dave2010
28-09-2023, 03:46
I would ask the same of HQCD - is it worth bothering with?Yes - if the only media available is HQCD format. Also I have known some HQCD recordings to sound appalling if played without decoding.
Generally though I would expect worthwhile performances to be available in different formats - but if the only available recording is in HQCD format, then it does make sense to tackle that. That can however often be done in software if you know where to look - and converting the HQCD data into a more hi-res form. That might be a cheaper and acceptable way to get the desired result, rather than investing in yet another piece of kit to play HQCDs. A similar situation applies also to CDs, as some CDs - probably aimed at the Japanese market - also have additional decoding and analogue processing to increase the dynamic range and minimise noise. Most earlier CD players were supposed to include the circuits to do that, but I think few now do. I only ever had one CD where a light came on to indicate that the circuits were active in one of my players.
No, I mean SACD is 1 bit depth at a sample rate of 2822.4 kHz (DSD) while CD is 16 bit/44kHz.
The resolution is a function of both bit depth and sample rate. If it was just bit depth then CD would be 16x better than SACD! SACD has 4x more "information" than CD despite the lower bit depth.
It does have more 'information' but all of that extra information is above 22Khz and on most SACDs it is just noise. And cannot be heard in any case,.
More bits gives a wider dynamic range, but there's only a handful of recordings that have a higher dynamic range than can be put on CD, and to take advantage of that would require listening at a volume you would never use domestically and which almost all domestic equipment could not manage without the amp clipping or the speakers running into high distortion.
dave2010
28-09-2023, 09:43
It does have more 'information' but all of that extra information is above 22Khz and on most SACDs it is just noise. And cannot be heard in any case,.
More bits gives a wider dynamic range, but there's only a handful of recordings that have a higher dynamic range than can be put on CD, and to take advantage of that would require listening at a volume you would never use domestically and which almost all domestic equipment could not manage without the amp clipping or the speakers running into high distortion.Re the HF noise from SACDs - this should be filtered out. If it isn't then it can cause aliasing and also perhaps even damage to some kit.
Re more bits giving wider dynamic range - probably better to write "more bits gives the possibility of wider dynamic range". Many recordings have a deliberately narrower dynamic range because someone thinks that's a good idea - and depending on the type of music there may be some point to that. Impressions of loudness may at first sight be greater with a narrower dynamic range, and the volume levels turned up on the playback kit - but that can be very tiring to listen to. The motivations may be commercial and profit seeking, rather than purely musical. Both CDs and SACDs should be capable of a dynamic range greater than most people would really want.
Re the HF noise from SACDs - this should be filtered out. If it isn't then it can cause aliasing and also perhaps even damage to some kit.
Re more bits giving wider dynamic range - probably better to write "more bits gives the possibility of wider dynamic range". Many recordings have a deliberately narrower dynamic range because someone thinks that's a good idea - and depending on the type of music there may be some point to that. Impressions of loudness may at first sight be greater with a narrower dynamic range, and the volume levels turned up on the playback kit - but that can be very tiring to listen to. The motivations may be commercial and profit seeking, rather than purely musical. Both CDs and SACDs should be capable of a dynamic range greater than most people would really want.
yes, totally agree. CD spec is really overkill there was never a need for a playback medium with a higher frequency or amplitude capability than that.
dave2010
29-09-2023, 09:03
yes, totally agree. CD spec is really overkill there was never a need for a playback medium with a higher frequency or amplitude capability than that.Very probably - yet there are I believe CD players which sound better than SACD players, and SACD players which sound better than CD players and so on. Then again, many people can't it seems hear the differences, but there are probably some who can.
Some years ago I used to think that all that was needed for a good experience was a good recording of a live orchestra or band - and the distribution media would make some difference, but hopefully not totally trash the master recording. More recently though I have discovered that the possibiilties of tinkering with the sound using processing in tools such as DAWs can make a significant difference. Reverb can be added, levels adjusted, and many of the processes are not "natural". There are so many ways in which recordings can be modified by a mastering engineer that often the characteristics of the original performance may be completely obscured. If the sonic tinkering is done subtlely this may enhance the original, but it may also completely change the nature of it with less sympathetic adjustments.
I can't really comment much on pop music, but someone may think that a recording would sound better with a degree of grittiness - so there are ways of altering the recording to provide that. Methods include layering different copies of an audio track together, adding distortion to some of them, maybe even panning them to different directions, or even applying pitch shifts to some. Then blend the whole unholy mess together and sure - it may sound "grittier" than before [i.e. worse!). You want throbbing bass - that can be done too.
For other types of music - such as choral or orchestral music - adding in reverb can be used for a few purposes. One is to provide additional ambience - which some may find "ethereal", while another more mundane one is that the performers actually didn't get the timing and precision exact enough - no problem - bang in some reverb and no one will notice. There is a lot of tinkering which can be done. Some of it may enhance a recording/performance, but it may also give a false impression of what the original sound was actually like.
To give an analogy, photographic "evidence" is now often considered suspect, as with modern tools it is relatively easy to change images. Similar problems arise with sound recordings.
One manufacturer in the past used to have slogans like "for the closest approach to the original sound" to sell their kit, but my point is that in many cases the sound as distributed on CD, SACD, streaming - whatever - may have been mangled so much that it isn't really a representation of the original sounds at all.
If that's what we, as a buying public want, so be it.
Very probably - yet there are I believe CD players which sound better than SACD players, and SACD players which sound better than CD players and so on. Then again, many people can't it seems hear the differences, but there are probably some who can.
Some years ago I used to think that all that was needed for a good experience was a good recording of a live orchestra or band - and the distribution media would make some difference, but hopefully not totally trash the master recording. More recently though I have discovered that the possibiilties of tinkering with the sound using processing in tools such as DAWs can make a significant difference. Reverb can be added, levels adjusted, and many of the processes are not "natural". There are so many ways in which recordings can be modified by a mastering engineer that often the characteristics of the original performance may be completely obscured. If the sonic tinkering is done subtlely this may enhance the original, but it may also completely change the nature of it with less sympathetic adjustments.
