| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
will sound improve with a sacd player?
I am really happy with my current system. It is basically a NAD Cd
player, Golden Theater pre-amp and amp and Triangle speakers and a APEX dvd player wich I like because it plays everything and even converts NTSC to PAL. I am thinking of buying a universal SACD/DVD Audio but will like to know if it is a worthwhile buy. Questions: 1) If I was to buy some of the currente SACD/DVD Audio releases like Pink Floyd=B4s Dark Side... or Norah Jones, etc., will I hear a real difference? Will I say, wow! it justifies the bought, what an amazing incredible "new" sound? Or not? 2) Will it improve the sound I get on my DTS/DD movies and concertos I see on my regular DVD player? Thank you!! |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
I am really happy with my current system. It is basically a NAD Cd player, Golden Theater pre-amp and amp and Triangle speakers and a APEX dvd player wich I like because it plays everything and even converts NTSC to PAL. I am thinking of buying a universal SACD/DVD Audio but will like to know if it is a worthwhile buy. Questions: 1) If I was to buy some of the currente SACD/DVD Audio releases like Pink Floyd=B4s Dark Side... or Norah Jones, etc., will I hear a real difference? Will I say, wow! it justifies the bought, what an amazing incredible "new" sound? Or not? Very possibly, at least in some cases. A lot of the older recordings have been remastered for re-release, many of them for the better. 2) Will it improve the sound I get on my DTS/DD movies and concertos I see on my regular DVD player? Unlikely. One thing to recognize is that these new formats are not taking off, and will probably never constitute more than a couple of percent of all releases. On the other hand, universal players can be had for under $200 these days (I think). If you don't mind paying that price for hearing a little bit of music better, then it's worthwhile. bob |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 17 May 2005 02:41:32 GMT, wrote: I am really happy with my current system. It is basically a NAD Cd player, Golden Theater pre-amp and amp and Triangle speakers and a APEX dvd player wich I like because it plays everything and even converts NTSC to PAL. I am thinking of buying a universal SACD/DVD Audio but will like to know if it is a worthwhile buy. Questions: 1) If I was to buy some of the currente SACD/DVD Audio releases like Pink Floyd=B4s Dark Side... or Norah Jones, etc., will I hear a real difference? Will I say, wow! it justifies the bought, what an amazing incredible "new" sound? Or not? Probably - but that's because the new DSOTM is multi-channel, not because SACD is 'better' in any other respect. 2) Will it improve the sound I get on my DTS/DD movies and concertos I see on my regular DVD player? Marginally, but you have to be listening very closely, especially with DTS at high bitrates. If I understand his question correctly, he's asking whether he'll get better sound on movie soundtracks (and concert video DVDs) with a universal player than with a standard DVD-V player. Why would a universal player handle DD/DTS better? bob |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
This brings up an important side issue. I own about 80 SACDs and
DVD-As, and most of them sound wonderful. However, fact of the matter is, so do most of my remastered CDs (referring to CDs remastered in the past five or ten years or so). So, to expand on this guy's question, do you really think SACD and DVD-A are audibly better because of their higher bit rates, or are they better simply because they have been newly remastered? In the case of my surround-sound titles, the analog multitracks were first transferred to digital, then digitally mixed, then mastered. I figure anything given that kinda treatment is likely to sound pretty good. As a point of reference, I went back and listened to Hendrix's "Live at Winterland" the other day, which was recorded in 1968. The eight-track tapes were transferred to digital and mixed in 1987, and it was something of a landmark release at the time (it was one of the earliest "CD-only" releases and, as such, used the disk's full length). That title still sounds wonderful on red-book CD, and I'm assuming all the digital work was done at 16/44.1 or 16/48, nothing like what they can do today. Anyway, even though I support high-resolution digital (particularly SACD), I'm not convinced it's making a substantial difference. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Long Rod Penetrator" wrote in message
... This brings up an important side issue. I own about 80 SACDs and DVD-As, and most of them sound wonderful. However, fact of the matter is, so do most of my remastered CDs (referring to CDs remastered in the past five or ten years or so). So, to expand on this guy's question, do you really think SACD and DVD-A are audibly better because of their higher bit rates, or are they better simply because they have been newly remastered? In the case of my surround-sound titles, the analog multitracks were first transferred to digital, then digitally mixed, then mastered. I figure anything given that kinda treatment is likely to sound pretty good. As a point of reference, I went back and listened to Hendrix's "Live at Winterland" the other day, which was recorded in 1968. The eight-track tapes were transferred to digital and mixed in 1987, and it was something of a landmark release at the time (it was one of the earliest "CD-only" releases and, as such, used the disk's full length). That title still sounds wonderful on red-book CD, and I'm assuming all the digital work was done at 16/44.1 or 16/48, nothing like what they can do today. Anyway, even though I support high-resolution digital (particularly SACD), I'm not convinced it's making a substantial difference. Those are all good points. The best way I know to reach a judgment is to try to get as equivalent a recording as possible and two equivalent machines. Not very practical, but comparing the hybrid CD layer of say a Sony ES SACD player vs. the two channel SACD layer on an identical player, both fed into side by side analog inputs with average volumes matched, should work. Assuming you use SACD's that have the remix on both, which as I am sure you know, some do and some don't. Short of that we can only guess. I can say that when I first got my first SACD player (a Sony CS222ES) I deliberately sought out SACD's which had simple, classical two channel mixes that I already owned on LP, CD, pre-recorded tape, and sometimes two out of the three. Listened both casually and critically and took careful notes while in the latter mode.. Since my CD system using the SACD player and phonograph system have virtually identical timbral balance, they formed a good comparison. And the tape deck (an open reel Teac 4070) is flat from 35 to 20khz (measured) so it also sounded timbrally similar. Doing what comparisons I could, the SACD's came out very well....sense of ease and depth like LP's; better bass,dimensionality, and high-end smoothness than CD; and greater transparency and less 2nd harmonic distortion than tape (although the latter actually made taped voices sound a bit better). At this point I've stopped worrying about it. I tremendously enjoy classical and pop in multi-channel using both SACD and DVD-A, and the reissue of many old jazz classics on SACD in much better sound has been a tremendous blessing. Plus, the better sound has rekindled my flame to purchase music, and I have resumed a habit I last had in my twenties of buying more than I should every month. :-) |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was listening today to the recently remastered Heiftez/Munch
performances of the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos on RCA Hybrid SACD. ((P) 2004) Comparing CD and SACD layers: (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. I'm not sure how else to put it, except that there is a tactile quality to it -- listening through headphones. Especially on something like a timpani roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this apparent quality? (2) I have an impression somehow that SACD conveys attacks better--the starts of notes--they are better defined. Is there an objective basis for this impression? If SACD sounds better than CD (as I think it does), *why* does it sound better? I understand that SACD has a higher effective sampling rate (if I am right about that), but why does that make an audible difference? Is it a question of the artifacts caused by digital filters, as some have stated? (I am confused; I thought oversampling fixed that.) I skimmed through Ken Pohlmann's book on digital audio and I got some idea of why CD works well but didn't come away with a very good idea of why SACD should be perceivably better (quite possibly my fault, not his). I realize the topic of CD vs. SACD has been broached on this group before, but in my searches so far I've found more opinion than explanation, so I'm grateful to anyone who can point me in the right direction. (And to answer the question that I know will inevitably arise, no, I don't know if the CD layer on the Heifetz recording starts with an identical master to that on the SACD.... And to put my impressions in context,they are via Sennheiser HD-600, Sony DVP-NS500V DVD/SACD player, Bryston preamp, and Benchmark DAC-1. To be sure ... it sounds gorgeous either way.) Thanks, Mark |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
