We often discuss here how difficult it is to compare SACD to CD, given the
lack of equivalent source material/mix/mastering for the two. Well, the
following comparison is not perfect, but the source and mix are identical,
and there is no *obvious* difference in the mastering...the CD layer is not
"normalized" louder, nor is it obviously compressed. It sounds identical to
the SACD two-channel mix except for the "character" of the medium, so far as
I can tell.

I've used the Sonoma 24 Channel, DSD-mastered "Master of Disaster" CD by
John Hiatt as the source. Playback machine is the Sony C222ES in bypass
mode, into a five channel full-range Thiel system, driven by a triplet of
Onkyo P301 remote-controlled preamps, feeding Outlaw monoblocks for the
front speakers (200w 8 ohms, 300w 4 ohm) and an Audionics CC-2 driving the
rear speakers (70wpc 8 ohms, 140w 4 ohms). The system is extremely
transparent, if subjectively slightly dull in the preamps' "bypass" mode.

This is an extremely well recorded, natural sounding disk. I'm especially
taken with track two, "Rollin' Down the Cumberland", which features the
snares rolling out a military cadence with only Hiatt's voice, the bass, and
occasional guitar chords and riffs (subtle) for accompaniment. However,
what I describe here can be heard on the remainder of the disk as
well...it's just easier to describe this particular song.

1) Snares. These immediately grab you. My dad was a drummer, and I owned a
professional snare drum as a kid. My son is a drummer. So I have a pretty
good feel for the sound. The snares on the disk are recorded fairly
naturally, no compression or gate-ing that I can hear. In SACD, they sound
real. The transient attack is absolutely natural, and you hear the "fat"
part of the strike in perfect proportion to the "tick" of the leading edge.
You can hear the "room sound" around the drums. On the CD, the "fat" part
is noticeably less "fat", and the "tick" becomes almost a "tang". The room
sound is almost gone.

2) Guitars. These are used very sparingly on the cut. They are so low-key
you hardly notice them. On SACD, the sound real. and well balanced. On the
CD, they also tend to unobtrusive, except for the highest notes. These take
on a "clangy" sound that make them stand out as different in character from
the lower notes.

3) Bass. On the SACD the bass is very natural sounding and tuneful...it
rolls along under the voice providing support for the song in an extremely
natural and self-effacing way. On the CD, same relative "position" in the
mix, but the bass sounds somehow flatter, less dynamic, and less tuneful.
It sounds more "hi-fi" and less real.

5) Voice. Hiatt's voice fundamental is reasonably low, but he has a
gravelly tenor fringe on top that gives it an edge when he sings. On the
SACD, the voice sounds "organic". It is of a piece, and so well recorded
(body, focus, presence) that it simply sounds like he is standing between
the speakers, singing. On CD, the bottom frequencies of his voice seem
somehow flattened and less natural sounding, while the upper tenor fringe
becomes edgier than it should be. At times, in comparison to the SACD
stereo, the CD stereo image becomes almost slightly bifurcated...upper and
lower just not sounding "all of a part". It is possible that some
compression was used but it doesn't really sound compressed as compression
is usually used in rock recordings....and I've heard that same "flatter and
less dynamic bass" difference crop up on Sony's Walter Beethoven 5th when
comparing the CD to the SACD, supposed done from the same master.

One can certainly listen to the Hiatt CD and enjoy the music. But the SACD
is more natural sounding and "organic" in its musical presentation. Short of
being in the car or ripping to disk, it is hard to rationalize why one would
want to listen to the CD layer.

One final caveat. When I switch my Sony from multichannel direct to 5-large
(which converts to PCM and uses built in DSP but otherwise outputs the
same), these differences diminish. When I play the SACD through my Pioneer
578 (which handles SACD in PCM) the SACD "benefits" also diminish. But in
both cases they can still be heard...just less so. I'd be very interested
if any readers here have this same disk (you should...it will almost
certainly be among the nominees for album of the year and for engineering)
and are willing to do the same comparison and report on it here. If you do,
please outline the equipment used for the comparison and note whether or not
the player does native DSD decoding, or converts to PCM. It would be fun to
correlate the results. Thanks.

Unless we can be sure the compression and other processing was
identical, no conclusions may be drawn.

On 25 Aug 2005 00:24:12 GMT, wrote:

Unless we can be sure the compression and other processing was
identical, no conclusions may be drawn.

Perhaps. But if one medium has a wider dynamic range, surely it sould
be unfair to compress it to match that of the other medium.

Kal

Harry Lavo wrote:
We often discuss here how difficult it is to compare SACD to CD, given the
lack of equivalent source material/mix/mastering for the two. Well, the
following comparison is not perfect, but the source and mix are identical,
and there is no *obvious* difference in the mastering...the CD layer is not
"normalized" louder, nor is it obviously compressed. It sounds identical to
the SACD two-channel mix except for the "character" of the medium, so far as
I can tell.