I can't really comment much on pop music, but someone may think that a recording would sound better with a degree of grittiness - so there are ways of altering the recording to provide that. Methods include layering different copies of an audio track together, adding distortion to some of them, maybe even panning them to different directions, or even applying pitch shifts to some. Then blend the whole unholy mess together and sure - it may sound "grittier" than before [i.e. worse!). You want throbbing bass - that can be done too.
For other types of music - such as choral or orchestral music - adding in reverb can be used for a few purposes. One is to provide additional ambience - which some may find "ethereal", while another more mundane one is that the performers actually didn't get the timing and precision exact enough - no problem - bang in some reverb and no one will notice. There is a lot of tinkering which can be done. Some of it may enhance a recording/performance, but it may also give a false impression of what the original sound was actually like.
To give an analogy, photographic "evidence" is now often considered suspect, as with modern tools it is relatively easy to change images. Similar problems arise with sound recordings.
One manufacturer in the past used to have slogans like "for the closest approach to the original sound" to sell their kit, but my point is that in many cases the sound as distributed on CD, SACD, streaming - whatever - may have been mangled so much that it isn't really a representation of the original sounds at all.
If that's what we, as a buying public want, so be it.
'The closest approach to the original sound' I believe refers to what is on the recording, not what happened in the recording venue.
The concept of 'High Fidelity' is one of high fidelity to the recording not to the original performance, this is often misunderstood.
For example if I want to record someone playing the piano, how do I mic it up? At a distance, close to the hammers, a mixture of both? If at a distance then what distance? ten feet, twenty feet, thirty feet? It will all sound different.
Added to which mics don't have totally flat frequency response so the very act of recording the piano will change the sound compared to 'being there.'
This why judging equipment by 'The sound of real instruments' is always a non-starter.
For playback we can only work with what we are given. If they chose to add some reverb to the piano, that's part of the recording, it's what was intended. The best we can do is reproduce what we were given as accurately as possible and that includes the artificial additives.
I've noticed many audiophile recordings which people use a benchmarks for 'real sound' have a ton of artificial reverb. It's the msg of recordings. It's added precisely because it makes it sound more 'real' than the actual reality.
AJSki2fly
29-09-2023, 10:31
I am potentially in the market for a SACD player but only have 2 channels (possibly will use a sub) and intend to keep it that way.
I have lots of SACDs/highbrid SACDs of classical orchestral music in particular, and would like to know:
What player should I get? 2nd hand ideally or under £1000 new
Will it make a difference in my system? I am not sure how I could demo and find out!
I am totally blind: am I going to have to fiddle with on screen menues or anything to make it play the SACD layer?
To try and answer your original question:--
You should get a good result with one of these,
https://www.techradar.com/reviews/audio-visual/hi-fi-and-audio/audio-systems/marantz-ki-pearl-lite-sacd-and-amp-714688/review
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/204455083185?hash=item2f9a78fcb1:g:MHkAAOSwHHpk-zy9
There are one or two others on Ebay at the moment.
I have the bigger brother KA Pearl, but these are rare as hens teeth and usually sell for £1200-1500.
I have read the rest of this thread and I would offer this opinion. I more or less stopped listening to CDs as I found it rather flat and not particularly engaging, the odd CD stood out, however my f when listening to CDs with the Marantz KA Pearl at my friends I found the rendition pretty good, a more spacious soundstage and seemed to be more musical clarity/detail. When he upgrade I purchased his SACD. I now generally enjoy CDs when I listen to them, although the odd one is just poor, the same can be said of some vinyl pressings.
With respect to SACDs played on it, I find that some are actually superb, the closest that you could get to hearing the rendition on vinyl from and original master, maybe? Before I get shot down I will say this, yes the mediums are different and they each have their misgivings/issues, but I would highlight this, if either medium is used to render an original high quality recording that has been transferred/mastered and engineered in a good manner to SACD/CD or Vinyl then you will are likely to get to get a good rendition, obviously the system needs to be up to the job and correctly set up (especially for vinyl).
Can I hear the difference, in some cases yes, I have several copies of Supertramp - Crime of the Century and Pink Floyd - DSOTM, and a few others, on Vinyl, CD SACD , and hi-res streaming files. As others have highlighted are they from the same master? I know that some are the same and others are not, what has been done in the mastering to each format, in all honesty apart from the engineers involved at the time I have NO idea and I doubt others will know. However I have some newly produced SACDs that were originally recorded, that is in the last 10 years, so presumably fully digital hi-res mastering, and they are quite stunning to listen to.
As others have said and I think Dave explained digital issues pretty well, it really is a matter of luck as to which SACDs are great and those that are average or a CD is just as good.
Can I hear the difference, in some cases yes, I have several copies of Supertramp - Crime of the Century and Pink Floyd - DSOTM, and a few others, on Vinyl, CD SACD , and hi-res streaming files. As others have highlighted are they from the same master? I know that some are the same and others are not, what has been done in the mastering to each format, in all honesty apart from the engineers involved at the time I have NO idea and I doubt others will know..
It's complicated.
For analogue recordings there will be multiple master tapes of different generations, that is to say, copies of a copy. Each generation will be degraded compared to the previous i,e the noise floor will be twice as high each time.
There will also be a studio master which is the mixdown after mastering, there will be a mixdown tape or tapes, there will be tapes of the individual tracks prior to mixdown
Analogue tape degrades with time, this varies depending on the formula/brand. At some point a digital copy of a master will have been made. This will not degrade and will be an exact copy of whatever generation master tape they used, in the condition it was at the time.
So we already have some variables:
1) what was used to make the SACD? - was it the original mixdown, was it remixed from the individual track tapes, or did they just use an existing master? If so was it on tape or already digitised?
2) If they used a tape, what condition was the tape in at the time of making the SACD?
Then we have the process of re-mastering which, looking at the DR Database, we can see that this often (although not always) involves adding more limiting and compression, reducing the dynamic range. SACD releases often have lower DR than the original CD release.
Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily.
Original CD releases from the 1980s are often flat transfers which take advantage of the high dynamic range of CD. The problem with this is that played at domestically acceptable volume they can sound a bit flat and thin. They are designed to be played at the same volume as they were mastered, which will be at a high level. Then they will no longer sound flat and thin.
When CD was released many enthusiasts, in the UK especially, had 'flat earth' systems with low power amps and poorly engineered speakers. These systems did not have the dynamic range needed to play back early CD releases at the correct volume. Additionally these systems were balanced to counteract the sonic attributes of vinyl, particularly the steep roll off in high frequencies - this is why there was a vocal minority who complained that CD was thin, flat, harsh and shrill.
Adding some more limiting and compression (there will always be some as this is the main process in mastering) will reduce dynamic range but will add more 'body' to the sound when played back at lower volumes. Adding a lot will result in a sound which verges from uncomfortable to unlistenable. It can be a fine line. If you have ever listened to a mixdown recorded straight to a CD with no mastering step you will know why some limiting is used.
So there's many factors in what will make a good recording regardless of whether the format is vinyl, CD or SACD. To a great extent the format is totally subservient to these other factors in terms of the end sound quality.
If record companies were a bit more open as to the exact provenance of their re-releases we would have the info we need to choose. But they aren't as this would hurt sales of re-issues as in most cases the earlier releases will be better for the reasons described above. So we get things like the MoFi 'scandal' which was nonsense since using the digital copy of a master for a re-release of an old recording will almost always be better than using 'The original tapes'.
But of course most of their punters do not have any understanding and assume that original will always be better because it is analogue.
Excellent post there Martin. There is a lot of confusion and obfuscation regarding the analogue/digital debate.
For me it started with listening to the first CDs on a Phillips CD100 player and comparing the result in near real time with the LP version. The CD format compared badly, as it did when using the CD101 player. It was only when the CD104 player was released did I find the format acceptable.
Likewise when Ry Cooder's "Bop Till You Drop" was released, it was heralded the first LP for which digital techniques had been used. All the reviews were favourable, yet I found the SQ poor; especially the sound staging with the various instrumentalists appearing to pop up and down like the flags on an old-fashioned cash register.
Clearly digital replay has improved enormously and is now my main source for music, but the situation is made difficult with remastered disks - I do find most, but not all, to be inferior to the originals.
Enossification
01-10-2023, 07:14
what does 'higher resolution' actually mean?
Very good point which should also be asked of digital photography.
Firebottle
01-10-2023, 10:48
Re storing long lengths of zeros or ones an a storage medium, such as a rotating SACD disc, I can't remember - if I ever knew - whether these were digitally compressed to save space. Run length encoding works for long repeated patterns of bits, ....
There are limitations imposed by the capability of the photodiode used for reading that prevents long strings of 1's or 0's being used.
Eight to Fourteen modulation (EFM) is used to conteract this. Thus, in the final analysis, seventeen bits of disc space are needed to encode eight bits of data.
Also the 10 consecutive-zero maximum ensures worst-case clock recovery in the player.
So if you take an old analogue tape of a classic recording, say DSOTM and copy it digitally which gives you a perfect replica what happens then?
1. Is that copy transferred to whatever format SACD, CD, File (Streaming) without any changes applied?
2. Is it mastered according to what format it is intended for either Digital or Vinyl?
3. Is it re mastered which could mean absolutely anything - EQ changes, Loudness, Compression etc?
4. Is that perfect digital copy if transferred without any mastering going to sound exactly like the original vinyl/tape issue?
Once you get your hands on any format that has any of the above applied and is played back on your equipment with your DAC or Turntable is it going to sound like the original recording (first pressing)?
So if you take an old analogue tape of a classic recording, say DSOTM and copy it digitally which gives you a perfect replica what happens then?
1. Is that copy transferred to whatever format SACD, CD, File (Streaming) without any changes applied?
2. Is it mastered according to what format it is intended for either Digital or Vinyl?
3. Is it re mastered which could mean absolutely anything - EQ changes, Loudness, Compression etc?
4. Is that perfect digital copy if transferred without any mastering going to sound exactly like the original vinyl/tape issue?
Once you get your hands on any format that has any of the above applied and is played back on your equipment with your DAC or Turntable is it going to sound like the original recording (first pressing)?
1. Depends
2. Yes, mastering will be different for vinyl
3. (from Wikipedia):
Examples of possible actions taken during mastering:
Editing minor flaws
Applying noise reduction to eliminate clicks, dropouts, hum and hiss
Adjusting stereo width
Equalize audio across tracks for the purpose of optimized frequency distribution
Adjust volume
Dynamic range compression or expansion
Peak limit
Inserting ISRC codes and CD text
Arranging tracks in their final sequential order
Fading out the ending of each song
Dither
4. No, because any professional recording on sale to the public will have been mastered. A release that has been re-mastered will always sound different from the original release because otherwise what was the point in remastering? If you want to hear it without any mastering you need access to the mixdown tape or file.
Remastering could simply mean the engineer is trying to get the digital copy to sound as close to the master as possible as well as producing a different interpretation?
There are so many steps that can be done to that digital copy in mastering it down to whatever format so no wonder any copy you buy whether digital or vinyl I am sure will not sound like the original. Once that digital copy has been made you are in the lap of the gods.:)
Remastering could simply mean the engineer is trying to get the digital copy to sound as close to the master as possible as well as producing a different interpretation?
There are so many steps that can be done to that digital copy in mastering it down to whatever format so no wonder any copy you buy whether digital or vinyl I am sure will not sound like the original. Once that digital copy has been made you are in the lap of the gods.:)
But with re-mastering you are making a new master - why would you be trying to get close to a previous master which presumably you already have?
What are we defining as the original? The original multi-track recordings? The mixdown? The studio master? The first gen vinyl master? The first ever LP off the press?