I was listening today to the recently remastered Heiftez/Munch performances of the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos on RCA Hybrid SACD. ((P) 2004) Comparing CD and SACD layers: (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. I'm not sure how else to put it, except that there is a tactile quality to it -- listening through headphones. Especially on something like a timpani roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this apparent quality? - different mastering on the two layers - different playback levels/EQ/circuitry for the two layers non-technological reason: - 'sighted' bias (2) I have an impression somehow that SACD conveys attacks better--the starts of notes--they are better defined. Is there an objective basis for this impression? If SACD sounds better than CD (as I think it does), *why* does it sound better? see above I understand that SACD has a higher effective sampling rate (if I am right about that), but why does that make an audible difference? There's precious little evidence that it does, at least for playback. Is it a question of the artifacts caused by digital filters, as some have stated? (I am confused; I thought oversampling fixed that.) I skimmed through Ken Pohlmann's book on digital audio and I got some idea of why CD works well but didn't come away with a very good idea of why SACD should be perceivably better (quite possibly my fault, not his). It's not surprising that SACD should be *perceived* as better, given how SACD has been marketed. However, the scientific evidence that they *are* audibly better, is indeed, hard to find. I realize the topic of CD vs. SACD has been broached on this group before, but in my searches so far I've found more opinion than explanation, so I'm grateful to anyone who can point me in the right direction. I would refer you also to Nika Aldrich's recent bookk, 'Understanding Digital Audio', which does have some treatment of SACD. -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
I was listening today to the recently remastered Heiftez/Munch performances of the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos on RCA Hybrid SACD. ((P) 2004) Comparing CD and SACD layers: (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. I'm not sure how else to put it, except that there is a tactile quality to it -- listening through headphones. Especially on something like a timpani roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this apparent quality? (2) I have an impression somehow that SACD conveys attacks better--the starts of notes--they are better defined. Is there an objective basis for this impression? If SACD sounds better than CD (as I think it does), *why* does it sound better? I understand that SACD has a higher effective sampling rate (if I am right about that), but why does that make an audible difference? Is it a question of the artifacts caused by digital filters, as some have stated? (I am confused; I thought oversampling fixed that.) I skimmed through Ken Pohlmann's book on digital audio and I got some idea of why CD works well but didn't come away with a very good idea of why SACD should be perceivably better (quite possibly my fault, not his). I realize the topic of CD vs. SACD has been broached on this group before, but in my searches so far I've found more opinion than explanation, so I'm grateful to anyone who can point me in the right direction. (And to answer the question that I know will inevitably arise, no, I don't know if the CD layer on the Heifetz recording starts with an identical master to that on the SACD.... And to put my impressions in context,they are via Sennheiser HD-600, Sony DVP-NS500V DVD/SACD player, Bryston preamp, and Benchmark DAC-1. To be sure ... it sounds gorgeous either way.) Thanks, Mark Probably you should do a simple test: let someone else change the player so that you don't know whether it is playing the CD or the SACD layer. Then you try to guess which layer is being played. If you are consistently correct, then you may have a valid point that those two layers sound different. The difference can still be caused by mastering, of course. So here are some technical differences between SACD and CD: (a) CD is basically hard-limited to 20 KHz or so. If you can hear above that, SACD can give me more information, asssuming of course there is information in the master tape. (b) Some SACD players actually have very large supersonic noise. That could cause problems in certain amplifiers. If you are listening to a preamp output through headphones, that probably should not be a problem. (c) A lot of players have different output levels for CD and for SACD, so level matching is very important in comparing the two layers. BTW, how do you set the levels? It sounds like you are using the external DAC to listen to CD and the Sony to listen to the SACD layer. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
Assuming you use SACD's that have the remix on both, which as I am sure you know, some do and some don't. Now there's another issue worthy of a tangential rant! Derek and the Dominos' classic "Layla" is a good example of the surround and stereo layers being sorely out-of-whack on SACD. Anyone familiar with the history of "Layla" knows that the original 1970 mix was just awful -- built-up tape noise was almost unbearable, and the bass was mixed hard-left. Subsequently, the multitracks were lost, and we were stuck with what we had. "Layla" became famous as the "great rock album with bad sound" (kinda like "Exile on Main Street"). But, alas, the tapes were re-discovered, and Bill Levenson remixed the entire album (and extras) in 1990, which was a *huge* improvement. In 2004 they reissued "Layla" on hybrid surround SACD, and it sounds wonderful! Hard to believe the same tapes yielded this kind of eveloping sound. Later, though, I played the new disk in my car and it was immediately obvious that the CD layer has the original noisy mix! So I went back inside and checked out the stereo SACD layer and . . . same thing! For the CD and SACD stereo layers, they remastered from the original master tape -- never mind that the mix sucked! Why couldn't they at least have used the 1990 remix? What were these people thinking? So, yeah, "some do and some don't." Don't I know it. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 24 May 2005 23:49:17 GMT, Mark DeBellis wrote:
I was listening today to the recently remastered Heiftez/Munch performances of the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos on RCA Hybrid SACD. ((P) 2004) Comparing CD and SACD layers: (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. I'm not sure how else to put it, except that there is a tactile quality to it -- listening through headphones. Especially on something like a timpani roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this apparent quality? Nothing, except that the mastering was almost certainly different on the SACD version. Apples and oranges. (2) I have an impression somehow that SACD conveys attacks better--the starts of notes--they are better defined. Is there an objective basis for this impression? Only the sighted bias that you *know* SACD has *potentially* wider bandwidth. OTOH, consider the fact that the ubiquitous large-capsule studio microphone rolls off at about 18kHz, so that its unlikely that the *master* tape actually contains anything outside the range of CD. If SACD sounds better than CD (as I think it does), *why* does it sound better? I understand that SACD has a higher effective sampling rate (if I am right about that), but why does that make an audible difference? SACD as a medium has wider bandwidth than CD, but the dynamic range at high frequencies is poorer than CD, and there's a shedload of ultrasonic noise for the amplifier to contend with. Some amps react badly to this, producing lots of audible IM distortion. Is it a question of the artifacts caused by digital filters, as some have stated? (I am confused; I thought oversampling fixed that.) Mostly, it did. I skimmed through Ken Pohlmann's book on digital audio and I got some idea of why CD works well but didn't come away with a very good idea of why SACD should be perceivably better (quite possibly my fault, not his). No, you seem to have grasped the essentials! :-) I realize the topic of CD vs. SACD has been broached on this group before, but in my searches so far I've found more opinion than explanation, so I'm grateful to anyone who can point me in the right direction. (And to answer the question that I know will inevitably arise, no, I don't know if the CD layer on the Heifetz recording starts with an identical master to that on the SACD.... And to put my impressions in context,they are via Sennheiser HD-600, Sony DVP-NS500V DVD/SACD player, Bryston preamp, and Benchmark DAC-1. To be sure ... it sounds gorgeous either way.) Well, that's the main thing! Note additionally that if it's an old Heifetz recording, it's terminally unlikely that there's anything above 20kHz on it anyway, so the *theoretical* advantage of SACD disappears. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
A SACD is supposed to give you the same quality of sound as a LP. I
