Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
Can someone point me to website that offers hi res (16/44 or higher)
recordings for download? Thanks |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Jul 23, 11:57 am, RalphH wrote:
Can someone point me to website that offers hi res (16/44 or higher) recordings for download? Thanks The only one I know of is Music Giant but their files have so much DRM garbage/rules imbedded in them that you cant use the files on all your computers, and they could be "taken away" at any moment. This has stopped me from joining MG. I have been looking for a service offering lossless music for about 5 years now. People these days have the bandwidth and they have the disk space, I cant figure out why the record companies are still "screwing around" offering inferior compressed audio, based on compression encoding algorithms that are being changed and bug fixed all the time. Makes you wonder if the file you bought today will be as good as a file you bought last year due to the algorithms changing. Some of the binary newsgroups have archives of lossless FLAC files but those are illegal for us who would gladly participate in a market of lossless offerings. Good luck and please post if you find anything. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Jul 23, 12:57 pm, RalphH wrote:
Can someone point me to website that offers hi res (16/44 or higher) recordings for download? Thanks You've got to search for them, but they're out there. The Philadelphia Orchestra, for example, sells FLAC files, which are CD resolution. Also, iTunes sells music from the EMI label as 256kbps AAC, whcih you would be verrrry hard pressed to distinguish from the CD originals, if you didn't know which was which. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Jul 25, 12:51 pm, windcrest wrote:
On Jul 23, 11:57 am, RalphH wrote: Can someone point me to website that offers hi res (16/44 or higher) recordings for download? Thanks The only one I know of is Music Giant but their files have so much DRM garbage/rules imbedded in them that you cant use the files on all your computers, and they could be "taken away" at any moment. "Taken away"? How could they alter the DRM after purchase? And can't you just burn to a CD and re-rip to strip away the DRM? Unlike with a lossy file, this would entail no quality hit. This has stopped me from joining MG. I have been looking for a service offering lossless music for about 5 years now. People these days have the bandwidth and they have the disk space, I cant figure out why the record companies are still "screwing around" offering inferior compressed audio, The market is slowly catching up here--see the Apple/EMI deal. But disk space is still an issue for portable players, both because of flash-drive capacity and because higher-resolution files reduce playing time between battery charges. The market will find a good compromise (for most folks), but it probably won't be 16/44.1. based on compression encoding algorithms that are being changed and bug fixed all the time. Makes you wonder if the file you bought today will be as good as a file you bought last year due to the algorithms changing. Wouldn't it more likely be the reverse--that the newer files would be better? But I don't think we need to take seriously the possibility that there won't be a decoder available in the future. bob |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"bob" wrote in message
The market is slowly catching up here--see the Apple/EMI deal. That seems like a reach. But disk space is still an issue for portable players, both because of flash-drive capacity and because higher-resolution files reduce playing time between battery charges. The market will find a good compromise (for most folks), but it probably won't be 16/44.1. The market seems to be very pragmatic, and biased towards storage of large numbers of songs. The playback environment is generally either mobile or low listening level or both, which means that the listener's ear is likely to be very tolerant of artifacts. As always, there's no inherent sonic advantage at all to any higher resolution than 16/44. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
Le 23 Jul 2007 16:57:41 GMT, RalphH a écrit :
Can someone point me to website that offers hi res (16/44 or higher) recordings for download? Thanks If you like folk and blues (and more) the Smithsonian sells in FLAC, at reasonable price; i bought a fantastic Mary Lou Williams. Best regards, Jean |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:49:31 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "bob" wrote in message The market is slowly catching up here--see the Apple/EMI deal. That seems like a reach. But disk space is still an issue for portable players, both because of flash-drive capacity and because higher-resolution files reduce playing time between battery charges. The market will find a good compromise (for most folks), but it probably won't be 16/44.1. The market seems to be very pragmatic, and biased towards storage of large numbers of songs. The playback environment is generally either mobile or low listening level or both, which means that the listener's ear is likely to be very tolerant of artifacts. As always, there's no inherent sonic advantage at all to any higher resolution than 16/44. Indeed? Can you cite your source for this information? I have a Sony SCD-XA777ES which plays both CDs and SACD. When playing dual-layer discs with both standard Redbook CD on one layer and SACD on the other, I can in double-blind testing, tell which is which, every time. SACD sounds so much better than CD that it's not even close. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
George Graves wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:49:31 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "bob" wrote in message The market is slowly catching up here--see the Apple/EMI deal. That seems like a reach. But disk space is still an issue for portable players, both because of flash-drive capacity and because higher-resolution files reduce playing time between battery charges. The market will find a good compromise (for most folks), but it probably won't be 16/44.1. The market seems to be very pragmatic, and biased towards storage of large numbers of songs. The playback environment is generally either mobile or low listening level or both, which means that the listener's ear is likely to be very tolerant of artifacts. As always, there's no inherent sonic advantage at all to any higher resolution than 16/44. Indeed? Can you cite your source for this information? I have a Sony SCD-XA777ES which plays both CDs and SACD. When playing dual-layer discs with both standard Redbook CD on one layer and SACD on the other, I can in double-blind testing, tell which is which, every time. SACD sounds so much better than CD that it's not even close. and you're sure this isn't due to different mastering on the two layers, or different signal processing of the two formats by your playback chain? If you can tell them apart 'every time' in a blind test, I would bet that one of those two things are the reason. Because there's no other reports of anyone being able to do what you're claiming to do, based on formats alone. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Jul 26, 10:02 pm, George Graves wrote:
I have a Sony SCD-XA777ES which plays both CDs and SACD. When playing dual-layer discs with both standard Redbook CD on one layer and SACD on the other, I can in double-blind testing, tell which is which, every time. SACD sounds so much better than CD that it's not even close. How do you know the two layers are mastered identically? And how do you know you have levels matched? When people control for those variables, "not even close" isn't the way they describe their results. bob |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"George Graves" wrote in message