For old 1970s analogue recordings like DSOTM I'd argue that the closest you will get to what was intended (which in itself is hard to pin down) is the original CD release from the 1980s. But only in principle because there are so many variables and unknowns.
As you have mentioned once a digital copy is made it needs "attention" due to all of the imperfections master tape can cause and indeed your list from Wikipedia covers a good few of these. Tape stretches so wow and flutter need to be corrected as well as dropouts across the audio spectrum especially in tape that has not aged well so whether we like it or not the studio engineers have to "remaster" the digital copy once it has been done. I know folk have always talked about a digital copy being made of the original tapes but it certainly doesn't end there.
The original will not be the multi track recording or mix down but the finished master tape produced by the studio from which they then make the stampers to produce the vinyl.
The closest recording you would get would be the original first pressings on vinyl of what ever album. All other releases may not be the same for many reasons and the early CD release I would argue would certainly not be a good representation of the original analogue recording.
Obviously all original digital recordings are another matter entirely.
Maybe your own digital rip made from a vinyl album would probably be more accurate warts and all!
The closest recording you would get would be the original first pressings on vinyl of what ever album. All other releases may not be the same for many reasons and the early CD release I would argue would certainly not be a good representation of the original analogue recording.
.
My thinking is that it was copied from the tape at a time when the tape was in better condition than it is now, forty years on.
1980s CD releases are mostly taken from the original mastering.
Bear in mind that nothing is lost in the copying from analogue to digital
The problem with making a digital copy from the original vinyl LP is that you introduce a further stage of degradation from the turntable playback itself.
However I can live with the idea that a good version of the original first LP pressing (i.e one made from an early generation vinyl master and early in the life of the stamper), and played back on a superlative turntable set up would be as definitive as you can get. But unless you already own such a pressing and TT set up that's going to be very expensive to achieve.
I have just been reading a number of articles around the net and most suggest that making a digital copy from the master tape is fine and yes maybe nothing is lost but because of the age of most tapes the copy will also include all of the tape issues which then requires careful mastering to address.
Maybe your own digital rip made from a vinyl album would probably be more accurate warts and all!
a good program will let you remove any nasties etc. you can set the gain too and use a highish dig level too. once i 'mastered' the technique, lol, the copies could sound very good indeed. great thing was the edits you made were not iriversible either so you could turn clock back on anything you decided you didnt like.
a good program will let you remove any nasties etc. you can set the gain too and use a highish dig level too. once i 'mastered' the technique, lol, the copies could sound very good indeed. great thing was the edits you made were not iriversible either so you could turn clock back on anything you decided you didnt like.
What were you using to make the recordings?
I have just been reading a number of articles around the net and most suggest that making a digital copy from the master tape is fine and yes maybe nothing is lost but because of the age of most tapes the copy will also include all of the tape issues which then requires careful mastering to address.
yes, which is why I was saying that the earlier in the tape's life that copy is made the less fixing is required and the lower the likelihood that there are problems that cannot be fixed.
Certainly my - totally subjective - opinion is that the early release CDs I have do sound quite fantastic if played back at a fairly high level. But then later releases are often too limited and sound a bit too hot. So that does cloud the waters somewhat as to what the fundamental quality of the re-issue is as it tends to swamp any other SQ considerations, at least for me.
I have some Eagles remasters that are like that. Nothing like so bad to be unlistenable but it's noticeable and it's irritating.
I think that is fairly true Martin. Some of my early release CDs are quite good. It is the remastered stuff that came out later that started to make you question what you were listening too and if it was as good as the original?
What were you using to make the recordings?
vinyl studio pro. very nice to use.
A single license for VinylStudio Pro works for both Windows and Mac. It includes the following additional features:
Manual click repair.
The ability to import and export CUE sheets.
The ability to import more than one audio file at a time.
Recording equalisation (as used for 'flat' phono preamps and when recording pre-RIAA discs).
The ability to search more than one database at a time in the 'Lookup Track Listing' window.
The ability to import collections from Discogs.
Spectral View, to locate those hard-to-find clicks and scratches.
The 'Patch' feature, to repair wide areas of damage.
The ability to set default filter settings and equalisation curves.
The ability to define custom equalisation curves / FFT filters.
The ability to load and save 'noise sample' files in the Filter Settings window.
The ability to define custom album status names to keep track of your work.
The ability to enter album notes.
The ability to print your collection.
The 'Perform Frequency Analysis' feature.
The 'Copy to Player' function.
The ability to create Windows Media Player playlists.
The ability to export track listings when burning CDs or DVDs.
All of the functions provided in the 'Batch' window. Instead, users can save their tracks for the album they are working on in the 'Split Tracks' window.
DSD support.
The ability to search Discogs by catalog number when creating or recording a new album.
The ability to search Google or Bing for track listings.
The ability to group albums into folders when burning data CDs and DVDs.
Newer features added since the start of 2018:
The ability to handle WAV files larger than 4GB (so-called 'RF64' files).
Loopback recording (on Windows Vista and later - Windows only).
Apple Lossless support on Windows (on the Mac, this is included as part of VinylStudio Standard).
AAC support on Windows (on the Mac, this is included as part of VinylStudio Standard). Registration required.
iTunes integration on Windows (on the Mac, this is included as part of VinylStudio Standard).
Export your collection as a CSV, RTF or text file.
Support for burning Blu-Ray discs.
Custom tag editor (to add user-defined tags to your saved tracks).
The ability to import and export equalisation curves from / to Audacity.
'Smart normalisation', which, if used correctly, will ignore the sound of the needle drop and lift when normalising.
The ability to swap channels (left <-> right), if you made a mistake when recording (it seems to happen, on occasion).
The ability to read (but not write) Sony / Sonic Foundry W64 files.
and i was using my project phono stage which was designed with this in mind as well as being a top phono
I can live with most of the remasters I have. The Eagles spring to mind as the remasters of the first album and 'Hotel California' is too compressed and I will replace those at some point as the originals are not hard to get.
I don't listen to the Eagles much so that's why I've not yet bothered.