found difference between regular CD vs LP all in favor of the LP. I compare a DVD-AUDIO with an Oracle Delphi and the Oracle still win except the difference where not as dramatic as with CD vs the Oracle. All the audio quality that was lost with CD is supposed to be there with SACD. The difference in sound that you noticed with this SACD is exactly what you will find if you compare a CD with a good (NOT JAPANESE) Turntable (LIKE ORACLE, LINN, CLEARAUDIO, ProJect) and a clean LP in good condition. The SACD is supposed to be finally the LP Killer that the CD promised (but was a sound killer instead). The CD If I am correct use PCM ( data is upsampled, recorded, and noise-filtered and downsampled. Again if I am correct SACD use DSD : Basically, it removed much of the filtering and downsampling, leaving a purer digital signal to be recorded. The encoding on the SACD is supposed to be lossless. So the sound that is playback is closer to the analog sound. Owners of Good turntable did'nt have any good reason (except convenience) to change to the CD. With SACD they are supposed to NOW have a good reason to switch. Personnaly I will have to try a SACD Player before deciding if I will switch. Bye Chung a écrit : Mark DeBellis wrote: I was listening today to the recently remastered Heiftez/Munch performances of the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos on RCA Hybrid SACD. ((P) 2004) Comparing CD and SACD layers: (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. I'm not sure how else to put it, except that there is a tactile quality to it -- listening through headphones. Especially on something like a timpani roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this apparent quality? (2) I have an impression somehow that SACD conveys attacks better--the starts of notes--they are better defined. Is there an objective basis for this impression? If SACD sounds better than CD (as I think it does), *why* does it sound better? I understand that SACD has a higher effective sampling rate (if I am right about that), but why does that make an audible difference? Is it a question of the artifacts caused by digital filters, as some have stated? (I am confused; I thought oversampling fixed that.) I skimmed through Ken Pohlmann's book on digital audio and I got some idea of why CD works well but didn't come away with a very good idea of why SACD should be perceivably better (quite possibly my fault, not his). I realize the topic of CD vs. SACD has been broached on this group before, but in my searches so far I've found more opinion than explanation, so I'm grateful to anyone who can point me in the right direction. (And to answer the question that I know will inevitably arise, no, I don't know if the CD layer on the Heifetz recording starts with an identical master to that on the SACD.... And to put my impressions in context,they are via Sennheiser HD-600, Sony DVP-NS500V DVD/SACD player, Bryston preamp, and Benchmark DAC-1. To be sure ... it sounds gorgeous either way.) Thanks, Mark Probably you should do a simple test: let someone else change the player so that you don't know whether it is playing the CD or the SACD layer. Then you try to guess which layer is being played. If you are consistently correct, then you may have a valid point that those two layers sound different. The difference can still be caused by mastering, of course. So here are some technical differences between SACD and CD: (a) CD is basically hard-limited to 20 KHz or so. If you can hear above that, SACD can give me more information, asssuming of course there is information in the master tape. (b) Some SACD players actually have very large supersonic noise. That could cause problems in certain amplifiers. If you are listening to a preamp output through headphones, that probably should not be a problem. (c) A lot of players have different output levels for CD and for SACD, so level matching is very important in comparing the two layers. BTW, how do you set the levels? It sounds like you are using the external DAC to listen to CD and the Sony to listen to the SACD layer. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message
... I was listening today to the recently remastered Heiftez/Munch performances of the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos on RCA Hybrid SACD. ((P) 2004) Comparing CD and SACD layers: (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. I'm not sure how else to put it, except that there is a tactile quality to it -- listening through headphones. Especially on something like a timpani roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this apparent quality? (2) I have an impression somehow that SACD conveys attacks better--the starts of notes--they are better defined. Is there an objective basis for this impression? That's not just an impression, it is now recognized as the truth. The SACD is the only digital hi-rez system that accurately reproduces a 3ms transient pulse. PCM "smears" the transient with pre-echo and ringing, and has a lot of that post-impulse as well. Except for 192khz PCM, the "time-smear" lasts longer than the known window of perception of human hearing, and so is theoretically audible. Many of us feel it is indeed audible and that it accounts for the slightly "artificial" quality of CD's when compared to SACD or 192khz PCM (which unfortunately very few producing DVD-A recordings actual include for reasons of space limitation). 96khz PCM falls somewhere in between CD and 192khz transient performance. Both SACD and DVD-A have a lower noise floor in the most audible section of the frequency response range, from about 100hz up to about 8khz. This, in combination with the superior transient response of SACD, is why the attack of instruments, particularly percussion and percussive instruments like the piano, xylophone, etc. sound very lifelike in SACD compared to CD and why they seem to have more "body". As you mention, even though the CD may sound identical on the surface after a very good remaster, if you listen carefully in the areas you mention you can hear the difference. On a CD that has been sloppily mastered (even if the mix is the same), the difference will be easily obvious because the compression and limiting will distort transient response even more. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Long Rod Penetrator" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: Assuming you use SACD's that have the remix on both, which as I am sure you know, some do and some don't. Now there's another issue worthy of a tangential rant! Derek and the Dominos' classic "Layla" is a good example of the surround and stereo layers being sorely out-of-whack on SACD. Anyone familiar with the history of "Layla" knows that the original 1970 mix was just awful -- built-up tape noise was almost unbearable, and the bass was mixed hard-left. Subsequently, the multitracks were lost, and we were stuck with what we had. "Layla" became famous as the "great rock album with bad sound" (kinda like "Exile on Main Street"). But, alas, the tapes were re-discovered, and Bill Levenson remixed the entire album (and extras) in 1990, which was a *huge* improvement. In 2004 they reissued "Layla" on hybrid surround SACD, and it sounds wonderful! Hard to believe the same tapes yielded this kind of eveloping sound. Later, though, I played the new disk in my car and it was immediately obvious that the CD layer has the original noisy mix! So I went back inside and checked out the stereo SACD layer and . . . same thing! For the CD and SACD stereo layers, they remastered from the original master tape -- never mind that the mix sucked! Why couldn't they at least have used the 1990 remix? What were these people thinking? So, yeah, "some do and some don't." Don't I know it. Unfortunately, that kind of "shortcut" behavior tends to associate with the major labels. The smaller labels and the more audiophile ones tend to take more care/have more real concern for audio quality IME. So it's a Hobson's choice manytimes: first rate talent and compromised sound, or unknown (and sometimes second-rate) talent and excellent sound. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 May 2005 23:56:22 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote: (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. ... Especially on something like a timpani roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this apparent quality? - different mastering on the two layers - different playback levels/EQ/circuitry for the two layers Is there an example of a recording (pref. classical) where it is known that the mastering is the same, that the EQ, mix, etc., are the same (if this makes sense), i.e., where the variables have been eliminated as much as possible, so that the comparison is between CD and SACD not other factors? Also ... can there be differences other than ones intrinsic to the formats that might affect the quality of recordings? I mean something like this--say: if the mastering is done a certain way it will result in higher quality, but it is difficult or expensive to transfer such a master to CD, whereas it is easier or cheaper to put on SACD. So it would turn out that in general SACDs would be better recordings, even though any particular master would sound the same on CD and SACD. In other words, it's conceivable that there are technical reasons why issuing on SACD could promote higher quality at other parts of the chain. Is that possible, or is it the case that, in fact, the other variables are independent (in terms of cost, convenience, etc.) of whether the final product is CD or SACD? Thanks Mark |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 May 2005 23:57:28 GMT, Chung wrote:
