[RalphH]

Can someone point me to website that offers hi res (16/44 or higher)
recordings for download?

Thanks

[windcrest]

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.

[bob]

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.

[bob]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Jean]

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

[George Graves]

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.

[Steven Sullivan]

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

[bob]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[George Graves]

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.

[George Graves]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[George Graves]

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.

[George Graves]

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.

[Codifus]

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

[George Graves]

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!

[Steven Sullivan]

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

[Serge Auckland]

"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

[George Graves]

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.

[Steven Sullivan]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[[email protected]]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[George Graves]

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.

[windcrest]

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.

[Ken]

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.

[Michael Warner]

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.

[Steven Sullivan]

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

[Steven Sullivan]

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

[Steven Sullivan]

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

[George Graves]

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.

[Steven Sullivan]

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

[George Graves]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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?

[George Graves]

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.

[Steven Sullivan]

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

[Serge Auckland]

"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

[Codifus]

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