Why don't you try digitizing the SACD layer and ripping the CD layer, and
examining their RMS levels, peak, and frequency profile characteristics
to make sure they aren't significantly different?

Until you do, you're just making unfounded assumptions based on sighted
comparisons, which are of course inherently subject to inaccuracy.

We can determine that the above poster feels this particular music on
SACD sounds better to him than it does on this CD.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
We often discuss here how difficult it is to compare SACD to CD, given
the
lack of equivalent source material/mix/mastering for the two. Well, the
following comparison is not perfect, but the source and mix are
identical,
and there is no *obvious* difference in the mastering...the CD layer is
not
"normalized" louder, nor is it obviously compressed. It sounds identical
to
the SACD two-channel mix except for the "character" of the medium, so far
as
I can tell.

Why don't you try digitizing the SACD layer and ripping the CD layer, and
examining their RMS levels, peak, and frequency profile characteristics
to make sure they aren't significantly different?

Until you do, you're just making unfounded assumptions based on sighted
comparisons, which are of course inherently subject to inaccuracy.

Because I do not have the time or equipment to do so right now. I've opened
the subject for discussion, and pointed out an example that I *suspect* has
not been altered. If you have the time and equipment, why don't you do the
measurements and contribute something positive to the discussion/thread.
I've already said the comparison may not be perfect; I don't have to be told
that one variable *may* have been doctored. On the other hand, I've also
said I don't believe it has been, based on some familiarity with the
recording process. So why don't you as an objectivist investigate and see
if I'm right, or wrong. And why don't you listen for yourself.

On 26 Aug 2005 00:36:30 GMT, Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On 25 Aug 2005 00:24:12 GMT, wrote:

Unless we can be sure the compression and other processing was
identical, no conclusions may be drawn.

Perhaps. But if one medium has a wider dynamic range, surely it sould
be unfair to compress it to match that of the other medium.

However, it doesn't. There's no *master* tape in existence with a
dunamic range greater than 80dB, and even SACD can manage this up to
10kHz or so.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 26 Aug 2005 00:55:09 GMT, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:

We can determine that the above poster feels this particular music on
SACD sounds better to him than it does on this CD.

I wonder if he'd feel the same if someone told him he was listening to
SACD, but had 'accidentally' engaged the CD layer? :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 26 Aug 2005 00:55:09 GMT, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:

We can determine that the above poster feels this particular music on
SACD sounds better to him than it does on this CD.

I wonder if he'd feel the same if someone told him he was listening to
SACD, but had 'accidentally' engaged the CD layer? :-)


When are you and others here going to face up to the fact that their is a
big difference between "expectation bias" as might be evident in evaluating
two pieces of gear honestly, and in a situation where you are lied to,
either deliberately or accidentally, and have no reason *not* to initially
believe the proctor.

On 27 Aug 2005 00:21:54 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 26 Aug 2005 00:55:09 GMT, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:

We can determine that the above poster feels this particular music on
SACD sounds better to him than it does on this CD.

I wonder if he'd feel the same if someone told him he was listening to
SACD, but had 'accidentally' engaged the CD layer? :-)

When are you and others here going to face up to the fact that their is a
big difference between "expectation bias" as might be evident in evaluating
two pieces of gear honestly, and in a situation where you are lied to,
either deliberately or accidentally, and have no reason *not* to initially
believe the proctor.

Nope, there's no difference at all, as in each case there is equal
expectation of difference. In the situation above, it is *guaranteed*
that there is no actual difference, which is why it is such a powerful
argfument against sighted listening.

The only real 'difference' is in the reaction of people like you to
the situation. You conveniently ignore anything which points out how
wrong you are in believing that any kind of sighted listening has
merit.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 27 Aug 2005 00:21:54 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 26 Aug 2005 00:55:09 GMT, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:

We can determine that the above poster feels this particular music on
SACD sounds better to him than it does on this CD.

I wonder if he'd feel the same if someone told him he was listening to
SACD, but had 'accidentally' engaged the CD layer? :-)

When are you and others here going to face up to the fact that their is a
big difference between "expectation bias" as might be evident in evaluating
two pieces of gear honestly, and in a situation where you are lied to,
either deliberately or accidentally, and have no reason *not* to initially
believe the proctor.

Nope, there's no difference at all, as in each case there is equal
expectation of difference. In the situation above, it is *guaranteed*
that there is no actual difference, which is why it is such a powerful
argfument against sighted listening.

The only real 'difference' is in the reaction of people like you to
the situation. You conveniently ignore anything which points out how
wrong you are in believing that any kind of sighted listening has
merit.


Sorry, Stewart. Simply not true. In one case, one is trying as
objectively as possible to discern whether or not differences exist,
and if so, what they might be. If one is mislead by "expectation
effect", it is by subconscious factors such as appearance, reputation,
etc. In the other case, one is *told* differences exist and must come
to the conscious conclusion that they are being lied to to determine
otherwise.

wrote in message ...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 27 Aug 2005 00:21:54 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

The only real 'difference' is in the reaction of people like you to
the situation. You conveniently ignore anything which points out how
wrong you are in believing that any kind of sighted listening has
merit.