Probably you should do a simple test: let someone else change the player so that you don't know whether it is playing the CD or the SACD layer. Then you try to guess which layer is being played. BTW, how do you set the levels? It sounds like you are using the external DAC to listen to CD and the Sony to listen to the SACD layer. Thanks to Chung and Stewart for your replies. Yes, I use the DAC for the CD and listen to SACD via Sony-preamp headphone output. Chung, I like your idea of doing a simple test. I am going to try the following setup: I will rip CD to my computer, which sends a digital signal to the DAC, which in turn outputs to the preamp. I can then listen to either signal using the headphone jack on the preamp, and switch using the input knob. I can adjust the level either from the computer (I am using a Creative Audigy 2 NX sound card; I am not exactly sure what adjusting the volume actually does to a digital signal) or from the DAC. (Which is better? Does the setup I describe sound plausible?) I will match the levels by ear as best I can (is there any other practical way for me to do this?), and then report back. (I will ask someone else to control the input knob.) As an aside ... the thing that gets me about audio is that it is very hard to know what one is getting. I am annoyed at the hype and the fact that an expensive CD player may sound no different from an inexpensive one. My own personal preference would be for the inexpensive and accurate player (until someone gives me good reason to think that I ought to change my preferences). The catalog for one internet/mail-order company is filled with many, many tweaks, green pen type things, each of which purports to "improve soundstage," and the like. I don't know how they think they can retain credibility, if they care about that at all. I say they can't *all* be effective, that at least in most cases any perceived change is the result of expectation bias, and that the people who list them all in the catalog and promise great results for every one do not have much of a critical attitude to filter out the junk. And that is disappointing from a retailer. What I would like to see in this hobby is a greater amount of shared knowledge, and a realistic sense of what the actual, perceptually relevant differences there are in equipment so people can know what it is that they are choosing and why. Speaker cables are another example where I think I have wasted money. That is why I appreciate the efforts of many of you to replace hype with knowledge. Mark |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
p.s. I guess there is a simpler question related to what I have
already asked: why would a record company use different masters (EQ, etc.) for the CD and stereo SACD layers? It sure looks deceptive, because it will cause people to mistakenly attribute differences to SACD vs. CD, but maybe there are other reasons why they would use different masters? Thanks. Mark |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 25 May 2005 23:57:28 GMT, Chung wrote: Probably you should do a simple test: let someone else change the player so that you don't know whether it is playing the CD or the SACD layer. Then you try to guess which layer is being played. BTW, how do you set the levels? It sounds like you are using the external DAC to listen to CD and the Sony to listen to the SACD layer. Thanks to Chung and Stewart for your replies. Yes, I use the DAC for the CD and listen to SACD via Sony-preamp headphone output. Chung, I like your idea of doing a simple test. I am going to try the following setup: I will rip CD to my computer, which sends a digital signal to the DAC, which in turn outputs to the preamp. I can then listen to either signal using the headphone jack on the preamp, and switch using the input knob. I can adjust the level either from the computer (I am using a Creative Audigy 2 NX sound card; I am not exactly sure what adjusting the volume actually does to a digital signal) or from the DAC. If I understand you correctly, you are trying to adjust the volume by applying digital gain adjustments to the wave file that eventually gets streamed to the DAC. That does not work. Certainly not well. Any digital gain adjsutment will affect (probably adversely) the signal-to-noise ratio of the resulting output. One way to check level balance is to use your Audigy 2 NX to record the SACD and the CD layer outputs separately to your PC/laptop, then inspect the wave files and compare peak levels (or average levels). That tells you how different the two output levels are, and then you can match by marking the volume control knob on your preamp so that the two layers will play at the same level on your headphones. (Which is better? Does the setup I describe sound plausible?) I will match the levels by ear as best I can (is there any other practical way for me to do this?), and then report back. (I will ask someone else to control the input knob.) Like I said above, you can match level by inspecting the statistics of the .wav files. As an aside ... the thing that gets me about audio is that it is very hard to know what one is getting. I am annoyed at the hype and the fact that an expensive CD player may sound no different from an inexpensive one. My own personal preference would be for the inexpensive and accurate player (until someone gives me good reason to think that I ought to change my preferences). The catalog for one internet/mail-order company is filled with many, many tweaks, green pen type things, each of which purports to "improve soundstage," and the like. I don't know how they think they can retain credibility, if they care about that at all. I say they can't *all* be effective, that at least in most cases any perceived change is the result of expectation bias, and that the people who list them all in the catalog and promise great results for every one do not have much of a critical attitude to filter out the junk. And that is disappointing from a retailer. What I would like to see in this hobby is a greater amount of shared knowledge, and a realistic sense of what the actual, perceptually relevant differences there are in equipment so people can know what it is that they are choosing and why. Speaker cables are another example where I think I have wasted money. That is why I appreciate the efforts of many of you to replace hype with knowledge. Mark |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
p.s. I guess there is a simpler question related to what I have already asked: why would a record company use different masters (EQ, etc.) for the CD and stereo SACD layers? It sure looks deceptive, because it will cause people to mistakenly attribute differences to SACD vs. CD, but maybe there are other reasons why they would use different masters? Thanks. Mark You may want to read this Stereophile article: http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/ My guess is that they introduced the differences to make them sound a little different, so that the consumer does not feel disappointed that the SACD layer does not sound different. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jocelyn Major wrote:
A SACD is supposed to give you the same quality of sound as a LP. That would be terrible news!  You mean SACD has 60-70 dB dynamicrange, 15 KHz bandwidth on a good day, bass summed to mono, poor separation, etc? |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message ... I was listening today to the recently remastered Heiftez/Munch performances of the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos on RCA Hybrid SACD. ((P) 2004) Comparing CD and SACD layers: (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. I'm not sure how else to put it, except that there is a tactile quality to it -- listening through headphones. Especially on something like a timpani roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this apparent quality? (2) I have an impression somehow that SACD conveys attacks better--the starts of notes--they are better defined. Is there an objective basis for this impression? That's not just an impression, it is now recognized as the truth. Please provide data that SACD conveys attacks better in an audible way. You are confusing truth with impressions. To do a fair comparison, make sure the same master/mix is used, levels are matched, and that the CD layer is not intentionally degraded or processed differently (like different peak levels, noticeable clipping, etc.). Then do a a blind comparison. The SACD is the only digital hi-rez system that accurately reproduces a 3ms transient pulse. And please tell us the significance of accurately reproducing a 3ms transient pulse, in audio terms? PCM "smears" the transient with pre-echo and ringing, and has a lot of that post-impulse as well. Except for 192khz PCM, the "time-smear" lasts longer than the known window of perception of human hearing, and so is theoretically audible. Many of us feel it is indeed audible and that it accounts for the slightly "artificial" quality of CD's when compared to SACD or 192khz PCM (which unfortunately very few producing DVD-A recordings actual include for reasons of space limitation). So it's just that many of you feel that way, not a "truth". 96khz PCM falls somewhere in between CD and 192khz transient performance. Both SACD and DVD-A have a lower noise floor in the most audible section of the frequency response range, from about 100hz up to about 8khz. This, in combination with the superior transient response of SACD, is why the attack of instruments, particularly percussion and percussive instruments like the piano, xylophone, etc. sound very lifelike in SACD compared to CD and why they seem to have more "body". As you mention, even though the CD may sound identical on the surface after a very good remaster, if you listen carefully in the areas you mention you can hear the difference. On a CD that has been sloppily mastered (even if the mix is the same), the difference will be easily obvious because the compression and limiting will distort transient response even more. The really amazing thing to me is the vinyl rigs produce a really poor transient response, and yet some audiophiles wax poetic about how close SACD is to vinyl. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message