I'm not too anal about this stuff I don't think - if there's nothing irritating me about a version I usually stick with it.
Too much compression aside the largest difference between versions I ever recall was with vinyl LP - getting an original press of '461 Ocean Boulevard' to replace my early 1980s 'Nice Price' version. Big, big improvement.
I have some of the Steve Wilson Jethro Tull remixes/remasters - in hi-fi terms these are better than the originals, but they sound like they were recorded yesterday in a modern digital studio - which is just wrong to me on some indefinable level.
Problem with remasters for me is whether you like them as much as the original or the new "interpretation" With my Kraftwerk albums all of the originals simply sound right and beat any of the remastered or remixed stuff by a good margin.
Yes Mr Wilson did get to do some remixes but I was not a fan. Think he did Rush Farewell to Kings. I much preferred the original. I have a lot of his own albums on vinyl and I would say some of the production sounds bit compressed to me.
Problem with remasters for me is whether you like them as much as the original or the new "interpretation" With my Kraftwerk albums all of the originals simply sound right and beat any of the remastered or remixed stuff by a good margin.
Yes Mr Wilson did get to do some remixes but I was not a fan. Think he did Rush Farewell to Kings. I much preferred the original. I have a lot of his own albums on vinyl and I would say some of the production sounds bit compressed to me.
I have original 'Let It Bleed' and the re-master on SACD. They are quite different. The remaster is much more hi-fi, I mean it is better in so many ways. But the original mastering sounds like the album I am used to. So I prefer that one.
Also have the remaster of 'Beggars Banquet' which is also stunning in hi-fi terms - but I've never had the original of that so I don't have any conflict and happily enjoy it.
I have original 'Let It Bleed' and the re-master on SACD. They are quite different. The remaster is much more hi-fi, I mean it is better in so many ways. But the original mastering sounds like the album I am used to. So I prefer that one.
Also have the remaster of 'Beggars Banquet' which is also stunning in hi-fi terms - but I've never had the original of that so I don't have any conflict and happily enjoy it.
its a bit like watching remakes of films. if you havent become used to the original you can enjoy the remake more ..well, sometimes lol
its a bit like watching remakes of films. if you havent become used to the original you can enjoy the remake more ..well, sometimes lol
Maybe more like seeing the film after reading the book?
I don't know if that analogy really works either.
Maybe like watching the colourized version when you are used to the black and white?
Maybe more like seeing the film after reading the book?
I don't know if that analogy really works either.
Maybe like watching the colourized version when you are used to the black and white?I think they all work to an extent. We all 'get used' to stuff we like especially. When something changes that, then we are inclined to reject it as not what I expected.
It can be a difficult habit to break. Much easier if you don't like the first so much tho.
I am a big Agatha Christie fan and her material has been filmed numerous times. I can enjoy each interpretation for what it is as they are all just "based on a story by Agatha Christie"
I think they all work to an extent. We all 'get used' to stuff we like especially. When something changes that, then we are inclined to reject it as not what I expected.
It can be a difficult habit to break. Much easier if you don't like the first so much tho.
Yes. They say by the time you are ten you are accustomed to the world as it is, and anything that changes after that will always seem slightly odd even if it's an improvement
I still listen to the same music I did as a teenager so I want the same experience I had then. (I listen to a lot of other stuff too, my tastes have expanded a bit since then).
I know a lot of people totally move on from the music they liked in their teens and early twenties so it maybe matters less to them.
vinyl studio pro. very nice to use.
A single license for VinylStudio Pro works for both Windows and Mac. It includes the following additional features:
Manual click repair.
The ability to import and export CUE sheets.
The ability to import more than one audio file at a time.
Recording equalisation (as used for 'flat' phono preamps and when recording pre-RIAA discs).
The ability to search more than one database at a time in the 'Lookup Track Listing' window.
The ability to import collections from Discogs.
Spectral View, to locate those hard-to-find clicks and scratches.
The 'Patch' feature, to repair wide areas of damage.
The ability to set default filter settings and equalisation curves.
The ability to define custom equalisation curves / FFT filters.
The ability to load and save 'noise sample' files in the Filter Settings window.
The ability to define custom album status names to keep track of your work.
The ability to enter album notes.
The ability to print your collection.
The 'Perform Frequency Analysis' feature.
The 'Copy to Player' function.
The ability to create Windows Media Player playlists.
The ability to export track listings when burning CDs or DVDs.
All of the functions provided in the 'Batch' window. Instead, users can save their tracks for the album they are working on in the 'Split Tracks' window.
DSD support.
The ability to search Discogs by catalog number when creating or recording a new album.
The ability to search Google or Bing for track listings.
The ability to group albums into folders when burning data CDs and DVDs.
Newer features added since the start of 2018:
The ability to handle WAV files larger than 4GB (so-called 'RF64' files).
Loopback recording (on Windows Vista and later - Windows only).
Apple Lossless support on Windows (on the Mac, this is included as part of VinylStudio Standard).
AAC support on Windows (on the Mac, this is included as part of VinylStudio Standard). Registration required.
iTunes integration on Windows (on the Mac, this is included as part of VinylStudio Standard).
Export your collection as a CSV, RTF or text file.
Support for burning Blu-Ray discs.
Custom tag editor (to add user-defined tags to your saved tracks).
The ability to import and export equalisation curves from / to Audacity.
'Smart normalisation', which, if used correctly, will ignore the sound of the needle drop and lift when normalising.
The ability to swap channels (left <-> right), if you made a mistake when recording (it seems to happen, on occasion).
The ability to read (but not write) Sony / Sonic Foundry W64 files.
and i was using my project phono stage which was designed with this in mind as well as being a top phono
What do you think of the recordings you have made compared to the original?
I have heard some vinyl digital rips of "needle drops" and they have been superb.
Yes. They say by the time you are ten you are accustomed to the world as it is, and anything that changes after that will always seem slightly odd even if it's an improvement
I still listen to the same music I did as a teenager so I want the same experience I had then. (I listen to a lot of other stuff too, my tastes have expanded a bit since then).