Sorry, Stewart. Simply not true. In one case, one is trying as
objectively as possible to discern whether or not differences exist,
and if so, what they might be. If one is mislead by "expectation
effect", it is by subconscious factors such as appearance, reputation,
etc. In the other case, one is *told* differences exist and must come
to the conscious conclusion that they are being lied to to determine
otherwise.

What you're suggesting here, Harry, is that being lied to will affect what
one reports hearing. Clearly, you must then admit that telling the truth
will also affect what one says he hears. IOW, what the subject is told has
more effect than what he hears in forming his opinions of sound quality. I
think we're all in agreement here.

Norm Strong

On 28 Aug 2005 14:57:09 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 27 Aug 2005 00:21:54 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 26 Aug 2005 00:55:09 GMT, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:

We can determine that the above poster feels this particular music on
SACD sounds better to him than it does on this CD.

I wonder if he'd feel the same if someone told him he was listening to
SACD, but had 'accidentally' engaged the CD layer? :-)

When are you and others here going to face up to the fact that their is a
big difference between "expectation bias" as might be evident in evaluating
two pieces of gear honestly, and in a situation where you are lied to,
either deliberately or accidentally, and have no reason *not* to initially
believe the proctor.

Nope, there's no difference at all, as in each case there is equal
expectation of difference. In the situation above, it is *guaranteed*
that there is no actual difference, which is why it is such a powerful
argfument against sighted listening.

The only real 'difference' is in the reaction of people like you to
the situation. You conveniently ignore anything which points out how
wrong you are in believing that any kind of sighted listening has
merit.

Sorry, Stewart. Simply not true. In one case, one is trying as
objectively as possible to discern whether or not differences exist,
and if so, what they might be. If one is mislead by "expectation
effect", it is by subconscious factors such as appearance, reputation,
etc. In the other case, one is *told* differences exist and must come
to the conscious conclusion that they are being lied to to determine
otherwise.

No Harry, one is not told that *audible* differences exist, just that
the amplifier or cable has changed. However, *purely* because of
expectation bias, people *do* report *audible* differences. Is a faint
bell beginning to ring?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 26 Aug 2005 00:36:30 GMT, in article , Kalman
Rubinson stated:

On 25 Aug 2005 00:24:12 GMT, wrote:

Unless we can be sure the compression and other processing was
identical, no conclusions may be drawn.

Perhaps. But if one medium has a wider dynamic range, surely it sould
be unfair to compress it to match that of the other medium.

Kal



I disagree that no conclusions may be drawn. You can draw the conclusion that
the differences are so subtle and small that they can be obscured by relatively
minor differences in the mastering.

If the signal processing was identical (taking into account the
structural differences between SACD and CD), and the source was of
higher resolution than either product, we can then compare the
capabilities of the two disc systems. Otherwise, no.

If we used a 30 ips analogue master tape with Dolby A noise reduction,
for instance, we have something that both systems can sink their teeth
into. We can compare the three versions directly to each other.

gofab.com wrote:
On 26 Aug 2005 00:36:30 GMT, in article , Kalman
Rubinson stated:

On 25 Aug 2005 00:24:12 GMT, wrote:

Unless we can be sure the compression and other processing was
identical, no conclusions may be drawn.

Perhaps. But if one medium has a wider dynamic range, surely it sould
be unfair to compress it to match that of the other medium.

Kal



I disagree that no conclusions may be drawn. You can draw the conclusion that
the differences are so subtle and small that they can be obscured by relatively
minor differences in the mastering.

On 1 Sep 2005 15:03:53 GMT, wrote:

If the signal processing was identical (taking into account the
structural differences between SACD and CD), and the source was of
higher resolution than either product, we can then compare the
capabilities of the two disc systems. Otherwise, no.

If we used a 30 ips analogue master tape with Dolby A noise reduction,
for instance, we have something that both systems can sink their teeth
into. We can compare the three versions directly to each other.

What makes you think that such a tape has superior resolution? I have
about thirty of the superbly made JVC XRCDs, which are *all* made from
analogue master tapes, and I can clearly hear tape hiss in quiet
passages. This is not true of many other CDs made from the ubiquitous
24/96 digital masters.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Harry Lavo wrote:
So why don't you as an objectivist investigate and see
if I'm right, or wrong. And why don't you listen for yourself.

Um...because John Hiatt's music is boring?

wrote in message
...
If the signal processing was identical (taking into
account the
structural differences between SACD and CD), and the
source was of
higher resolution than either product, we can then compare
the
capabilities of the two disc systems. Otherwise, no.

If we used a 30 ips analogue master tape with Dolby A
noise reduction,
for instance, we have something that both systems can sink
their teeth
into. We can compare the three versions directly to each
other.