... On 25 May 2005 23:56:22 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. ... Especially on something like a timpani roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this apparent quality? - different mastering on the two layers - different playback levels/EQ/circuitry for the two layers Is there an example of a recording (pref. classical) where it is known that the mastering is the same, that the EQ, mix, etc., are the same (if this makes sense), i.e., where the variables have been eliminated as much as possible, so that the comparison is between CD and SACD not other factors? Many of the early Sony stereo, SACD-layer-only disks were direct lifts of the final two-track master (not the LP master). The sound identical in every detail and aspect because they are...other than to the intrinisic processing required for SACD. If you listen to an origianal LP or pre-recorded tape of these performances, you will hear the media differences rather than the mix differences. Most of the straight-DSD classical recordings of the last three years also mix to the same two channel mix for the hybrid CD layer and for the stereo SACD layer. They usually use a Meitner converter and can take a DSD or high-rez PCM out of the convertor. Of course the CD layer has to be down converted. Some would argue that they are subject to further manipulation, but the ones I have from Phillips seem to have identical dynamic range on both CD and SACD layer. Specific examples of the former on Columbia are the Szell/Rossini Overtures, the Ormandy/Verdi Requiem, and the Walter Beethoven Fifth. Specific examples of the latter are the Phillip's Fischer/Dvorak Symphonies 8 & 9 and the Fischer/Dvorak Slavonic Dances. Also ... can there be differences other than ones intrinsic to the formats that might affect the quality of recordings? I mean something like this--say: if the mastering is done a certain way it will result in higher quality, but it is difficult or expensive to transfer such a master to CD, whereas it is easier or cheaper to put on SACD. So it would turn out that in general SACDs would be better recordings, even though any particular master would sound the same on CD and SACD. In other words, it's conceivable that there are technical reasons why issuing on SACD could promote higher quality at other parts of the chain. Is that possible, or is it the case that, in fact, the other variables are independent (in terms of cost, convenience, etc.) of whether the final product is CD or SACD? Well, since much of the reason for being for SACD is better sound, in general the remix engineers and producers try to do a careful job. Usually this means going back to the origianl master tape (stereo or multitrack, rather than to the production masters as do many conventional reissues). Doing this and using modern technology often results in improved sound. And when it comes to new recordings, both DSD and 192/24 PCM recording beat anything that has gone before hands down for sound quality. You will hear this on CD as well, but not to the same extent as you will on SACD or DVD-A. Thanks Mark |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message
... On 25 May 2005 23:57:28 GMT, Chung wrote: Probably you should do a simple test: let someone else change the player so that you don't know whether it is playing the CD or the SACD layer. Then you try to guess which layer is being played. BTW, how do you set the levels? It sounds like you are using the external DAC to listen to CD and the Sony to listen to the SACD layer. Thanks to Chung and Stewart for your replies. Yes, I use the DAC for the CD and listen to SACD via Sony-preamp headphone output. Chung, I like your idea of doing a simple test. I am going to try the following setup: I will rip CD to my computer, which sends a digital signal to the DAC, which in turn outputs to the preamp. I can then listen to either signal using the headphone jack on the preamp, and switch using the input knob. I can adjust the level either from the computer (I am using a Creative Audigy 2 NX sound card; I am not exactly sure what adjusting the volume actually does to a digital signal) or from the DAC. (Which is better? Does the setup I describe sound plausible?) I will match the levels by ear as best I can (is there any other practical way for me to do this?), and then report back. (I will ask someone else to control the input knob.) If you are going to do this, pick several sections of music that your prior listening suggests reveal the difference, and listen to that section for each, at least 3-4 minutes. Don't worry about "comparing", just listen to what you hear. Then after you've switched a few times A to B, B to A...make your selection. The only thing that should change is what your friend starts with...keep the ABBA order the same (the reason is sometimes the change is more evident in one direction than the other). Wait a minute and a half between switches...this is very important as current research suggest s quicker switching does not allow the brain/emotions to adjust to clearly differentiate between samples using your whole brain. If you do this, each "test" will take about 20 minutes. Then take a ten-minut break between tests. You'll have to do 15 to 20 tests to have a good chance at statistical reliability, so you'll probably have to do this over several days. Then you'll have to supply statistics...how many tests done, how many correct in order to find out whether the results support a difference, or not (a "null"). If anybody here tries to convince you to test another way, do it if you want. But the reason I am stressing the above is because this kind of testing has been shown to differentiate, and most importantly, the testing (preliminarily, not yet confirmed) seems to reveal that the tratditional quick-switch testing is too rapid to allow the brain to adjust, and actually obscures results, rather than promoting true identification of differences. snip |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message
... p.s. I guess there is a simpler question related to what I have already asked: why would a record company use different masters (EQ, etc.) for the CD and stereo SACD layers? It sure looks deceptive, because it will cause people to mistakenly attribute differences to SACD vs. CD, but maybe there are other reasons why they would use different masters? They generally don't...it is cited as a strawman here by many who don't like the idea of SACD, but in reality you'll find the layers very similar, *unless* the company decides to take an older CD master and put it on the CD layer. This is usually done with pop and rock (presumably in the belief that buyers want to own the "original" as well as the high-rez), and is hardily ever done for classical or jazz. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 May 2005 23:57:28 GMT, Chung wrote:
Probably you should do a simple test: let someone else change the player so that you don't know whether it is playing the CD or the SACD layer. Then you try to guess which layer is being played. If you are consistently correct, then you may have a valid point that those two layers sound different. The difference can still be caused by mastering, of course. First of all: when I set things up I was suprised that the sounds were so close. I was expecting there to be more of a difference. The material was about a minute's worth of the first mvt. of the Beethoven (about 3:00-4:00), prominently featuring solo violin (Heifetz recording of the concerto). This is how I ran the test: We started with a neutral position on the input knob with no sound. Then my wife randomly selected either CD or SACD. I listened for a few seconds, then asked her to switch to the other one. I asked her to switch back and forth (the number of times varied). Eventually I attempted to say which source I was currently hearing. (Hence, my choice is what determined which source was the last one to play, and which I labelled.) She immediately told me if my guess was right or wrong. Each of those things constituted a trial, and we ran 11 trials (before she couldn't take it any more). There was no way to tell by clicks on the input knob which one was selected. I matched levels by ear prior to the test as best I could. Earlier today I spent some time (20 mins.) trying to "learn" what each sounded like, and I did a little of that right before the test. Here's the raw data, showing the source that was playing when I applied the label, the label I applied, and whether I was right or not: TRIAL SOURCE GUESS SUCCESS 1. SACD CD no 2. SACD CD no 3. SACD SACD yes 4. SACD SACD yes 5. SACD CD no 6. CD SACD no 7. CD CD yes 8. SACD CD no 9. SACD CD no 