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:49:31 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "bob" wrote in message The market is slowly catching up here--see the Apple/EMI deal. That seems like a reach. But disk space is still an issue for portable players, both because of flash-drive capacity and because higher-resolution files reduce playing time between battery charges. The market will find a good compromise (for most folks), but it probably won't be 16/44.1. The market seems to be very pragmatic, and biased towards storage of large numbers of songs. The playback environment is generally either mobile or low listening level or both, which means that the listener's ear is likely to be very tolerant of artifacts. As always, there's no inherent sonic advantage at all to any higher resolution than 16/44. Indeed? Can you cite your source for this information? The absence of proper listening tests that prove otherwise. I have a Sony SCD-XA777ES which plays both CDs and SACD. I have a Pioneer player with similar capabilities. When playing dual-layer discs with both standard Redbook CD on one layer and SACD on the other, I can in double-blind testing, tell which is which, every time. Different mastering, natch. SACD sounds so much better than CD that it's not even close. So say people who don't know that many dual-layer discs are two different masterings of the same basic studio master. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:22:15 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): George Graves wrote: On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:49:31 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "bob" wrote in message The market is slowly catching up here--see the Apple/EMI deal. That seems like a reach. But disk space is still an issue for portable players, both because of flash-drive capacity and because higher-resolution files reduce playing time between battery charges. The market will find a good compromise (for most folks), but it probably won't be 16/44.1. The market seems to be very pragmatic, and biased towards storage of large numbers of songs. The playback environment is generally either mobile or low listening level or both, which means that the listener's ear is likely to be very tolerant of artifacts. As always, there's no inherent sonic advantage at all to any higher resolution than 16/44. Indeed? Can you cite your source for this information? I have a Sony SCD-XA777ES which plays both CDs and SACD. When playing dual-layer discs with both standard Redbook CD on one layer and SACD on the other, I can in double-blind testing, tell which is which, every time. SACD sounds so much better than CD that it's not even close. and you're sure this isn't due to different mastering on the two layers, or different signal processing of the two formats by your playback chain? No, I'm not. But in my experience (and that of many others), SACD and DVD-A (at 196 KHz sampling rate) sounds significantly better than does the same program in standard CD. Whatever the reason (mastering, signal processing, etc. The fact that SACD is better is enough reason top say that Mr. Kruger's assertion is incorrect. IMHO, 16/44 PCM is really inadequate for music. It was chosen because in the mid 1970's, when this system was developed, a 16-bit linear DAC and 44.1KHz sampling were barely doable, not because these standards were considered optimum. If you can tell them apart 'every time' in a blind test, I would bet that one of those two things are the reason. Because there's no other reports of anyone being able to do what you're claiming to do, based on formats alone.e Well, my description is an oversimplification as bad recording do not benefit much from the higher resolution of SACD. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:28:59 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "George Graves" wrote in message On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:49:31 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "bob" wrote in message The market is slowly catching up here--see the Apple/EMI deal. That seems like a reach. But disk space is still an issue for portable players, both because of flash-drive capacity and because higher-resolution files reduce playing time between battery charges. The market will find a good compromise (for most folks), but it probably won't be 16/44.1. The market seems to be very pragmatic, and biased towards storage of large numbers of songs. The playback environment is generally either mobile or low listening level or both, which means that the listener's ear is likely to be very tolerant of artifacts. As always, there's no inherent sonic advantage at all to any higher resolution than 16/44. Indeed? Can you cite your source for this information? The absence of proper listening tests that prove otherwise. Can you provide some links? I have a Sony SCD-XA777ES which plays both CDs and SACD. I have a Pioneer player with similar capabilities. When playing dual-layer discs with both standard Redbook CD on one layer and SACD on the other, I can in double-blind testing, tell which is which, every time. Different mastering, natch. SACD sounds so much better than CD that it's not even close. So say people who don't know that many dual-layer discs are two different masterings of the same basic studio master. And many aren't. Yes, I do know that. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"George Graves" wrote in message
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:28:59 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "George Graves" wrote in message On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:49:31 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): As always, there's no inherent sonic advantage at all to any higher resolution than 16/44. Indeed? Can you cite your source for this information? The absence of proper listening tests that prove otherwise. Can you provide some links? I can't cite links for something that doesn't seem to exist. I can cite a link where you can download files for doing comparative listening evaluations of your own: http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm I have a Sony SCD-XA777ES which plays both CDs and SACD. I have a Pioneer player with similar capabilities. When playing dual-layer discs with both standard Redbook CD on one layer and SACD on the other, I can in double-blind testing, tell which is which, every time. Different mastering, natch. SACD sounds so much better than CD that it's not even close. So say people who don't know that many dual-layer discs are two different masterings of the same basic studio master. And many aren't. Hmmm. Yes, I do know that. Please cite links to support your claim. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"George Graves" wrote in message
No, I'm not. But in my experience (and that of many others), SACD and DVD-A (at 196 KHz sampling rate) sounds significantly better than does the same program in standard CD. Not necessarily a comparison of apples and apples. The issue of multiple distinct remasterings of the same basic recording remains. Furthermore, how do you know that the difference is "Purported hi-rez is better" and not "Purported hi-rez is merely differernt"? Whatever the reason (mastering, signal processing, etc. The fact that SACD is better is enough reason top say that Mr. Kruger's assertion is incorrect. Not at all. I can make so-called hi-rez recordings of live musical events whenever I want to, and I can transcribe purported hi-rex recordings to 16/44 PCM whenever I'm so inclined. Since I do all the work, all possible questions about differences in remastering are known to me. IMHO, 16/44 PCM is really inadequate for music. This theory has been refuted every time it has been properly tested. Here's an early example of an carefully-done experiment that should have supported the claim that 16/44 PCM causes audible difficulties with music: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm This carefully-performed experiment failed to confirm the the hypothesis, as has every experiement of a similar nature done since. It was chosen because in the mid 1970's, when this system was developed, a 16-bit linear DAC and 44.1KHz sampling were barely doable, not because these standards were considered optimum. That's the urban myth. Regrettiblty for people who believe that myth, the audio mythbusters busted it back in the late 1970s or very early 1980s, even before the CD format became commercialized. Note that the comparison cited above was done in a highly-regarded commercial recording studio, and compared a straight-wire analog connection to digitization and reconstruction using very early digital technology. By all accounts digital technology has improved greatly since then, so the basic experiment has only gotten more difficult for positive results. If you can tell them apart 'every time' in a blind test, I would bet that one of those two things are the reason. Because there's no other reports of anyone being able to do what you're claiming to do, based on formats alone.e Well, my description is an oversimplification as bad recording do not benefit much from the higher resolution of SACD. Neither do good recordings, mediocre recordings or whatever. If you understand the natural limitations of the recording process and how the human ears work, you would already know the reason why. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:15:04 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "George Graves" wrote in message No, I'm not. But in my experience (and that of many others), SACD and DVD-A (at 196 KHz sampling rate) sounds significantly better than does the same program in standard CD. Not necessarily a comparison of apples and apples. The issue of multiple distinct remasterings of the same basic recording remains. Furthermore, how do you know that the difference is "Purported hi-rez is better" and not "Purported hi-rez is merely differernt"? It sounds more like real, live music to me. Whatever the reason (mastering, signal processing, etc. The fact that SACD is better is enough reason top say that Mr. Kruger's assertion is incorrect. Not at all. I can make so-called hi-rez recordings of live musical events whenever I want to, and I can transcribe purported hi-rex recordings to 16/44 PCM whenever I'm so inclined. Since I do all the work, all possible questions about differences in remastering are known to me. IMHO, 16/44 PCM is really inadequate for music. This theory has been refuted every time it has been properly tested. Here's an early example of an carefully-done experiment that should have supported the claim that 16/44 PCM causes audible difficulties with music: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm This carefully-performed experiment failed to confirm the the hypothesis, as has every experiement of a similar nature done since. With a tape made from a 24-track master, I'd say that everybody agreed that they sounded the same simply because they didn't want to listen any more! :- But seriously, I've been party to experiments like and some had similar results and some didn't. I was also party once to a blind ABX test where all of the participants statistically chose CDs painted with the infamous "Green Pen" over a second copy of the same CD without the green paint on its edge. And you know as well as I do, that the green pen does nothing and, indeed, CAN do nothing! It's one reason why I don't trust ABX for audio. It was chosen because in the mid 1970's, when this system was developed, a 16-bit linear DAC and 44.1KHz sampling were barely doable, not because these standards were considered optimum. That's the urban myth. Regrettiblty for people who believe that myth, the audio mythbusters busted it back in the late 1970s or very early 1980s, even before the CD format became commercialized. Hmmm. That must be why many early CD players were 14-bit. If 20-bit DACs were so easy to do, why wasn't CD designed to be 20-bit. If CD is so good, why did Sony and others feel the need to come up with higher-rez formats? Also, if 16/44.1 are so perfect, how come my DATs mastered at 16/48 have a smoother, more life-like top end than the same live source mastered at 16/44.1? Note that the comparison cited above was done in a highly-regarded commercial recording studio, and compared a straight-wire analog connection to digitization and reconstruction using very early digital technology. By all accounts digital technology has improved greatly since then, so the basic experiment has only gotten more difficult for positive results. There is no doubt that 16/41 has improved considerably since its inception. The early Sony U-matic based A/D processors used in almost all early CD mastering had lousy analog front ends filled with 741- type operational amplifiers (I think the processor model number was Sony 1610/1620/1630 but I can't find any references to that in Google, so I may be disremembering). To my ears, SACD still sounds more like live music, IOW, very analog-like. I have a Classics records pressing of Stravinsky's "FireBird" pressed on 200 gram vinyl, single sided, mastered at 45 RPM. It's probably the most realistic sounding commercial recording I've ever heard. I also have the same performance on both 16/44 CD and on SACD. In descending order of sound quality, It's the phonograph record which sounds the best, the SACD is a very close second, and the CD (one of the ones that the original record's producer, Wilma Cozert Fine mastered from her husband's master tapes) was a distant third. If you can tell them apart 'every time' in a blind test, I would bet that one of those two things are the reason. Because there's no other reports of anyone being able to do what you're claiming to do, based on formats alone.e Well, my description is an oversimplification as bad recording do not benefit much from the higher resolution of SACD. Neither do good recordings, mediocre recordings or whatever. If you understand the natural limitations of the recording process and how the human ears work, you would already know the reason why. I do and I also understand the reason why SACD and 196 KHz DVD-A sound better than Redbook CD. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:13:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "George Graves" wrote in message On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:28:59 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "George Graves" wrote in message On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:49:31 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): As always, there's no inherent sonic advantage at all to any higher resolution than 16/44. Indeed? Can you cite your source for this information? The absence of proper listening tests that prove otherwise. Can you provide some links? I can't cite links for something that doesn't seem to exist. I can cite a link where you can download files for doing comparative listening evaluations of your own: http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm No, that's not what I'm asking. I am looking for some links to industry experts that back-up your assertion that CD is perfect and that SACD, DVD-A or other so-called "high-resolution" formats offer no sonic advantage. I have a Sony SCD-XA777ES which plays both CDs and SACD. I have a Pioneer player with similar capabilities. When playing dual-layer discs with both standard Redbook CD on one layer and SACD on the other, I can in double-blind testing, tell which is which, every time. Different mastering, natch. SACD sounds so much better than CD that it's not even close. So say people who don't know that many dual-layer discs are two different masterings of the same basic studio master. And many aren't. Hmmm. Yes, I do know that. Please cite links to support your claim. What claim? You mean that there actually are some that are the same mastering? Well, I'm actually listening to one now. The soon-to-be-released Sony dual-layer recording of the Zenpf "re-performance" of Glenn Gould's famous 1955 recording of the Bach "Goldberg Variations". According to the press kit I have in front of me, the original recoding was made using DSD and the mastering of the two layers was made by outputting from the DSD equipment, simultaneous DSD and Redbook versions of the performance so that the CD and SACD versions would sound as much alike as possible. I suspect that most most new direct-to-DSD hybrid discs are made in this manner. I also suspect that re-masterings to SACD from analog sources use existing CD masters to produce the CD layer (although if the DSD equipment can output EITHER DSD or Redbook CD, I don't really see the advantage of not re-mastering the CD layer. Seems to me, that if we're starting from an existing analog source anyway, that there would be no advantage to using a separate, earlier master for the CD layer. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Jul 26, 10:02 pm, George Graves wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:49:31 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "bob" wrote in message The market is slowly catching up here--see the Apple/EMI deal. That seems like a reach. But disk space is still an issue for portable players, both because of flash-drive capacity and because higher-resolution files reduce playing time between battery charges. The market will find a good compromise (for most folks), but it probably won't be 16/44.1. The market seems to be very pragmatic, and biased towards storage of large numbers of songs. The playback environment is generally either mobile or low listening level or both, which means that the listener's ear is likely to be very tolerant of artifacts. As always, there's no inherent sonic advantage at all to any higher resolution than 16/44. Indeed? Can you cite your source for this information? I have a Sony SCD-XA777ES which plays both CDs and SACD. When playing dual-layer discs with both standard Redbook CD on one layer and SACD on the other, I can in double-blind testing, tell which is which, every time. SACD sounds so much better than CD that it's not even close. Agreeing with what others have said about the high quality of CD audio, here's my experience, and also an inexpensive way to "find the truth about how good CD-audio sounds" so to speak: I'm a budget minded audiophile and I can't say enough about the Panasonic DVD players. I had the Panasonic S-35 now have the S-53. They both sound great playing CDs. At one point I decided to try the DVD-A game. I bought the well reputed Pioneer DV 563 player. I didn't have any DVD-As yet. I played regular CDs on the pioneer. They didn't sound good at all. I kept wanting to go back to my Panny. Surely, I thought, if this Pioneer could make DVD-As sound great, CD-audio would be easy as pie. I searched the net for reviews on the Pioneer. They were all resounding praise for how well it played DVD-As, and hardly any mentioned CD-audio performance. Of the few I found that did mention CD-audio, they said it was mediocre at best. I even found a site that tweeked the Pioneer to improve its CD-audio performance, but still it held nothing to the way it played DVD-As. Conclusion? A player that is optimized to play DVD-A may not be able to play CD-audio well. I returned the Pioneer and kept the Panny. I'm not giving up my CD audio collection to go DVD-A. Later on I found stereophile review of this disgustingly high end Linn CD/DVD--A/SACD player. Basically they said that it played EVERYTHING well.There seemed to be a subtle suggestion that the CD- audio performance was so good that if all CD players sounded that good, why bother with the higher rez formats. A look into the technical aspcets of that Linn player revealed some aspects as to why it made everything sound good: each mode of the player had dedicated circuits for it, and all these circuits were electronically isolated from each other. Not only that, but when you played CD-audio on it, for example, the DVD-A and SACD audio circuits were powered off. Extreme engineering to get the best sound. Lastly, think about this: Sony is, or was, hell-bent on making SACD succeeed. When their engineers made that SCD-XA777ES, I'm sure they treated the CD-audio section as old-hack, has-been status. They just made sure that theire SACD section shined and let the chips fall where they may for everything else. Why not try this: buy a Panasonc DVD player like the S53. Play audio CDs on it and compare it's sound to how the audio CDs play on your Sony. I bet you'll be surprised. If you con't like it, return it. It's only $100 that you temporarily give away. CD |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 08:30:10 -0700, codifus wrote