For such a comparison, analogue tape at 30 ips is
not the answer. You will find that although the HF
response, and SNR is improved, the LF around 350
- 400Hz has a lift which gives an un-natural
quality to strings and also to concert grand piano.

In addition, the playing time of a 10.5 inch reel is
reduced from 30mins to 15mins. Not a practical
solution in the real world.

A much better method would be to use analogue
tape with Dolby SR. Tape speed 30 ips (76 cm/sec)
is not required - 15 ips (38cm/sec) will suffice for
a SNR of 95dB - a considerable improvement over Dolby A.
This will give you noise performance equal to 16bit
digital with the analogue sound.

In practical terms, a SNR of 80dB for most
recordings is plenty. One can then lower the
peak recording level to tape, and thereby
greatly improve the distortion levels.

My preferred method of working is to record
analogue (either multitrack or straight stereo)
and then edit and master in the
digital domain. I like to get the best of both
worlds.

It is interesting that discerning clients often ask
for an analogue pass during the CD
mastering process on recordings that have
been made digitally at all stages.

Iain

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 15:03:53 GMT, wrote:


If the signal processing was identical (taking into account the
structural differences between SACD and CD), and the source was of
higher resolution than either product, we can then compare the
capabilities of the two disc systems. Otherwise, no.

If we used a 30 ips analogue master tape with Dolby A noise reduction,
for instance, we have something that both systems can sink their teeth
into. We can compare the three versions directly to each other.


What makes you think that such a tape has superior resolution? I have
about thirty of the superbly made JVC XRCDs, which are *all* made from
analogue master tapes, and I can clearly hear tape hiss in quiet
passages. This is not true of many other CDs made from the ubiquitous
24/96 digital masters.


Having worked in a studio environment in the past, I can safely say that
any analog tape master is going to have audible hiss, regardless of
the noise reduction processing or the type and speed of the deck.
That's just a fact of life. If you listen to music older than the
advent of the old PCM encoders for beta and you *don't* hear any hiss,
the source material has been altered/processed to mitigate it after the
fact. I certainly don't understand the "resolution" comment when
applied to differences between digitally recorded content vs analog.
There really is no comparison. The analog source will have more noise
and less dynamic range. That doesn't mean that you can't get a good
recording down on analog, but there's also going to be noise.

Best regards,

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 15:03:53 GMT, wrote:

If the signal processing was identical (taking into account the
structural differences between SACD and CD), and the source was of
higher resolution than either product, we can then compare the
capabilities of the two disc systems. Otherwise, no.

If we used a 30 ips analogue master tape with Dolby A noise reduction,
for instance, we have something that both systems can sink their teeth
into. We can compare the three versions directly to each other.

What makes you think that such a tape has superior resolution?

Not being digital at all, it allows a completely objective comparison
of the capabilities of the two systems. Using a 30 ips analogue master
avoids any digital-digital conversions. 30 ips Dolby-A tapes are
superb, and of sufficient resolution and dynamic range to allow a fair
comparison. I remember listening to Joan Baez LP albums recorded with
Dolby NR cack in the early 70's, and the quality was stunning. When
heavy metal and pop producers started dominating the scene, the quality
of recording went down appreciably.

If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings, you're in for a
shock.

"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
So why don't you as an objectivist investigate and see
if I'm right, or wrong. And why don't you listen for yourself.

Um...because John Hiatt's music is boring?


Well, apples and oranges, I guess. I find "Master of Disaster" has more
songs to my taste than any one original album of the last two decades. A
mixture of pop, rock, and country heavily tinged with blues. He's a
tunesmith, who doesn't compose simply around a guitar, a practice that makes
so many modern singer-songwriters sound the same.

Hey, when it comes to music I've got no argument with different points of
view.

On 3 Sep 2005 14:48:35 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 15:03:53 GMT, wrote:

If the signal processing was identical (taking into account the
structural differences between SACD and CD), and the source was of
higher resolution than either product, we can then compare the
capabilities of the two disc systems. Otherwise, no.

If we used a 30 ips analogue master tape with Dolby A noise reduction,
for instance, we have something that both systems can sink their teeth
into. We can compare the three versions directly to each other.

What makes you think that such a tape has superior resolution?

Not being digital at all, it allows a completely objective comparison
of the capabilities of the two systems. Using a 30 ips analogue master
avoids any digital-digital conversions. 30 ips Dolby-A tapes are
superb, and of sufficient resolution and dynamic range to allow a fair
comparison. I remember listening to Joan Baez LP albums recorded with
Dolby NR cack in the early 70's, and the quality was stunning. When
heavy metal and pop producers started dominating the scene, the quality
of recording went down appreciably.

If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings, you're in for a
shock.