10. SACD CD no 11. SACD CD no The data speaks for itself, but I find the following interesting: 7 out of 11 times, I thought I was hearing the CD but actually was hearing the SACD. One possible explanation: there is a difference between the two, and on my equipment the CD sounds better, but I expected the SACD to sound better so I labelled the better-sounding one as SACD? (I was not consciously thinking of either as "better," though, just trying to label them correctly.) Does the outcome suggest something other than chance, anyway (even though it obviously indicates that I can't label the sources reliably)? Here is what I now believe: I am not prepared to abandon immediately the idea that SACD sounds better. But clearly skepticism is in order, because based on how things seemed to me beforehand, I thought that it would be easy to get 100% (right) on this test. I had the impression of a clear perceptual difference over which I had as much control as, say, the colors of oranges vs. bananas. But if there is a difference, it is much subtler than it appeared it would be. Now I am going to go back to my stereo and listen for pleasure. To SACD, of course :-) Thank you again, Chung, for suggesting this; it was interesting and I am sure there is much I can learn from it. Mark |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 25 May 2005 23:56:22 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. ... Especially on something like a timpani roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this apparent quality? - different mastering on the two layers - different playback levels/EQ/circuitry for the two layers Is there an example of a recording (pref. classical) where it is known that the mastering is the same, that the EQ, mix, etc., are the same (if this makes sense), i.e., where the variables have been eliminated as much as possible, so that the comparison is between CD and SACD not other factors? Even if you could be sure of equal recording chains-- and the record here from layers that have been compared objecively is spotty -- you're still left with the second possibility -- that you CD/SACD player(s) don't output CD and SACD with the same bass management, EQ, output level. Isn't it odd, though, that the developers of SACD and DVD-A have never published any such trials...surely difference must be 'obvious' and the marketing value would have been great? Also ... can there be differences other than ones intrinsic to the formats that might affect the quality of recordings? I mean something like this--say: if the mastering is done a certain way it will result in higher quality, but it is difficult or expensive to transfer such a master to CD, whereas it is easier or cheaper to put on SACD. So it would turn out that in general SACDs would be better recordings, even though any particular master would sound the same on CD and SACD. In other words, it's conceivable that there are technical reasons why issuing on SACD could promote higher quality at other parts of the chain. Is that possible, or is it the case that, in fact, the other variables are independent (in terms of cost, convenience, etc.) of whether the final product is CD or SACD? Your scenario doesn't sound plausible to me, but how about this one: SACDs are hyped as sounding better than CDs, so record companies make sure that SACD remasters use the right source tapes, and are mastered carefully on good equipment. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
p.s. I guess there is a simpler question related to what I have already asked: why would a record company use different masters (EQ, etc.) for the CD and stereo SACD layers? It sure looks deceptive, because it will cause people to mistakenly attribute differences to SACD vs. CD, but maybe there are other reasons why they would use different masters? One tendency is to use more compression and other loudness-enhancing tricks on the CD layer, perhaps on the assumption that these will be played in cars. One example of this is Pink Floyd's 'Dark Side of the Moon' -- but even Telarc has admitted to the practice. I've always been intrigued by what could happen in a real DBT with such a comparison using layers that are different in this way...because the human tendency is to find the louder of two presentations to sound 'better'. Audiophile magazanes, AFAIK, have *never* reviewed SACD vs CD layers in blind fashion...the reviewer *always* knows which format he's hearing. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
I would refer you also to Nika Aldrich's recent bookk, 'Understanding Digital Audio', which does have some treatment of SACD. Correction -- the book is titled 'Digital Audio Explained' -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 26 May 2005 23:46:21 GMT, Jocelyn Major
wrote: A SACD is supposed to give you the same quality of sound as a LP. I certainly hope not!! I found difference between regular CD vs LP all in favor of the LP. I compare a DVD-AUDIO with an Oracle Delphi and the Oracle still win except the difference where not as dramatic as with CD vs the Oracle. That's simply a matter of personal preference, rather than any kind of 'quality' indicator. All the audio quality that was lost with CD is supposed to be there with SACD. The difference in sound that you noticed with this SACD is exactly what you will find if you compare a CD with a good (NOT JAPANESE) Turntable (LIKE ORACLE, LINN, CLEARAUDIO, ProJect) and a clean LP in good condition. Denon and Technics both made turntables as good as any you name, and significantly better than the overhyped Linn - which was generally used with Japanese arms and Japanese cartridges, and none the worse for that. Furthermore, differences between SACD and CD are extremely subtle, quite unlike the gross difference between either of those and vinyl. Don't believe everything you read in the hi-fi press! The SACD is supposed to be finally the LP Killer that the CD promised (but was a sound killer instead). The CD If I am correct use PCM ( data is upsampled, recorded, and noise-filtered and downsampled. That's not a description of PCM. PCM samples sound at a rate slightly more than twice the highest frequency of interest (22kHz for CD), stores the samples, and then reads them back via a DAC which has at its output a reconstruction filter. This filter is a match for the anti-aliasing filter at the input to the ADC, and simply ensures that nothing above 22kHz appears in the output signal. Noise shaping is only required in oversampled systems, where audio band dynamic range is traded for ultrasonic noise. DSD is simply an extreme example of oversampling, and uses a 1-bit system sampled at a couple of megaHertz and noise-shaped to achieve similar audio band dynamic range to a 16-bit system sampling at 44.1kHz. Sony have been using high-oversampling DACs in their CD players for many years, eventually clocking them at 45 MHz! Again if I am correct SACD use DSD : Basically, it removed much of the filtering and downsampling, leaving a purer digital signal to be recorded. The encoding on the SACD is supposed to be lossless. So the sound that is playback is closer to the analog sound. Utter garbage, and there's no reason whatever to suppose that DSD is 'purer' than PCM. Besides which, Sony were forced to drop DSD for recording, due to a fatal flaw in the 1-bit process, and now use what they call DSD Wide, which is simply another name for oversampled hybrid PCM, the same system that you'll find in most modern 24/192 DACs. Owners of Good turntable did'nt have any good reason (except convenience) to change to the CD. Sure they did - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much better bass response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion - essentially, the sound of the original master tape. Those aren't matters of convenience. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 25 May 2005 23:57:28 GMT, Chung wrote: Probably you should do a simple test: let someone else change the player so that you don't know whether it is playing the CD or the SACD layer. Then you try to guess which layer is being played. If you are consistently correct, then you may have a valid point that those two layers sound different. The difference can still be caused by mastering, of course. First of all: when I set things up I was suprised that the sounds were so close. I was expecting there to be more of a difference. The material was about a minute's worth of the first mvt. of the Beethoven (about 3:00-4:00), prominently featuring solo violin (Heifetz recording of the concerto). This is how I ran the test: We started with a neutral position on the input knob with no sound. Then my wife randomly selected either CD or SACD. I listened for a few seconds, then asked her to switch to the other one. I asked her to switch back and forth (the number of times varied). Eventually I attempted to say which source I was currently hearing. (Hence, my choice is what determined which source was the last one to play, and which I labelled.) She immediately told me if my guess was right or wrong. Each of those things constituted a trial, and we ran 11 trials (before she couldn't take it any more). There was no way to tell by clicks on the input knob which one was selected. I matched levels by ear prior to the test as best I could. Earlier today I spent some time (20 mins.) trying to "learn" what each sounded like, and I did a little of that right before the test. Here's the raw data, showing the source