(in article ): On Jul 26, 10:02 pm, George Graves wrote: On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:49:31 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "bob" wrote in message The market is slowly catching up here--see the Apple/EMI deal. That seems like a reach. But disk space is still an issue for portable players, both because of flash-drive capacity and because higher-resolution files reduce playing time between battery charges. The market will find a good compromise (for most folks), but it probably won't be 16/44.1. The market seems to be very pragmatic, and biased towards storage of large numbers of songs. The playback environment is generally either mobile or low listening level or both, which means that the listener's ear is likely to be very tolerant of artifacts. As always, there's no inherent sonic advantage at all to any higher resolution than 16/44. Indeed? Can you cite your source for this information? I have a Sony SCD-XA777ES which plays both CDs and SACD. When playing dual-layer discs with both standard Redbook CD on one layer and SACD on the other, I can in double-blind testing, tell which is which, every time. SACD sounds so much better than CD that it's not even close. Agreeing with what others have said about the high quality of CD audio, here's my experience, and also an inexpensive way to "find the truth about how good CD-audio sounds" so to speak: I'm a budget minded audiophile and I can't say enough about the Panasonic DVD players. I had the Panasonic S-35 now have the S-53. They both sound great playing CDs. At one point I decided to try the DVD-A game. I bought the well reputed Pioneer DV 563 player. I didn't have any DVD-As yet. I played regular CDs on the pioneer. They didn't sound good at all. I kept wanting to go back to my Panny. Surely, I thought, if this Pioneer could make DVD-As sound great, CD-audio would be easy as pie. I searched the net for reviews on the Pioneer. They were all resounding praise for how well it played DVD-As, and hardly any mentioned CD-audio performance. Of the few I found that did mention CD-audio, they said it was mediocre at best. I even found a site that tweeked the Pioneer to improve its CD-audio performance, but still it held nothing to the way it played DVD-As. Conclusion? A player that is optimized to play DVD-A may not be able to play CD-audio well. I returned the Pioneer and kept the Panny. I'm not giving up my CD audio collection to go DVD-A. My experience with DVD-A is that only those sold with 192KHz sampling rate actually sound better than regular CDs. And that is demonstrable. But most DVD-As seem to be either multi-channel or for some reason, 48 KHz. I have a bunch of EMI classics mastered that way (?). I think the reason that DVD-A has mostly disappeared is because there were too many confusing "sub-formats" and the average buyer didn't understand what he/she was supposed to buy. Later on I found stereophile review of this disgustingly high end Linn CD/DVD--A/SACD player. Basically they said that it played EVERYTHING well.There seemed to be a subtle suggestion that the CD- audio performance was so good that if all CD players sounded that good, why bother with the higher rez formats. My Sony SCD-XA777ES is the best sounding regular CD player I've ever heard. My previous setup was a Pioneer Elite player with balanced outputs and Pioneer's "stable platter" design where one placed the CD label-side down on a small machined "turntable" and the laser read it from overhead. I used an outboard Up-converting D/A from MSB called the DAC II which was highly touted. I thought the combo sounded great until I heard this Sony (which I obtained for SACD, not regular CD). Once I did, the Pioneer went up for sale (I kept the DAC II though). A look into the technical aspcets of that Linn player revealed some aspects as to why it made everything sound good: each mode of the player had dedicated circuits for it, The Sony is the same way. and all these circuits were electronically isolated from each other. Ditto Not only that, but when you played CD-audio on it, for example, the DVD-A and SACD audio circuits were powered off. Extreme engineering to get the best sound. Also with the Sony. I also believe that the sony even uses separate lasers for each format. One reason why a lot of DVD players sound so mediocre is that they don't turn off the video processing circuitry while playing Audio-only DVDs. Lastly, think about this: Sony is, or was, hell-bent on making SACD succeeed. When their engineers made that SCD-XA777ES, I'm sure they treated the CD-audio section as old-hack, has-been status. They just made sure that theire SACD section shined and let the chips fall where they may for everything else. Not so. Like I said above (and agreement in the industry is pretty much 100% on this point) is that the SCD-XA777ES is one of the best regular CD players ever. For example: http://www.stereophile.com/hirezplayers/491/index1.html Why not try this: buy a Panasonc DVD player like the S53. Play audio CDs on it and compare it's sound to how the audio CDs play on your Sony. I bet you'll be surprised. If you con't like it, return it. It's only $100 that you temporarily give away. I don't have to. I have a number of decks that play CDs and several outboard D/A units. The CD portion of the Sony is better than any of them with or without outboard processors and/or up-samplers. It's just that SACD is better. Try The New Sony "Re-performance" of Bach's Goldberg Variations. this is a DiskKlavier recording on a Yamaha Concert Grand derived by computer from Glenn Gould's 1955 mono recording of the work. The performance is on this disc 5 times. Layer one is the regular CD version, first recorded for speakers, then, again, binaurally for headphones. Layer Two has is a repeat of the program on layer one only this time it's SACD. The 5th rendition of the recording is 6-channel SACD surround. Listen to the CD version of the work then the two-channel SACD version (headphones or speakers, its up to you). You will find that as good as the CD version sounds, the SACD version is even better. They are both the same performance, mastered simultaneously and both to state of the art standards (according to the press kit that cam with my sample recording). Anybody can hear the difference, and I have blind-tested several friends and they had no trouble picking the SACD version of this state-of-the-art recording every time! |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
George Graves wrote:
My experience with DVD-A is that only those sold with 192KHz sampling rate actually sound better than regular CDs. And that is demonstrable. How and by whom? But most DVD-As seem to be either multi-channel or for some reason, 48 KHz. DVD-A can only offer two channels at 192kHz/24bit format. It can offer six channels of 96 kHz/24 bit audio, though. I have a bunch of EMI classics mastered that way (?). I think the reason that DVD-A has mostly disappeared is because there were too many confusing "sub-formats" and the average buyer didn't understand what he/she was supposed to buy. Or, there wasn;t enough product, or, it wasn't marketed properly, or people didn't want to buy a new player for the format, or, they don't really care that much about 'high resolution' audio formats. Etc. Take your pick. Later on I found stereophile review of this disgustingly high end Linn CD/DVD--A/SACD player. Basically they said that it played EVERYTHING well.There seemed to be a subtle suggestion that the CD- audio performance was so good that if all CD players sounded that good, why bother with the higher rez formats. If a CD player offers flat frequency response from 20 Hz to 20 kHz, with 90 dB of dynamic range...why bother indeed? ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"George Graves" wrote in message