Please note that professional recording engineers on this newsgroup
completely disagree with you on this point.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 3 Sep 2005 14:48:35 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 15:03:53 GMT, wrote:

If the signal processing was identical (taking into account the
structural differences between SACD and CD), and the source was of
higher resolution than either product, we can then compare the
capabilities of the two disc systems. Otherwise, no.

If we used a 30 ips analogue master tape with Dolby A noise reduction,
for instance, we have something that both systems can sink their teeth
into. We can compare the three versions directly to each other.

What makes you think that such a tape has superior resolution?

Not being digital at all, it allows a completely objective comparison
of the capabilities of the two systems. Using a 30 ips analogue master
avoids any digital-digital conversions. 30 ips Dolby-A tapes are
superb, and of sufficient resolution and dynamic range to allow a fair
comparison. I remember listening to Joan Baez LP albums recorded with
Dolby NR cack in the early 70's, and the quality was stunning. When
heavy metal and pop producers started dominating the scene, the quality
of recording went down appreciably.

If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings, you're in for a
shock.

Please note that professional recording engineers on this newsgroup
completely disagree with you on this point.


First, who are they? I don't know too many that post on RAHE. They have
RAP for that, and most use it.

Secondly, disagree with what? The use of 30ips Dolby A mastertapes as a
vehicle to be translated into PCM/CD or DSD/SACD? What is wrong with
that...its the highest quality non-digital source available.*

What he basically claimed, that you seem to disagree with, is that "you're
in for a shock" over how good 30ips master tapes can sound. I hear that all
the time on RAP. But if I interpret your remark another way, you are right,
there *is* no surprise to a professional recording engineer. They already
know it. Even though they may prefer digital, they don't belittle how good
a 30ips master can sound. Many actually prefer it. And many digital
recordings are mixed to it, as well as vice-versa.

* Yes, yes, I know....Dolby S might arguably be better.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 3 Sep 2005 14:48:35 GMT, wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 1 Sep 2005 15:03:53 GMT, wrote:


If the signal processing was identical (taking into account the
structural differences between SACD and CD), and the source was of
higher resolution than either product, we can then compare the
capabilities of the two disc systems. Otherwise, no.

If we used a 30 ips analogue master tape with Dolby A noise reduction,
for instance, we have something that both systems can sink their teeth
into. We can compare the three versions directly to each other.

What makes you think that such a tape has superior resolution?

Not being digital at all, it allows a completely objective comparison
of the capabilities of the two systems. Using a 30 ips analogue master
avoids any digital-digital conversions. 30 ips Dolby-A tapes are
superb, and of sufficient resolution and dynamic range to allow a fair
comparison. I remember listening to Joan Baez LP albums recorded with
Dolby NR cack in the early 70's, and the quality was stunning. When
heavy metal and pop producers started dominating the scene, the quality
of recording went down appreciably.

If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings, you're in for a
shock.



It is my understanding that Dolby S offers even better resolution (ie,
S/N). I don't know how prevalent Dolby S is, these days, if at all.


mp

"michael" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 3 Sep 2005 14:48:35 GMT, wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 1 Sep 2005 15:03:53 GMT, wrote:


If the signal processing was identical (taking into account the
structural differences between SACD and CD), and the source was of
higher resolution than either product, we can then compare the
capabilities of the two disc systems. Otherwise, no.

If we used a 30 ips analogue master tape with Dolby A noise reduction,
for instance, we have something that both systems can sink their teeth
into. We can compare the three versions directly to each other.

What makes you think that such a tape has superior resolution?

Not being digital at all, it allows a completely objective comparison
of the capabilities of the two systems. Using a 30 ips analogue master
avoids any digital-digital conversions. 30 ips Dolby-A tapes are
superb, and of sufficient resolution and dynamic range to allow a fair
comparison. I remember listening to Joan Baez LP albums recorded with
Dolby NR cack in the early 70's, and the quality was stunning. When
heavy metal and pop producers started dominating the scene, the quality
of recording went down appreciably.

If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings, you're in for a
shock.



It is my understanding that Dolby S offers even better resolution (ie,
S/N). I don't know how prevalent Dolby S is, these days, if at all.


Yes it does...but do we really need the difference between 78db and 88db?
The real advantage of Dolby S was that it was a small package much more
practical for 24channel machines than the older Dolby A. Dolby S came in
near the end of the Dolby era ... most of the seventies and early eighties
recordings were done with Dolby A if noise reduction was used.

"michael" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 3 Sep 2005 14:48:35 GMT,
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 1 Sep 2005 15:03:53 GMT,
wrote:


If the signal processing was identical (taking into
account the
structural differences between SACD and CD), and the
source was of
higher resolution than either product, we can then
compare the
capabilities of the two disc systems. Otherwise, no.

If we used a 30 ips analogue master tape with Dolby A
noise reduction,
for instance, we have something that both systems can
sink their teeth
into. We can compare the three versions directly to
each other.

What makes you think that such a tape has superior
resolution?