that was playing when I applied the label, the label I applied, and whether I was right or not: TRIAL SOURCE GUESS SUCCESS 1. SACD CD no 2. SACD CD no 3. SACD SACD yes 4. SACD SACD yes 5. SACD CD no 6. CD SACD no 7. CD CD yes 8. SACD CD no 9. SACD CD no 10. SACD CD no 11. SACD CD no The data speaks for itself, but I find the following interesting: 7 out of 11 times, I thought I was hearing the CD but actually was hearing the SACD. One possible explanation: there is a difference between the two, and on my equipment the CD sounds better, but I expected the SACD to sound better so I labelled the better-sounding one as SACD? (I was not consciously thinking of either as "better," though, just trying to label them correctly.) Does the outcome suggest something other than chance, anyway (even though it obviously indicates that I can't label the sources reliably)? Here is what I now believe: I am not prepared to abandon immediately the idea that SACD sounds better. But clearly skepticism is in order, because based on how things seemed to me beforehand, I thought that it would be easy to get 100% (right) on this test. I had the impression of a clear perceptual difference over which I had as much control as, say, the colors of oranges vs. bananas. But if there is a difference, it is much subtler than it appeared it would be. Now I am going to go back to my stereo and listen for pleasure. To SACD, of course :-) Thank you again, Chung, for suggesting this; it was interesting and I am sure there is much I can learn from it. Mark I can give me my anecdote, so take it with a grain of salt. I am familiar with the Muuray Perahia's excellent digital recording of Bach's Goldberg Varations. I bought the CD version first, and I have become quite familiar with it. I then bought a SACD player and one of the first discs I got was the same recording on SACD (not hybrid). The first time I listened to the SACD, I thought it sounded smoother (for lack of a better word). Then I listened to both again, paying attention to match levels as best I could. I found that the differences cannot be reliably detected at all. The two versions sounded surprisingly (at that time) similar. If someone were to randomly select the CD or SACD for me without my knowledge, I cannot tell which is being played. But I have also seen quite a bit of evidence that the layers can be substantially different, like what that Stereophile article described. Therefore, I believe that the average audiophile simply does not have the ability/tools/prerequisites to tell the performance of the two media apart. They can pick a preference, but that preference is not necessarily based on the accuracy of the technologies at all. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Mark DeBellis" wrote in message ... I was listening today to the recently remastered Heiftez/Munch performances of the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos on RCA Hybrid SACD. ((P) 2004) Comparing CD and SACD layers: (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. I'm not sure how else to put it, except that there is a tactile quality to it -- listening through headphones. Especially on something like a timpani roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this apparent quality? (2) I have an impression somehow that SACD conveys attacks better--the starts of notes--they are better defined. Is there an objective basis for this impression? That's not just an impression, it is now recognized as the truth. Please provide data that SACD conveys attacks better in an audible way. You are confusing truth with impressions. This is a well understood engineering phenomenon, Chung. It is not an extraordinary claim at all. And I just recently pointed out that pictures showing the comparison of the various media and media sampling rates were handed out at the ISOmic suite at HE2005. To do a fair comparison, make sure the same master/mix is used, levels are matched, and that the CD layer is not intentionally degraded or processed differently (like different peak levels, noticeable clipping, etc.). Then do a a blind comparison. The ISOmic work was done with exactly the same 4ms pulse, so the response differences were obvious. I just recently ran across a commentary by Jean Jarre (but can't remember where and can't lay my hands on it). He will only record at 192/24. He said they did level-matched bypass tests in the studio using white noise. Said 192/24 had barely perceptible difference, 96/24 was perceptibly different but not bad. 44.1/16 was atrocious and sounded nothing like the bypass signal With white noise, the only effect you would hear is the pulse effect I descibed. He discribed also listening to the "tails" of cymbal fade using the three media, and while the higher rates sounded like cymbals, the CD fades with a tsk-tsk-tsk-tsk sound. Said henceforth he will not release anything but DVD's and DVD-A. BTW in my experience, the sound of cymbals is probably the most consistent give-away of CD sound versu either SACD or DVD-A. The SACD is the only digital hi-rez system that accurately reproduces a 3ms transient pulse. And please tell us the significance of accurately reproducing a 3ms transient pulse, in audio terms? The "naturalness" of attack on all kinds of sounds. PCM "smears" the transient with pre-echo and ringing, and has a lot of that post-impulse as well. Except for 192khz PCM, the "time-smear" lasts longer than the known window of perception of human hearing, and so is theoretically audible. Many of us feel it is indeed audible and that it accounts for the slightly "artificial" quality of CD's when compared to SACD or 192khz PCM (which unfortunately very few producing DVD-A recordings actual include for reasons of space limitation). So it's just that many of you feel that way, not a "truth". It's a physical truth. Whether it bothers you audibly probably varies person to person. To me, it has always been an annoying feature of so-called "CD sound". 96khz PCM falls somewhere in between CD and 192khz transient performance. Both SACD and DVD-A have a lower noise floor in the most audible section of the frequency response range, from about 100hz up to about 8khz. This, in combination with the superior transient response of SACD, is why the attack of instruments, particularly percussion and percussive instruments like the piano, xylophone, etc. sound very lifelike in SACD compared to CD and why they seem to have more "body". As you mention, even though the CD may sound identical on the surface after a very good remaster, if you listen carefully in the areas you mention you can hear the difference. On a CD that has been sloppily mastered (even if the mix is the same), the difference will be easily obvious because the compression and limiting will distort transient response even more. The really amazing thing to me is the vinyl rigs produce a really poor transient response, and yet some audiophiles wax poetic about how close SACD is to vinyl. I think it is more that they don't screw up the transients the way low-sample-rate digital does, which bears no resemblance to anything in the natural world. There is no "pre-echo" in the natural world. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 26 May 2005 23:46:21 GMT, Jocelyn Major wrote: snip Utter garbage, and there's no reason whatever to suppose that DSD is 'purer' than PCM. Besides which, Sony were forced to drop DSD for recording, due to a fatal flaw in the 1-bit process, and now use what they call DSD Wide, which is simply another name for oversampled hybrid PCM, the same system that you'll find in most modern 24/192 DACs. How many times you going to repeat this canard? Sony's commercial recording always used the "wide" version...from the very beginning they claim. The single-bit claim is a consumer, decoding claim. Moreover, the critics who made the claim have subsequently retracted the criticism. Listen to the Phillips Fischer recordings done pure DSD in 1998 and 1999....do they sound "flawed" to you. They are generally acknowledged to be among the better-sounding recordings out on SACD. Owners of Good turntable did'nt have any good reason (except convenience) to change to the CD. Sure they did - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much better bass response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion - essentially, the sound of the original master tape. Those aren't matters of convenience. Most will acknowledge they welcomed fewer clicks and pops. But the better bass response and freedom from wow and flutter are very marginal improvements, as the deficiencies in practice were not that great. BTW, to the latter point I again pulled out a random solo piano disk today....Rubenstein's "My Favorite Chopin". Listened critically a few times for Chung's ever-present "wow and flutter"....and heard none. Greatly enjoyed the recording. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 27 May 2005 21:09:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