I know a lot of people totally move on from the music they liked in their teens and early twenties so it maybe matters less to them.
yes i moved on to an extent but still listen to much of the stuff i liked; maybe not so much at school age etc but maybe in early 20s. like this boz album which has been around for years.. late 70s i think. i still love zep coz zep were the dogs bollocks and were the best at what they did; still is best of best but i dont listen so much now as i am old and i should 'behave';)
:D
What do you think of the recordings you have made compared to the original?
I have heard some vinyl digital rips of "needle drops" and they have been superb.
done right id say they are pretty darn good; sometimes it is very difficult to tell tbh. maybe not quite got the dynamic of vinyl but i like to leave some of the flaws in so i get the feel it is vinyl if you know what i mean. needle drops, tracking in the spaces etc... adds to the experience although you can pretty much eliminate it all if you choose
Pigmy Pony
01-10-2023, 18:44
I can live with most of the remasters I have. The Eagles spring to mind as the remasters of the first album and 'Hotel California' is too compressed and I will replace those at some point as the originals are not hard to get.
I don't listen to the Eagles much so that's why I've not yet bothered.
I'm not too anal about this stuff I don't think - if there's nothing irritating me about a version I usually stick with it.
Too much compression aside the largest difference between versions I ever recall was with vinyl LP - getting an original press of '461 Ocean Boulevard' to replace my early 1980s 'Nice Price' version. Big, big improvement.
I have some of the Steve Wilson Jethro Tull remixes/remasters - in hi-fi terms these are better than the originals, but they sound like they were recorded yesterday in a modern digital studio - which is just wrong to me on some indefinable level.
So what is it on a disc or sleevenotes that tells you whether it is original or reissue?
The publication and copyright dates don't mean anything obviously. Two examples I have: Hotel California 1976, Stones' Sticky Fingers 1971, both clearly not manufactured then.
So what is it on a disc or sleevenotes that tells you whether it is original or reissue?
The publication and copyright dates don't mean anything obviously. Two examples I have: Hotel California 1976, Stones' Sticky Fingers 1971, both clearly not manufactured then.
vinyl or cd? If there's no barcode that's a clue. Only very early CDs had no barcodes.
Often there's two copyright dates, one for the original recording and one for the remaster e,g 'coyright 1980, 1998'
Early one only has one date.
If all else fails, fall back on sound quality - if it doesn't get a bit glarey and shouty when you crank it up, it's either an original release or a good remaster.
For vinyl you can look at what's inscribed in the run out groove. I think there's a website somewhere that you can look it up on. Or there used to be.
Pigmy Pony
01-10-2023, 19:35
Yeah I pretty much know where I am with vinyl releases. it was just CDs I was curious about. I'll have proper look at some 50s and 90s stuff tomorrow (my dodgy peepers need reading glasses and natural light to have a chance with CDs' printing).
Might make avoiding reissues tricky when all you have to go on is a crappy picture on Ebay though. And sellers like Music Magpie use stock photos anyway.
Oh, I've just had a look at your CD of "The Wall", and the sleeve says it's a 1994 digital remaster, sorry about that :( Be interested to see what you think of it.
Yeah I pretty much know where I am with vinyl releases. it was just CDs I was curious about. I'll have proper look at some 50s and 90s stuff tomorrow (my dodgy peepers need reading glasses and natural light to have a chance with CDs' printing).
Might make avoiding reissues tricky when all you have to go on is a crappy picture on Ebay though. And sellers like Music Magpie use stock photos anyway.
Oh, I've just had a look at your CD of "The Wall", and the sleeve says it's a 1994 digital remaster, sorry about that :( Be interested to see what you think of it.
Looks respectable:
https://i.ibb.co/FYfVHGV/the-wall.jpg (https://ibb.co/NNkSTwS)
The 1987 seems to be the best one for dynamic range:
https://dr.loudness-war.info/?artist=pink+floyd&album=the+wall
Just been listening to a very interesting industry audio commentator regarding Dynamic Range and he looked at various digital releases and remastered releases of an album recently and then compared them to a Vinyl rip he made of the album and then measured the Dynamic range using some proprietary software and the vinyl DR came out substantially higher.
I think the conclusion was that the digital file used for the vinyl allows for a higher dynamic range than any of the digital releases and it could be one of the main reasons folk prefer their listening experience even based on digital recording via vinyl rather than digital even though the vinyl had its faults and was not as clean sounding.
I have long suspected this as I have compared quite a few albums which I have both on vinyl, CD and a file and found the vinyl to be significantly better dynamically. It maybe also explain why some folk find vinyl gives a fuller richer sound compared to digital?
not sure that hdr nessessarilly means it sounds better in my book tho. often can but in digital world, especially on cans, it doesnt
not sure that hdr nessessarilly means it sounds better in my book tho. often can but in digital world, especially on cans, it doesnt
Maybe not and it wouldn't be my first objective reason for choosing vinyl or digital.
vinyl has a best case dynamic range of 12 bits, in reality less, that's inherent in the format due to surface noise.
The 'fuller' sound is likely due to bass being cut as a mono signal below 100 Hz (varies depending on the recording) so the stylus can track it.
Due to this measured comparisons of dynamic range will favour vinyl as the measuring software takes a best case, but it is not accurate for vinyl and will give an inflated DR.
Ofc some recordings on digital are compressed to zero dynamic range because that is possible with digital and regrettably it sells product. But it's not an inherent problem with digital and with older recordings you can almost always find a release with high DR.
Some of the dynamic range measured for vinyl will also be due to the equipment itself as this will "boost" DR of the recording.
Interestingly some digital recordings are actually decreasing dynamic range with subsequent generational re releases (Remasters).
Some of the dynamic range measured for vinyl will also be due to the equipment itself as this will "boost" DR of the recording.
Interestingly some digital recordings are actually decreasing dynamic range with subsequent generational re releases (Remasters).