... On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 08:30:10 -0700, codifus wrote (in article ): snipped My experience with DVD-A is that only those sold with 192KHz sampling rate actually sound better than regular CDs. And that is demonstrable. But most DVD-As seem to be either multi-channel or for some reason, 48 KHz. I have a bunch of EMI classics mastered that way (?). I think the reason that DVD-A has mostly disappeared is because there were too many confusing "sub-formats" and the average buyer didn't understand what he/she was supposed to buy. snipped Also with the Sony. I also believe that the sony even uses separate lasers for each format. One reason why a lot of DVD players sound so mediocre is that they don't turn off the video processing circuitry while playing Audio-only DVDs. I am intrigued to know why turning off the video processing would make the audio sound better. It may do, but why? I really don't want an answer along the lines of -it reduces interference- I would like to have specifics, like what interference, where and how. If the video circuits were interfering with the audio sufficient to be audible, this is easily measureable, yet I don't see any such measurements ever being mentioned, just that it sounds better with the video processing turned off (like some CD only players allow you to turn the display off as "it sounds better") Finally, as even the worse CD player which still qualifies as being described as Hi-Fi has noise and distortion figures that are *well* below the threshold of audibility, how can one player sound better (or worse) than another. Can it all be down to jitter performance? S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 16:41:36 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): If a CD player offers flat frequency response from 20 Hz to 20 kHz, with 90 dB of dynamic range...why bother indeed? ___ Because there are considerations OTHER than just frequency response and dynamic range which make-up the recording/playback of music. OTOH, it has been found through various university (as well as the seminal Bell Telephone Labs tests) which indicate that people think reproduced music sounds more lifelike when the frequency response extends beyond 20 KHz (why this would be, I don't pretend to know. Most adults don't have very good HF hearing and most baby boomers hearing is even worse from listening to loud Rock-n-Roll most of our lives. Perhaps humans can "feel" the highs). Anyway, if this is, indeed the case, then the 22kHz brick-wall top end limit on CD does not extend high enough. On a personal note, I always thought that CD sounded wrong, and I've never been able to put my finger on it, but I always enjoyed LP (at it's best) than I have enjoyed CD (at it's best). The advantages of CD finally have won me over (no wow/flutter, surface noise. deteriorating quality with every play, no LP "rituals" to go through, etc.), But when I play an especially nice LP, I am reminded of CDs sonic drawbacks. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
George Graves wrote:
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 16:41:36 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): If a CD player offers flat frequency response from 20 Hz to 20 kHz, with 90 dB of dynamic range...why bother indeed? ___ Because there are considerations OTHER than just frequency response and dynamic range which make-up the recording/playback of music. OTOH, it has been found through various university (as well as the seminal Bell Telephone Labs tests) which indicate that people think reproduced music sounds more lifelike when the frequency response extends beyond 20 KHz (why this would be, I don't pretend to know. Do you pretend to know what the actual references might be? I'm particularly interested in reading the 'seminal' Bell Labs work. Btw, if you're referring to the fact that the very young, and *rare* adults, can hear out to ~24 kHz, that's not news. Usually the signal that far up has to be pretty loud to be heard, though. And if your'e referring to the work of Oohashi et al., you can find discussion of its problems around the interwebs, as well as previously on this newsgroup. Most adults don't have very good HF hearing and most baby boomers hearing is even worse from listening to loud Rock-n-Roll most of our lives. Perhaps humans can "feel" the highs). Or perhaps they can't hear them at all. Anyway, if this is, indeed the case, then the 22kHz brick-wall top end limit on CD does not extend high enough. Indeed, *if* this is the case. However, the extant evidence is that most people can't hear beyond 20 kHz (if that). And of course we dont' hear 'the same' at all frequencies, our hearing at that extreme range being rather attenuated even when present. On a personal note, I always thought that CD sounded wrong, and I've never been able to put my finger on it, but I always enjoyed LP (at it's best) than I have enjoyed CD (at it's best). Not necessarily a mystery. It could just be you enjoy the distortion that LP adds to recordings. The advantages of CD finally have won me over (no wow/flutter, surface noise. deteriorating quality with every play, no LP "rituals" to go through, etc.), But when I play an especially nice LP, I am reminded of CDs sonic drawbacks. Do you honestly, for one second, believe that an LP's frequency response is 'flat' even to 20 khz, as CD's is? ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"George Graves" wrote in message
... On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 16:41:36 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): If a CD player offers flat frequency response from 20 Hz to 20 kHz, with 90 dB of dynamic range...why bother indeed? ___ Because there are considerations OTHER than just frequency response and dynamic range which make-up the recording/playback of music. All known measurements net out to be measurements of either frequency response, phase response, or dynamic range or some combination thereof. For example, jitter causes degradation of dynamic range by adding sidebands. All known forms of nonlinear distortion causes degradation of dynamic range by adding sidebands. etc., etc. OTOH, it has been found through various university (as well as the seminal Bell Telephone Labs tests) which indicate that people think reproduced music sounds more lifelike when the frequency response extends beyond 20 KHz Some cites of this would be interesting, as the opposite has been found to be true many times. (why this would be, I don't pretend to know. Most adults don't have very good HF hearing and most baby boomers hearing is even worse from listening to loud Rock-n-Roll most of our lives. Perhaps humans can "feel" the highs). Anyway, if this is, indeed the case, then the 22kHz brick-wall top end limit on CD does not extend high enough. It has been demonstrated many times that a 22 KHz brick wall filter has no audible effects. These demonstrations have included sources with far wider bandwidth than 22 KHz, played on systems with far wider bandwidth than 22 KHz. The alternative to the 22 KHz brick wall filter was something like a short straight wire, or even less degradation than that. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Jul 23, 6:57 pm, RalphH wrote:
Can someone point me to website that offers hi res (16/44 or higher) recordings for download? Thanks You can find hi res recordings for download at Linn Records, an example is http://www.linnrecords.com//recordin...oned-love.aspx Starting from this point you can find more. Uli |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Btw, if you're referring to the fact that the very young, and *rare* adults, can hear out to ~24 kHz, that's not news. Usually the signal that far up has to be pretty loud to be heard, though. Being able to hear a test tone at 24 KHz is far easier than to hear the removal of all sounds above 22 KHz because of masking. One rule of concurrent masking is that the strongest tone in a given critical band will reduce or eliminate the perception of weaker tones in the same band. The highest critical band of the human ear covers the range of something like 15 to 20 KHz (this varies with the listener - younger, and smaller people shift this a bit higher). Most music contains far less energy at higher frequencies, so that top critical band is very likely to be controlled by sounds at its lower end. That means that absence or presence of sounds at the upper end is very likely to be masked. In practice, a brick wall filter as low as 16 KHz is likely to not be detected with just about all music. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 16:13:45 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): George Graves wrote: On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 16:41:36 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): If a CD player offers flat frequency response from 20 Hz to 20 kHz, with 90 dB of dynamic range...why bother indeed? ___ Because there are considerations OTHER than just frequency response and dynamic range which make-up the recording/playback of music. OTOH, it has been found through various university (as well as the seminal Bell Telephone Labs tests) which indicate that people think reproduced music sounds more lifelike when the frequency response extends beyond 20 KHz (why this would be, I don't pretend to know. Do you pretend to know what the actual references might be? I'm particularly interested in reading the 'seminal' Bell Labs work. Btw, if you're referring to the fact that the very young, and *rare* adults, can hear out to 24 kHz, that's not news. Usually the signal that far up has to be pretty loud to be heard, though. And if your'e referring to the work of Oohashi et al., you can find discussion of its problems around the interwebs, as well as previously on this newsgroup. Most adults don't have very good HF hearing and most baby boomers hearing is even worse from listening to loud Rock-n-Roll most of our lives. Perhaps humans can "feel" the highs). Or perhaps they can't hear them at all. Perhaps not. Anyway, if this is, indeed the case, then the 22kHz brick-wall top end limit on CD does not extend high enough. Indeed, *if* this is the case. However, the extant evidence is that most people can't hear beyond 20 kHz (if that). And of course we dont' hear 'the same' at all frequencies, our hearing at that extreme range being rather attenuated even when present. On a personal note, I always thought that CD sounded wrong, and I've never been able to put my finger on it, but I always enjoyed LP (at it's best) than I have enjoyed CD (at it's best). Not necessarily a mystery. It could just be you enjoy the distortion that LP adds to recordings. Yes, but whatever the case, the best LPs can sound more like my recollection of real music and elicit more of an emotional connection with the music than does CD. The advantages of CD finally have won me over (no wow/flutter, surface noise. deteriorating quality with every play, no LP "rituals" to go through, etc.), But when I play an especially nice LP, I am reminded of CDs sonic drawbacks. Do you honestly, for one second, believe that an LP's frequency response is 'flat' even to 20 khz, as CD's is? No, of course not. LPs are mostly cut from analog tape recordings and professional analog tape recorders were generally only maintained to have a frequency response flat to 15KHz. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Aug 7, 9:39 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Btw, if you're referring to the fact that the very young, and *rare* adults, can hear out to ~24 kHz, that's not news. Usually the signal that far up has to be pretty loud to be heard, though. Being able to hear a test tone at 24 KHz is far easier than to hear the removal of all sounds above 22 KHz because of masking. One rule of concurrent masking is that the strongest tone in a given critical band will reduce or eliminate the perception of weaker tones in the same band. The highest critical band of the human ear covers the range of something like 15 to 20 KHz (this varies with the listener - younger, and smaller people shift this a bit higher). Most music contains far less energy at higher frequencies, so that top critical band is very likely to be controlled by sounds at its lower end. That means that absence or presence of sounds at the upper end is very likely to be masked. In practice, a brick wall filter as low as 16 KHz is likely to not be detected with just about all music. For that matter music contains nothing "musical" over 10khz. The highest tone producing instruments only produce fundamentals between 9 and 10 khz, anything above that is harmonic content, cymbals, etc. That whole top octave from 10k to 20k will never contain any musical "notes", just the harmonic overtone structure. One can be quite satisfied with a hearing test that proves they can only hear to 15k or 17k, as the mind fills in the overtones. But I still cant stand the thought of buying compressed music since I can compress it myself anyway. And you know a good recording when you hear it. Bad recordings are due mostly to bad recording engineers, and compression that flattens everything to sound like it's in your face, that has little to do with freq response range. If an engineer knows his product is targeting hi-res formats or if the market finally begins to offer uncompressed CD downloads then I would assume that for jazz and classical at least, producers would let up on all the compression crap. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On 8 Aug 2007 02:39:17 GMT, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
The highest critical band of the human ear covers the range of something like 15 to 20 KHz (this varies with the listener - younger, and smaller people shift this a bit higher). I could hear up to 24 kHz when I was 35 years old. Now at 53 years it's at least 20 kHz. I don't know the exact limit for now. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On 7 Aug 2007 23:15:04 GMT, Arny Krueger wrote:
Some cites of this would be interesting, as the opposite has been found to be true many times. I can hear pure tones up to about 18kHz, but I've found that I can't hear the effect of a "brick wall" filter on music above about 14kHz. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
George Graves wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 16:13:45 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote Not necessarily a mystery. It could just be you enjoy the distortion that LP adds to recordings. Yes, but whatever the case, the best LPs can sound more like my recollection of real music and elicit more of an emotional connection with the music than does CD. Speaking of emotional connection..did you grow up in the LP era, perhaps? And if analog recording/LP mastering signal chains were only expected to be high-fidelity up to 15 kHz, as you suggest, why would the sample rate of CD, which offers hi-fi frequency response all the way to 20 kHz, be considered 'lacking' in any way by comparison? ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
Ken wrote:
On 8 Aug 2007 02:39:17 GMT, "Arny Krueger" wrote: The highest critical band of the human ear covers the range of something like 15 to 20 KHz (this varies with the listener - younger, and smaller people shift this a bit higher). I could hear up to 24 kHz when I was 35 years old. Now at 53 years it's at least 20 kHz. I don't know the exact limit for now. test your hearing up to 16 kHz http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/hearing.html or past 20 kHz http://ff123.net/sweep.html or for harmonics 14 kHz http://ff123.net/hearing2.html or brickwall filters at several frequencies http://ff123.net/mustang.html test your ability to hear differences in musical samples http://www.jakemandell.com/tonedeaf/ in all cases, mileage may vary due to selection of headphones and soundcards and listening environment, as well as physiology. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
Michael Warner wrote:
On 7 Aug 2007 23:15:04 GMT, Arny Krueger wrote: Some cites of this would be interesting, as the opposite has been found to be true many times. I can hear pure tones up to about 18kHz, but I've found that I can't hear the effect of a "brick wall" filter on music above about 14kHz. welcome to the wonderful world of psychoacoustics (specifically: masking) -- ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 19:51:38 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): George Graves wrote: On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 16:13:45 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote Not necessarily a mystery. It could just be you enjoy the distortion that LP adds to recordings. Yes, but whatever the case, the best LPs can sound more like my recollection of real music and elicit more of an emotional connection with the music than does CD. Speaking of emotional connection..did you grow up in the LP era, perhaps? Yep, sure did. Tube era too. Of course, today's tube circuitry is much better than the stuff I grew up with, but I still appreciate the warmth and realism of a tube amp's midrange and top. Right now, I've the best of both worlds. VTL-140 tube monoblocs powering my Martin Logan Aeon-i electrostatic panels, a pair of Denon POA6600A class 'A' solid state monoblocks on the M-L's cone drivers and a pair of Sunfire sub-wooffers on the bottom. And if analog recording/LP mastering signal chains were only expected to be high-fidelity up to 15 kHz, as you suggest, why would the sample rate of CD, which offers hi-fi frequency response all the way to 20 kHz, be considered 'lacking' in any way by comparison? I didn't say that they were, and I didn't mean to give the impression that the above was what I meant. All I said is that some research done in 30's 40's and 50's indicated that supersonic performance affected people's perceptions of music. I'm merely postulating possible reasons why CD sounds so dead compared to LP and SACD here, I am not an expert in human hearing, I just know that LP (and SACD) provide me with more musical pleasure than do 16-bit/44.1 KHz CDs. I'd love to know why - and no, it's not my imagination. As you say, LP is subject to lots of distortions that are absent in CD, but at it's best, LP's distortions seem to be more consonant (to me) with the sound of the real thing and that's where my interest in hi-fi has always been. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
George Graves wrote:
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 19:51:38 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): George Graves wrote: On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 16:13:45 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote Not necessarily a mystery. It could just be you enjoy the distortion that LP adds to recordings. Yes, but whatever the case, the best LPs can sound more like my recollection of real music and elicit more of an emotional connection with the music than does CD. Speaking of emotional connection..did you grow up in the LP era, perhaps? Yep, sure did. Tube era too. Of course, today's tube circuitry is much better than the stuff I grew up with, but I still appreciate the warmth and realism of a tube amp's midrange and top. said 'warmth and realism' is likely due to distortion. And if analog recording/LP mastering signal chains were only expected to be high-fidelity up to 15 kHz, as you suggest, why would the sample rate of CD, which offers hi-fi frequency response all the way to 20 kHz, be considered 'lacking' in any way by comparison? I didn't say that they were, and I didn't mean to give the impression that the above was what I meant. All I said is that some research done in 30's 40's and 50's indicated that supersonic performance affected people's perceptions of music. Cites? I've don't recall seen such research cited in the few papers I've read on human hearing beyond 20 kHz. I'm merely postulating possible reasons why CD sounds so dead compared to LP and SACD here, To some. Certainly not to me. I am not an expert in human hearing, I just know that LP (and SACD) provide me with more musical pleasure than do 16-bit/44.1 KHz CDs. I'd love to know why - and no, it's not my imagination. As you say, LP is subject to lots of distortions that are absent in CD, but at it's best, LP's distortions seem to be more consonant (to me) with the sound of the real thing and that's where my interest in hi-fi has always been. Have you ever transferred an LP or SACD to 16/44.1 and done a comparison? ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 19:02:30 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): George Graves wrote: On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 19:51:38 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): George Graves wrote: On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 16:13:45 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote Not necessarily a mystery. It could just be you enjoy the distortion that LP adds to recordings. Yes, but whatever the case, the best LPs can sound more like my recollection of real music and elicit more of an emotional connection with the music than does CD. Speaking of emotional connection..did you grow up in the LP era, perhaps? Yep, sure did. Tube era too. Of course, today's tube circuitry is much better than the stuff I grew up with, but I still appreciate the warmth and realism of a tube amp's midrange and top. said 'warmth and realism' is likely due to distortion. So? The aim of High-Fidelity is to make the music sound REAL in one's listen room. If it takes certain kinds of distortion to achieve that illusion, then I'm all for it. And if analog recording/LP mastering signal chains were only expected to be high-fidelity up to 15 kHz, as you suggest, why would the sample rate of CD, which offers hi-fi frequency response all the way to 20 kHz, be considered 'lacking' in any way by comparison? I didn't say that they were, and I didn't mean to give the impression that the above was what I meant. All I said is that some research done in 30's 40's and 50's indicated that supersonic performance affected people's perceptions of music. Cites? I've don't recall seen such research cited in the few papers I've read on human hearing beyond 20 kHz. I'm merely postulating possible reasons why CD sounds so dead compared to LP and SACD here, To some. Certainly not to me. You mean that you have not listened critically to good CDs of a classical symphony orchestra and noticed the lack of low-level detail and truncated ambience? Boy, I sure have. I am not an expert in human hearing, I just know that LP (and SACD) provide me with more musical pleasure than do 16-bit/44.1 KHz CDs. I'd love to know why - and no, it's not my imagination. As you say, LP is subject to lots of distortions that are absent in CD, but at it's best, LP's distortions seem to be more consonant (to me) with the sound of the real thing and that's where my interest in hi-fi has always been. Have you ever transferred an LP or SACD to 16/44.1 and done a comparison? Yep, CD anyway. NOT SACD. It "loses" something. I also have LPs and CDs of master tapes that I recorded (from Century Records). I have AB'd them against the master tape and while both sound different from the master tape, the LP always sounds more like the original live performance than either the CD or the master tape. I know it's distortion, but it's very euphonic distortion and I like it. I have a friend who has all Krell electronics through Wilson Audio WATT/Puppy 6s. The speakers are excellent, but his system is the driest, most clinically squeeky-clean audio system I've ever heard. It puts me in mind of listening to music in a stainless steel hospital operating theater or an ice cave. Cold, lifeless, ruthlessly analytical playback. He spent a lot of money on the system and loves it. He thinks its the pinnacle of high-fidelity playback. Me? I'd rather listen to an older friend's mono system consisting of a Heathkit WPA-2 preamp from 1954, a Heath 25 Watt Williamson power amp and a Quad original electrostatic speaker. Sure the speaker system has no bass, and no real highs, but there are times when his old AR turntable/arm and his recent Shure mono cartridge playing a mono London record of Vaughn William's symphony no. 5 sounds almost convincing (like listening through an open window). I never get that close to the music from my friend's Krell system. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"George Graves" wrote in message
I didn't say that they were, and I didn't mean to give the impression that the above was what I meant. All I said is that some research done in 30's 40's and 50's indicated that supersonic performance affected people's perceptions of music. I'm merely postulating possible reasons why CD sounds so dead compared to LP and SACD. Well, there is the cause of your difficulty George, CDs don't sound any different from LPs and SACDs that can be used to make them. There are any number of properly-done listening tests that have provided that result. As you say, LP is subject to lots of distortions that are absent in CD, Not only are they provided, but they are provided in audible amounts. but at it's best, LP's distortions seem to be more consonant (to me) with the sound of the real thing George I seriously doubt that you've ever heard the live real sounds that were used to create a LP that you are telling us is "consonant with the sound of the real thing". and that's where my interest in hi-fi has always been. So is mine. I do a goodly amount of live recording - I make 100's of live recordings of various types, various groups, various venues, various equipment setups, every year. That means that 100s of times every year I hear the actual live sounds that are used to make the recordings and the recordings themselves. Often in quick sucession, just minutes apart. Not only do I hear the recordings right after the live performance, but often I hear the audio signal coming out of the mic preamps used to make the recordings during the live performance. That is the first time that signal is large enough to monitor with any transducer, speaker or headphones. I seriously doubt that I've ever heard a post-microphone, pre- or post- recording signal that I would confuse with the live sound at my recording position, which is often front row, center. When people talk about life-like recordings, they are obviously using a lot of latitude in their judgement. The degradation involved with ordinary 16/44 coding, and quality electronics are trivial, in comparison. The reason is simple, well-known and generally agreed-upon. The sound quality of live sound changes every time the listener moves a few feet, particularly when starting out fairly close to the performers and the microphone(s) that pick up the sounds of the live performers. I'm never in the same place as the microphones. I'm always 10-20 or more feet away. What about the audience that are up to 100's of feet away? |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:32:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "George Graves" wrote in message I didn't say that they were, and I didn't mean to give the impression that the above was what I meant. All I said is that some research done in 30's 40's and 50's indicated that supersonic performance affected people's perceptions of music. I'm merely postulating possible reasons why CD sounds so dead compared to LP and SACD. Well, there is the cause of your difficulty George, CDs don't sound any different from LPs and SACDs that can be used to make them. There are any number of properly-done listening tests that have provided that result. As you say, LP is subject to lots of distortions that are absent in CD, Not only are they provided, but they are provided in audible amounts. but at it's best, LP's distortions seem to be more consonant (to me) with the sound of the real thing George I seriously doubt that you've ever heard the live real sounds that were used to create a LP that you are telling us is "consonant with the sound of the real thing". and that's where my interest in hi-fi has always been. So is mine. I do a goodly amount of live recording - I make 100's of live recordings of various