Not being digital at all, it allows a completely
objective comparison
of the capabilities of the two systems. Using a 30 ips
analogue master
avoids any digital-digital conversions. 30 ips Dolby-A
tapes are
superb, and of sufficient resolution and dynamic range to
allow a fair
comparison. I remember listening to Joan Baez LP albums
recorded with
Dolby NR cack in the early 70's, and the quality was
stunning. When
heavy metal and pop producers started dominating the
scene, the quality
of recording went down appreciably.

If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings, you're
in for a
shock.



It is my understanding that Dolby S offers even better
resolution (ie, S/N). I don't know how prevalent Dolby S
is, these days, if at all.

Analogue multitrack machines are still in production, the
Studer 827
for example. Most new machines are fitted with SR.
Second-hand
machines such as the Studer A80 and A800 sell for very high
prices
- there is still a demand. Most of these are fitted with
Dolby A.

Iain


mp

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in
message
...
On 3 Sep 2005 14:48:35 GMT,
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 15:03:53 GMT,
wrote:

If the signal processing was identical (taking into
account the
structural differences between SACD and CD), and the
source was of
higher resolution than either product, we can then
compare the
capabilities of the two disc systems. Otherwise, no.

If we used a 30 ips analogue master tape with Dolby A
noise reduction,
for instance, we have something that both systems can
sink their teeth
into. We can compare the three versions directly to
each other.

What makes you think that such a tape has superior
resolution?

Not being digital at all, it allows a completely
objective comparison
of the capabilities of the two systems. Using a 30 ips
analogue master
avoids any digital-digital conversions. 30 ips Dolby-A
tapes are
superb, and of sufficient resolution and dynamic range to
allow a fair
comparison. I remember listening to Joan Baez LP albums
recorded with
Dolby NR cack in the early 70's, and the quality was
stunning. When
heavy metal and pop producers started dominating the
scene, the quality
of recording went down appreciably.

If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings, you're
in for a
shock.

Please note that professional recording engineers on this
newsgroup
completely disagree with you on this point.


First, who are they? I don't know too many that post on
RAHE. They have
RAP for that, and most use it.

Hello Harry. I think he may be referring to
something that I wrote. If you read it, you will see that
I certainly was not disagreeing with you, but offering
an even better alternative in the analogue domain.

Secondly, disagree with what? The use of 30ips Dolby A
mastertapes as a
vehicle to be translated into PCM/CD or DSD/SACD?

What is
wrong with
that...its the highest quality non-digital source
available.*

Please try 15ips with Dolby SR. I think you will
find that this will fit even better your description
above.


What he basically claimed, that you seem to disagree with,
is that "you're
in for a shock" over how good 30ips master tapes can
sound. I hear that all
the time on RAP.

I agree with you that a 30ips master does sound impressive.
I pointed out however the shortcomings, and mentioned that
15 ips with Dolby SR is considerably better, and allows one
to lower the peak level thus reducing distortion.


* Yes, yes, I know....Dolby S might arguably be better.

Without a doubt:-)

But if I interpret your remark another way, you are right,
there *is* no surprise to a professional recording
engineer. They already
know it. Even though they may prefer digital, they don't
belittle how good
a 30ips master can sound. Many actually prefer it. And
many digital
recordings are mixed to it, as well as vice-versa.

You are right the-) I have never heard anyone "belittle"
a good 30ips master. In fact, analogue multitrack is alive
and well. Many clients prefer it, with subsequent
mixing, editing and mastering in the digital domain.

Iain

michael writes:

It is my understanding that Dolby S offers even better resolution (ie,
S/N). I don't know how prevalent Dolby S is, these days, if at all.

No analog noise reduction system can improve the _resolution_ of the
underlying media - all they do is to move the noise floor around dynamically,
to lower the noise when the signal level is low.

If you have harmonically simple signals with lots of dynamics, recorded
on tape using any NR system, you should be able to hear the tape noise
being modulated by the signal.

For a steady-state signal, the S/N ratio will most likely be slightly
worse _with_ Dolby A/SR/Dbx/whatever, than without (the electronics may
add some noise to the signal).

Dolby A and SR will, in addition to this, also introduce phase artifacts,
which probably won't help the resolution at all.

---Ketil

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings, you're in for a
shock.

Please note that professional recording engineers on this newsgroup
completely disagree with you on this point.


That's not the point. The point is that 30ips Dolby A recordings are
superb, and since digital conversions would have to be made from this
tape, any differences between CD and SACD should appear (assuming that
the tape is well-made).

Harry Lavo wrote:


First, who are they? I don't know too many that post on RAHE. They have
RAP for that, and most use it.

Secondly, disagree with what? The use of 30ips Dolby A mastertapes as a
vehicle to be translated into PCM/CD or DSD/SACD? What is wrong with
that...its the highest quality non-digital source available.*

That was my point. If we start with a digital signal, we have already
got problems in interpolation to CD or SACD. Going with a 30ips tape
means both disc systems will have the same high-quality source to
compare against. Throw away the Dolby if you think it compromises the
sound, I don't care.