Indeed. Here's a popular example - Eagles 'Hotel California'
https://i.ibb.co/8NvWVcf/hotel.jpg (https://ibb.co/0m4g3t6)
Note the SACD release has lower dynamic range than the original 1983 release - a shame for anyone who bought the SACD expecting better sound quality.
This is by no means an isolated example.
I have the 2013 remaster, which is a disgrace:
https://i.ibb.co/pZvhrZy/hotel-2.jpg (https://ibb.co/wCNcrCs)
DR this low is audible, you might not notice it in the car but with any semi-competent domestic system it's going to sound bad at anything above background level volume. I also have the original UK release vinyl LP, no surprises it sounds way better even on a fairly modest deck.
Nothing worse than a reduced DR recording that has also too much compression. Crank it up and it makes your ears bleed!
It is a pity that the full potential of digital audio is so often compromised. Apparently digital recording are something to behold in their raw state before they are mixed down and mastered to CD or made available for streaming.
Todd Garfinkle from MA recordings who records in high quality DSD has talked about his digital recordings and how unbelievable they sound when listened too straight off the Korg digital recorder. They still sound pretty amazing on most of the formats he releases so I can't imagine how they sound in the original state!
Pigmy Pony
06-10-2023, 18:50
Indeed. Here's a popular example - Eagles 'Hotel California'
https://i.ibb.co/8NvWVcf/hotel.jpg (https://ibb.co/0m4g3t6)
Note the SACD release has lower dynamic range than the original 1983 release - a shame for anyone who bought the SACD expecting better sound quality.
This is by no means an isolated example.
I have the 2013 remaster, which is a disgrace:
https://i.ibb.co/pZvhrZy/hotel-2.jpg (https://ibb.co/wCNcrCs)
DR this low is audible, you might not notice it in the car but with any semi-competent domestic system it's going to sound bad at anything above background level volume. I also have the original UK release vinyl LP, no surprises it sounds way better even on a fairly modest deck.
Is there something in the sleevenotes then to say it is a remaster? I'm looking at my CD and it only mentions the year 1976. Nowt about remastering or anything.
Is there something in the sleevenotes then to say it is a remaster? I'm looking at my CD and it only mentions the year 1976. Nowt about remastering or anything.
There's a fair few re-issues, mine has a sticker on the front proclaiming it is the most wonderful remaster ever.
If it is a remaster it's very rare that it does not say it somewhere; sometimes it is buried in the sleeve notes.
Nothing worse than a reduced DR recording that has also too much compression. Crank it up and it makes your ears bleed!
It is a pity that the full potential of digital audio is so often compromised. Apparently digital recording are something to behold in their raw state before they are mixed down and mastered to CD or made available for streaming.
Todd Garfinkle from MA recordings who records in high quality DSD has talked about his digital recordings and how unbelievable they sound when listened too straight off the Korg digital recorder. They still sound pretty amazing on most of the formats he releases so I can't imagine how they sound in the original state!
I have heard a few recordings where they have just copied the mixdown to a CD. It's too dynamic for domestic use really and it sounds a bit too raw and unpolished. You do need some compression.
You can always get a very good version of most mainstream albums on CD if they were released up to about the turn of the century, after that they start cranking it to 11.
I rarely buy contemporary music so it doesn't bother me, but I don't know what people still buying new releases do. Same with streaming services, you get whatever they decide to chuck down the pipe.
Pigmy Pony
06-10-2023, 22:08
I have bought and still do buy albums released this century, sometimes vinyl sometimes CD. Some sound really good, some a bit shit.
The worst offenders seem to be music more likely to appeal to younger listeners, which made me wonder if maybe they were eq'd to sound best on smart speakers and ear buds connected to smartphones, and older music buyers who may have better-resolving systems didn't come into it.
I wasn't aware of this 'dynamic range' thing until you guys brought it up, so thanks for that. This new awareness will help in my buying decisions, as long as I do research prior to every purchase. Certainly it could be helpful when going after something that's been around for years, but with new releases I guess you just have to suffer whatever's being chucked into the shops.
In an ideal world putting together some decent kit should be all that's needed (as if it were that simple), this just complicates thing further.
Its also a reason why sometimes you maybe disappointed with a CD or LP when you were expecting a great recording and why there maybe so many variations between digital and analogue recordings and not simply because it is digital.
Digital recording has the capacity to far exceed anything recorded in the analogue domain due to its technical capacities where as analogue has far more limitations. The problems arise when that digital recording is then mixed and mastered and then has to be converted via the DAC in your equipment and reproduced as an analogue output.
I have read that DAC chips now, even the most humble, perfectly convert the digital recording giving you everything that is available but it can only produce something excellent if the material it is number crunching is great in the first place and has not been compromised too much.
But digital audio has also been found to be far trickier to nail down than was first thought due to the other influences around the DAC chip ie PSU, Clock (Jitter), analogue output stage and noise both within the DACs operating environment and external influences etc etc.
The best way to know ultimately whether you are buying a great recording is to suck it and see. I have sent back LPs if I think the SQ is rubbish but this is fairly rare as I do have a listen to most stuff via Spotify or Youtube first and even at lower bit rates I can hear with a good pair of headphones if something have been produced and mastered well and usually when it sounds good in the digital domain it tends to fair well on vinyl if not better.
I always listen out for an expansive unfatiguing sound especially when the music becomes complex and loud. If it tighten ups and becomes compressed and harsh it is usually good indication something is wrong. Very none scientific or technical I know but I trust my ears and it works for me most of the time!:)
Its also a reason why sometimes you maybe disappointed with a CD or LP when you were expecting a great recording and why there maybe so many variations between digital and analogue recordings and not simply because it is digital.
Digital recording has the capacity to far exceed anything recorded in the analogue domain due to its technical capacities where as analogue has far more limitations. The problems arise when that digital recording is then mixed and mastered and then has to be converted via the DAC in your equipment and reproduced as an analogue output.
I have read that DAC chips now, even the most humble, perfectly convert the digital recording giving you everything that is available but it can only produce something excellent if the material it is number crunching is great in the first place and has not been compromised too much.