types, various groups, various venues, various equipment setups, every year. I used to do a lot of live recording, Now I just go to a lot of live concerts. On my way to one tonight, in fact. And by "concert" I don't mean rock-n-roll either. This is a performance of a string quartet. That means that 100s of times every year I hear the actual live sounds that are used to make the recordings and the recordings themselves. Often in quick sucession, just minutes apart. Not only do I hear the recordings right after the live performance, but often I hear the audio signal coming out of the mic preamps used to make the recordings during the live performance. That is the first time that signal is large enough to monitor with any transducer, speaker or headphones. All of us who have a background in recordings do that. I seriously doubt that I've ever heard a post-microphone, pre- or post- recording signal that I would confuse with the live sound at my recording position, which is often front row, center. No one with any experience with live music would. When people talk about life-like recordings, they are obviously using a lot of latitude in their judgement. The degradation involved with ordinary 16/44 coding, and quality electronics are trivial, in comparison. I never said that they sounded "life-like", I said "more consonant with the sound of live music." No recording ever made sounds like the live performance. It simply cannot. The reason is simple, well-known and generally agreed-upon. The sound quality of live sound changes every time the listener moves a few feet, particularly when starting out fairly close to the performers and the microphone(s) that pick up the sounds of the live performers. I'm never in the same place as the microphones. I'm always 10-20 or more feet away. That's one reason. There is also a quality about live music that, with today's technology, anyway, cannot be captured. I doubt if it ever will be. What about the audience that are up to 100's of feet away? It sounds different from front-row center, that's for sure. They are hearing more reflected sound and more room ambience than does front-row center. But they are still hearing live music and they can recognize it as such. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
George Graves wrote:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 19:02:30 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): George Graves wrote: On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 19:51:38 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): George Graves wrote: On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 16:13:45 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote Not necessarily a mystery. It could just be you enjoy the distortion that LP adds to recordings. Yes, but whatever the case, the best LPs can sound more like my recollection of real music and elicit more of an emotional connection with the music than does CD. Speaking of emotional connection..did you grow up in the LP era, perhaps? Yep, sure did. Tube era too. Of course, today's tube circuitry is much better than the stuff I grew up with, but I still appreciate the warmth and realism of a tube amp's midrange and top. said 'warmth and realism' is likely due to distortion. So? The aim of High-Fidelity is to make the music sound REAL in one's listen room. If it takes certain kinds of distortion to achieve that illusion, then I'm all for it. And if analog recording/LP mastering signal chains were only expected to be high-fidelity up to 15 kHz, as you suggest, why would the sample rate of CD, which offers hi-fi frequency response all the way to 20 kHz, be considered 'lacking' in any way by comparison? I didn't say that they were, and I didn't mean to give the impression that the above was what I meant. All I said is that some research done in 30's 40's and 50's indicated that supersonic performance affected people's perceptions of music. Cites? I've don't recall seen such research cited in the few papers I've read on human hearing beyond 20 kHz. I'm merely postulating possible reasons why CD sounds so dead compared to LP and SACD here, To some. Certainly not to me. You mean that you have not listened critically to good CDs of a classical symphony orchestra and noticed the lack of low-level detail and truncated ambience? Boy, I sure have. Boy, the people who record and produce classical music sure must be one the wrong track, then. They're the ones who most fervently embraced digital recording and production in the first place,seeing it as a godsend from the inherent distortions of analog. And that recording community continues to favor digital. If you are hearing 'truncated ambience' and a lack of low-level detail, then you must be listening to very badly dithered recordings. Because certainly anything 'better' in those areas that you can hear on an LP, can be captured on digitally, just by piping the analog output of the preamp, to a decent digital recorder. I am not an expert in human hearing, I just know that LP (and SACD) provide me with more musical pleasure than do 16-bit/44.1 KHz CDs. I'd love to know why - and no, it's not my imagination. As you say, LP is subject to lots of distortions that are absent in CD, but at it's best, LP's distortions seem to be more consonant (to me) with the sound of the real thing and that's where my interest in hi-fi has always been. Have you ever transferred an LP or SACD to 16/44.1 and done a comparison? Yep, CD anyway. NOT SACD. It "loses" something. It shouldn't. Ever done the comparisons blind? I also have LPs and CDs of master tapes that I recorded (from Century Records). I have AB'd them against the master tape and while both sound different from the master tape, the LP always sounds more like the original live performance than either the CD or the master tape. I know it's distortion, but it's very euphonic distortion and I like it. It's rather hard to compare a master tape, much less the LP or Cd made from it, to the original performance, in any fair way. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
"George Graves" wrote in message
... On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 19:02:30 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): snipped Cites? I've don't recall seen such research cited in the few papers I've read on human hearing beyond 20 kHz. I'm merely postulating possible reasons why CD sounds so dead compared to LP and SACD here, To some. Certainly not to me. You mean that you have not listened critically to good CDs of a classical symphony orchestra and noticed the lack of low-level detail and truncated ambience? Boy, I sure have. This is very surprising as low-level detail and ambiance are usually below surface noise on an LP whilst clearly audible on a CD. Reverberation tails go into silence on CD whereas they go into noise on LP. CD sounds dead compared to LPs as CD doesn't have the high harmonic distortion of LP (even the best cartridges have 1-3% distortion), CD doesn't have the reflective vinyl coloration due to audio feedback into the replay system, and the internal reflections of the stylus motion. CD doesn't have the background noise due to the ultimately granular nature of the Vinyl itself, and CD doesn't have the comforting impulsive noise of the LP. Wow and flutter, rumble and frequency response anomalies, especially in the extreme bass and treble also make LP "special" although these should be sufficiently low in proper vinyl replay equipment not to be an issue. Nevertheless, it is a credit to the inventors and developers of vinyl replay, and to our willingness to suspend disbelief that LPs are capable of as much pleasure as they clearly are. S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
High resolution Recording available on line?
On Aug 10, 6:31 pm, George Graves wrote:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 19:02:30 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): ......... Yep, CD anyway. NOT SACD. It "loses" something. I also have LPs and CDs of master tapes that I recorded (from Century Records). I have AB'd them against the master tape and while both sound different from the master tape, the LP always sounds more like the original live performance than either the CD or the master tape. I know it's distortion, but it's very euphonic distortion and I like it. ........ I wonder if you could detail just how you recorded your CD from analog. What type of soundcard, computer, phono pre-amp connected to the turntable etc. Did you use the soundcards highest sample rate, like 96 Khz, then sample down and use dither to make the final 44.1/16 CD? What format were you saving the file in? Things like that. I beleive that, just like analog and digital audio, digital audio workstations need the right combination of hardware and software to produce great results. CD |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FS: SDAT SB-E850 w/Vifa PL27TG-35-06 High Resolution Tweeter Upgrade | Marketplace | |||
Nesa one high resolution audio ologram | High End Audio | |||
The nesa one high resolution analogue matrix surround | High End Audio | |||
Q: Very High Resolution Microphones | Pro Audio | |||
FA: DH Labs Silver Sonic Q-10 high resolution loudspeaker cable | Marketplace |