On 6 Sep 2005 00:59:13 GMT, michael wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 3 Sep 2005 14:48:35 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 1 Sep 2005 15:03:53 GMT, wrote:

If the signal processing was identical (taking into account the
structural differences between SACD and CD), and the source was of
higher resolution than either product, we can then compare the
capabilities of the two disc systems. Otherwise, no.

If we used a 30 ips analogue master tape with Dolby A noise reduction,
for instance, we have something that both systems can sink their teeth
into. We can compare the three versions directly to each other.

What makes you think that such a tape has superior resolution?

Not being digital at all, it allows a completely objective comparison
of the capabilities of the two systems.

Not responsive to the question.

Using a 30 ips analogue master
avoids any digital-digital conversions. 30 ips Dolby-A tapes are
superb, and of sufficient resolution and dynamic range to allow a fair
comparison.

No, they simply are *not*. There exists *no* analogue master with a
dynamic range exceeding 80dB.

I remember listening to Joan Baez LP albums recorded with
Dolby NR cack in the early 70's, and the quality was stunning. When
heavy metal and pop producers started dominating the scene, the quality
of recording went down appreciably.

If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings, you're in for a
shock.

No I'm not, I know *exactly* what they sound like - I have lots of JVC
XRCDs, all recorded from analogue masters, and the tape hiss is
clearly audible on all of them, proving the point that it is *not* of
sufficient resolution to stretch either CD or SACD.

It is my understanding that Dolby S offers even better resolution (ie,
S/N). I don't know how prevalent Dolby S is, these days, if at all.

In the professional world, you'd use Dolby SR, a fine product which
gets close to basic digital quality. It does not however get around
the basic problem that *no* analogue tape is adequate for a comparison
of SACD and CD, as that requires a source which has *superior* dynamic
range to both. This just isn't the case for even a Dolby SR master,
let alone a basic Dolby A tape.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:


First, who are they? I don't know too many that post on
RAHE. They have
RAP for that, and most use it.

Secondly, disagree with what? The use of 30ips Dolby A
mastertapes as a
vehicle to be translated into PCM/CD or DSD/SACD? What
is wrong with
that...its the highest quality non-digital source
available.*

That was my point. If we start with a digital signal, we
have already
got problems in interpolation to CD or SACD. Going with a
30ips tape
means both disc systems will have the same high-quality
source to
compare against. Throw away the Dolby if you think it
compromises the
sound, I don't care.

I think you *would* care if you heard "with" and without".
The compander does not compromise the sound, but it does
wonders for the noise floor.

Iain

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"michael" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 3 Sep 2005 14:48:35 GMT,
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 1 Sep 2005 15:03:53 GMT,
wrote:


If the signal processing was identical (taking into
account the
structural differences between SACD and CD), and the
source was of
higher resolution than either product, we can then
compare the
capabilities of the two disc systems. Otherwise, no.

If we used a 30 ips analogue master tape with Dolby A
noise reduction,
for instance, we have something that both systems can
sink their teeth
into. We can compare the three versions directly to
each other.

What makes you think that such a tape has superior
resolution?

Not being digital at all, it allows a completely
objective comparison
of the capabilities of the two systems. Using a 30 ips
analogue master
avoids any digital-digital conversions. 30 ips Dolby-A
tapes are
superb, and of sufficient resolution and dynamic range
to allow a fair
comparison. I remember listening to Joan Baez LP albums
recorded with
Dolby NR cack in the early 70's, and the quality was
stunning. When
heavy metal and pop producers started dominating the
scene, the quality
of recording went down appreciably.

If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings,
you're in for a
shock.



It is my understanding that Dolby S offers even better
resolution (ie,
S/N). I don't know how prevalent Dolby S is, these days,
if at all.


Yes it does...but do we really need the difference between
78db and 88db?

Of course we do. Actually the SNR with Dolby SR is 96dB
(I have measured it myself, so this is not hearsay) The
advantage of the extended SNR, as I have mentioned
before is that the peak recording level can be lowered
thus reducing distortion.


The real advantage of Dolby S was that it was a small
package much more
practical for 24 channel machines than the older Dolby A.

Early Dolby units were 6U high *per channel*
Cat 22 cards made the all in one package a reality. Before
this, Dolby A361 and A362 units were rack mounted.
Some could be switched between record and replay,
but if you wanted to monitor the playback during
recording a double set was needed. Racks with 50
channels of Dolby A were quite common in major
studios.

Dolby S came in
near the end of the Dolby era ... most of the seventies
and early eighties
recordings were done with Dolby A if noise reduction was
used.

Dolby A has been around since the mid 60's. All major
companies used it. SR is still available, as are
Studer multitrack machines, and still surprisingly
popular.