But digital audio has also been found to be far trickier to nail down than was first thought due to the other influences around the DAC chip ie PSU, Clock (Jitter), analogue output stage and noise both within the DACs operating environment and external influences etc etc.
The best way to know ultimately whether you are buying a great recording is to suck it and see. I have sent back LPs if I think the SQ is rubbish but this is fairly rare as I do have a listen to most stuff via Spotify or Youtube first
This is where we must differ since things like jitter and noise can be measured to huge degrees of accuracy and neither is even remotely an issue in the vast majority of digital devices. You can buy something very cheap with a noisy power supply, and there are a few expensive DACs with high levels of noise and distortion. But by high levels I mean borderline audible. Mostly these are problems dreamed up by marketing men to create doubt and sell new product to people who already have something perfectly good.
The boundaries of what is technically possible have been pushed in the last 40 years but the reality is that it was more than good enough to begin with. Digital sources have been a solved problem for decades. The bizarre add on products you can pay a fortune for rely entirely on the placebo effect.
Recording quality has never been a factor for me, the recording may be exemplary but that's no use if I don't like the music. Likewise my Sam & Dave best of CD gets played regularly even though the recording quality is primitive.
I use Youtube to see if I like the music, not to assess the SQ of the recording. If I get the CD and it is compressed to death I will look for another version and if there isn't one then I'll just live with it.
I do not disagree with you regarding Jitter, it is measurable but apparently most of the measured amounts are not audible but undoubtably DACs do differ in how they sound which maybe attributed to other parts of their topology, implementation and design.
Unfortunately I differ from you regarding SQ. If a record is poorly recordered, mastered or just sounds crap it doesn't get played. Waste of money in my book. If I like the music enough I will either listen too it on Spotify or watch Youtube performances by the artist which are often better than the recorded album. In fact I have a friend who loves one artist but cannot listen to any of their recordings as he finds major issues with them but loves her live or studio recordings via Youtube. How lucky are we to have all these options in this day and age?
I cannot live with poor recordings they are a distraction from the music. Likewise I have been to many live concerts and because the mixing desk has screwed up the sound it has simply ruined the live experience for me on a number of occasions.
I probably should have been more precise in what I said.
I've never, ever bought a recording because it has good production values. If it does that's just a bonus. I've always bought based on liking the music.
Likewise have always aimed to have a system that will play anything. Any system where you have to resort to showcase recordings for it to sound good is fundamentally flawed.
My gauge of a good system is how well it does with 'difficult' recordings. I am the opposite of many people who will play Yello or Diana Krall to show how 'good' the system is - you get this a lot at shows. It tells you nothing.
(Although at least Yello is demanding in some respects. But plinky plonk jazz or those sparse recordings where a woman sings and they are hitting block of wood with a stick, with the whole thing drenched in artificial reverb - forget it).
One demo I was at of some very expensive multi-way horn speakers and equally nonsense-money valve power amps this was all they played, to great approval from the punters (including one very well known magazine reviewer). Finally someone asked for Black Sabbath first album - it sounded terrible. Everyone present was muttering 'Bad recording'. Err... no. The system is complete crap and that just showed it up.
Agree Youtube can sound very good.
Some wise words there Martin.
Audio shows are where one can hear expensive yet awful sounding systems. Quite often because they are held in hotels and little, if any, attention is paid to the acoustics of the room.
Pigmy Pony
07-10-2023, 11:37
Some wise words there Martin.
Audio shows are where one can hear expensive yet awful sounding systems. Quite often because they are held in hotels and little, if any, attention is paid to the acoustics of the room.
Yes, we have found this time and again. It's as though the exhibitors just think their mega-bucks set up will transcend poor acoustics. There was one particular exhibitor at this year's NW audio show which had three or four different super-expensive systems going simultaneously in various corners of the same big space. How they thought that could sound good enough to justify the price tags I don't know.
Some wise words there Martin.
Audio shows are where one can hear expensive yet awful sounding systems. Quite often because they are held in hotels and little, if any, attention is paid to the acoustics of the room.
true but that particular system was in a large room with very high ceilings that was originally a 19th century country house. Sabbath sounded rubbish because the amps and speakers were rubbish. There's no excuses.
true but that particular system was in a large room with very high ceilings that was originally a 19th century country house. Sabbath sounded rubbish because the amps and speakers were rubbish. There's no excuses.
and the answer is... dont play sabbath, play krall:lol:
Pigmy Pony
07-10-2023, 14:09
true but that particular system was in a large room with very high ceilings that was originally a 19th century country house. Sabbath sounded rubbish because the amps and speakers were rubbish. There's no excuses.
Yes but I think the sq of these 50-odd year old recordings have to take some of the blame.
This is what I was playing my Black Sabbath, Led Zep etc on in the early 70s:
https://www.radiomuseum.org/images/radio/fidelity_radio_ltd/hf43_2651896.jpg
and it all sounded perfectly fine.
Playing these albums now, although they do sound better (as they should), they are often way behind much of what is being produced these days. Good job the actual music is so much better than most new stuff :)
It's a fairly simple recording - they made it in 3 days. It certainly doesn't sound crap though unless the system is mangling it to death.
Fact is any sort of rock music, or any demanding programme, played on that system would have sounded just as bad.
It made plinky plonk jazz sound 'live'. That was what it did, that was all it did. For about £150K not counting whatever ludicrously priced cabling they were using.
We're way off topic. My fault probably.
Pigmy Pony
07-10-2023, 17:06
It's a fairly simple recording - they made it in 3 days. It certainly doesn't sound crap though unless the system is mangling it to death.
Fact is any sort of rock music, or any demanding programme, played on that system would have sounded just as bad.
It made plinky plonk jazz sound 'live'. That was what it did, that was all it did. For about £150K not counting whatever ludicrously priced cabling they were using.
We're way off topic. My fault probably.
I hadn't noticed :doh:
Oh yes, SACD: if you've a shitload of discs, yes. Otherwise no. Just my two bob's worth.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.