Interestingly, a second hand analogue Studer multitrack
commands a higher price than a second hand DASH
recorder.

Iain

On 6 Sep 2005 23:30:47 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings, you're in for a
shock.

Please note that professional recording engineers on this newsgroup
completely disagree with you on this point.


That's not the point. The point is that 30ips Dolby A recordings are
superb, and since digital conversions would have to be made from this
tape, any differences between CD and SACD should appear (assuming that
the tape is well-made).

Now you are simply trying to dodge an issue that you raised yourself.
No analogue tape has better dynamic range than CD, so it is *not*
suitable as a reference for comparing the *resolution* of CD and SACD.

Changing the subject does not alter this simple fact, which you got
completely wrong.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 6 Sep 2005 23:31:14 GMT, wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:


First, who are they? I don't know too many that post on RAHE. They have
RAP for that, and most use it.

Secondly, disagree with what? The use of 30ips Dolby A mastertapes as a
vehicle to be translated into PCM/CD or DSD/SACD? What is wrong with
that...its the highest quality non-digital source available.*

That was my point. If we start with a digital signal, we have already
got problems in interpolation to CD or SACD.

Not if you start with a DSD master.................

Going with a 30ips tape
means both disc systems will have the same high-quality source to
compare against. Throw away the Dolby if you think it compromises the
sound, I don't care.

So you now want to use a tape with less than 80dB dynamic range to
discover which of CD and SACD has higher resolution? Fascinating!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 6 Sep 2005 23:30:47 GMT,
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings,
you're in for a
shock.

Please note that professional recording engineers on
this newsgroup
completely disagree with you on this point.


That's not the point. The point is that 30ips Dolby A
recordings are
superb, and since digital conversions would have to be
made from this
tape, any differences between CD and SACD should appear
(assuming that
the tape is well-made).

Now you are simply trying to dodge an issue that you
raised yourself.
No analogue tape has better dynamic range than CD, so it
is *not*
suitable as a reference for comparing the *resolution* of
CD and SACD.

If our glow-in-the dark friend wants to make such a
comparison, then
15ips with SR is the place to start as regards the analogue
platform. It
can offer SNR 96dB, and so would equate with 16bit digital
in this
respect.

Iain

Freedom from noise is not resolution, Stewart, and you know it.

The speed of the tape is the limiting factor. 30ips is damned fast.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 6 Sep 2005 23:31:14 GMT, wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:


First, who are they? I don't know too many that post on RAHE. They have
RAP for that, and most use it.

Secondly, disagree with what? The use of 30ips Dolby A mastertapes as a
vehicle to be translated into PCM/CD or DSD/SACD? What is wrong with
that...its the highest quality non-digital source available.*

That was my point. If we start with a digital signal, we have already
got problems in interpolation to CD or SACD.

Not if you start with a DSD master.................

Going with a 30ips tape
means both disc systems will have the same high-quality source to
compare against. Throw away the Dolby if you think it compromises the
sound, I don't care.

So you now want to use a tape with less than 80dB dynamic range to
discover which of CD and SACD has higher resolution? Fascinating!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 8 Sep 2005 05:31:14 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 6 Sep 2005 23:30:47 GMT,
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings,
you're in for a
shock.

Please note that professional recording engineers on
this newsgroup
completely disagree with you on this point.


That's not the point. The point is that 30ips Dolby A
recordings are
superb, and since digital conversions would have to be
made from this
tape, any differences between CD and SACD should appear
(assuming that
the tape is well-made).

Now you are simply trying to dodge an issue that you
raised yourself.
No analogue tape has better dynamic range than CD, so it
is *not*
suitable as a reference for comparing the *resolution* of
CD and SACD.

If our glow-in-the dark friend wants to make such a
comparison, then
15ips with SR is the place to start as regards the analogue
platform. It
can offer SNR 96dB, and so would equate with 16bit digital
in this
respect.

Indeed so, and it's fair to point out that the SNR of properly
dithered CD is more like 93dB, although without the dynamically
varying noise floor of SR. It's also true that the 15ips tapes will
likely give better results than 30ips in the bass, although of course
not comparable with digital in this regard.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Hello Stewart,

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:

....
can offer SNR 96dB, and so would equate with 16bit digital
in this
respect.

Indeed so, and it's fair to point out that the SNR of properly
dithered CD is more like 93dB, although without the dynamically
....

I wonder if the declared tape SNR is linear or not. If the tape SNR is
weigthed, for the sake of comparing apples to apples, I think it is
important to note that, using appropriate noise shaped dithering methods,
the CD is able to achieve close to 110 dB SNR.

Bye,

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http://www.infotecna.it

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Indeed so, and it's fair to point out that the SNR of properly
dithered CD is more like 93dB, although without the dynamically
varying noise floor of SR. It's also true that the 15ips tapes will
likely give better results than 30ips in the bass, although of course
not comparable with digital in this regard.

Why is that? Why better bass at 15ips?