If you are going to do this, pick several sections of music that your prior listening suggests reveal the difference, and listen to that section for each, at least 3-4 minutes. ... Thank you for the suggestion. I will try to do as you suggest. The main challenge will be finding someone to cooperate. I have already posted results on (what I regard as) a quick-switch test where I usually misidentified the source. I tried again today, using speakers and much longer excerpts (ca. 5-10 minutes), without switching back and forth, and I seem to be improving: SOURCE GUESS SUCCESS 1. SACD SACD yes 2. CD CD yes 3. SACD SACD yes 4. CD SACD no 5. CD CD yes 6. CD CD yes 7. CD SACD no (By CD, I really mean my computer outputting 16/44.1.) Subjectively it seemed to me that trial 4 was harder than the previous three. Anyway, two things occur to me: fatigue can be a factor in this, and toward the end, my memory for what SACD sounds like may not have been so good since there was a string of 4 CDs in a row. Is it better to refresh with a sighted exposure to both stimuli before each trial? Mark |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 27 May 2005 21:09:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
If you are going to do this, pick several sections of music that your prior listening suggests reveal the difference, and listen to that section for each, at least 3-4 minutes. Don't worry about "comparing", just listen to what you hear. Then after you've switched a few times A to B, B to A...make your selection. By "make your selection," do you mean say which one is which ... ? Because ... I realize this issue of testing has been discussed at great length, so thank you for your patience as I work my way up the learning curve ... so the following is probably a naive question, but anyway: why is it a requirement that one be able to reliably *identify* the things in question? If we're trying to disprove the hypothesis that the stimuli are sonically identical (so that any perceived difference is due to expectation bias), wouldn't it be sufficient to demonstrate that the subject exhibits a different response to one than to the other? That would be a weaker requirement than identification. So for example, suppose I set up my stereo to play either the SACD or the CD (at the same level), and on each trial I listen to the whole movement and I say how beautiful I thought the sound was on a scale from 1 to 10. If the average rating I give on the SACD trials is, over a large number of trials, different from the average on the CD trials, doesn't that show I am responding differently to the two, and that there is some difference I am reacting to? (If there is no difference, then wouldn't any disparity in the scores average out in the long run?) I wonder whether the protocol of listening to short snippets and trying to identify which source they are coming from might be comparable to the following: suppose I think that an original painting is more beautiful than a very good reproduction. You say, there is no difference; it's all expectation bias. To prove it, let's have me compare any given one-inch square of the original canvas with the corresponding square of the reproduction, on a quick-switch test. Sure enough ... I'll look at a given square and I won't be able to say reliably whether it comes from the original or the reproduction. Clearly, this is testing for the wrong thing. What has to be compared is the Gestalt of looking at the whole painting (vs. the reproduction), because what I am responding to as beautiful is the whole thing, not individual squares. The thing is that an identification test makes sense in the case of pictures, because if I look at the original, then immediately after that the reproduction, and then "X", if I can't tell which one X is then there probably is no difference. But in the case of music the relevant stimulus is something that takes up a length of time, because the aesthetic reaction is to a long stretch of music, not to individual notes, and it is impossible to hold a long stretch in memory in order to make a direct comparison. Any reaction to that, or note of obvious errors, is appreciated ... Mark |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 25 May 2005 23:57:28 GMT, Chung wrote: Probably you should do a simple test: let someone else change the player so that you don't know whether it is playing the CD or the SACD layer. Then you try to guess which layer is being played. If you are consistently correct, then you may have a valid point that those two layers sound different. The difference can still be caused by mastering, of course. First of all: when I set things up I was suprised that the sounds were so close. I was expecting there to be more of a difference. Here's what I got when I fed the 2-channel analog output of my DV-45a (with bass management off, output level set to 'fixed', delay settings the same for all channels) to an M-audio 2496 soundcard, capturing the audio to digital with Audition at 32 bits, with the SACD/CD layer versions of 'Street Fighting Man' (from Beggars's Banquet) by the Rolling Stones as source. Recording levels were chosen to avoid any chance of clipping, but were kept the same for SACD and CD. peak dB SACD -10.1 (left) -10.5 (right) peak dB CD -8.9 -9.0 avg dB SACD -25.2 -26.4 avg dB CD -23.7 -25.0 Dynamic range (dB): avg-peak SACD 15.1 15.9 avg-peak CD 14.8 16.0 So, from this, either the mastering is different, or my player outputs the two formats differently. When the files are normalized to peak = 0 dB , the differences become much smaller: peak CDrip 0.0 -0.1* peak SACD 0.0 -0.4 peak CD 0.0 -0.1 avg dB SACD -15.1 -16.3 avg dB CD -14.8 -16.1 avg dB CDrip -14.6 -16.0 DR SACD 15.1 15.9 DR CD 14.8 16.0 DR CDrip 14.6 15.9 *digital rip of CD version; not normalized since peak of rip = 0 dB for both channels |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 27 May 2005 21:09:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
If you are going to do this, pick several sections of music that your prior listening suggests reveal the difference, and listen to that section for each, at least 3-4 minutes. Don't worry about "comparing", just listen to what you hear. Then after you've switched a few times A to B, B to A...make your selection. The only thing that should change is what your friend starts with...keep the ABBA order the same (the reason is sometimes the change is more evident in one direction than the other). Wait a minute and a half between switches...this is very important as current research suggest s quicker switching does not allow the brain/emotions to adjust to clearly differentiate between samples using your whole brain. If you do this, each "test" will take about 20 minutes. Then take a ten-minut break between tests. Let's get this in proportion, Harry. *One* researcher, Oohashi, has come up with this theory, it has *not* been verified by other research teams, so it is, for the moment, speculation. It also flies in the face of decades of research which indicates that quick-switched tests are the most sensitive, so don't go making claims just yet. OTOH, threre's good reason to test this way, just to see if it *does* make a difference. Of course, he should *also* do some quick-switched 'snippet' testing to see if there's any meat on the bones of Oohashi's claims. You'll have to do 15 to 20 tests to have a good chance at statistical reliability, so you'll probably have to do this over several days. Then you'll have to supply statistics...how many tests done, how many correct in order to find out whether the results support a difference, or not (a "null"). Yup, getting to the truth is a tedious business, but hobbyists are notoriously obsessive. If anybody here tries to convince you to test another way, do it if you want. But the reason I am stressing the above is because this kind of testing has been shown to differentiate, and most importantly, the testing (preliminarily, not yet confirmed) seems to reveal that the tratditional quick-switch testing is too rapid to allow the brain to adjust, and actually obscures results, rather than promoting true identification of differences. Maybe so, maybe no. You need to try *both* methoids to find out which is more sensitive. I know where I'll place *my* bet. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
why is it a requirement that one be able to reliably *identify* the things in question? If we're trying to disprove the hypothesis that the stimuli are sonically identical (so that any perceived difference is due to expectation bias), wouldn't it be sufficient to demonstrate that the subject exhibits a different response to one than to the other? That would be a weaker requirement than identification. So for example, suppose I set up my stereo to play either the SACD or the CD (at the same level), and on each trial I listen to the whole movement and I say how beautiful I thought the sound was on a scale from 1 to 10. If the average rating I give on the SACD trials is, over a large number of trials, different from the average on the CD trials, doesn't that show I am responding differently to the two, and that there is some difference I am reacting to? (If there is no difference, then wouldn't any disparity in the scores average out in the long run?) You could do it that way. Psychoacoustics researchers generally don't do it that way, because they've found other methods that are both more efficient and more sensitive. There is an ill-informed anti-empiricist strain of audiophilia that rejects this, however. I wonder whether the protocol of listening to short snippets and trying to identify which source they are coming from might be comparable to the following: suppose I think that an original painting is more beautiful than a very good reproduction. You say, there is no difference; it's all expectation bias. No one would ever say this. Warning: visual analogies never work here. Ever. To prove it, let's have me compare any given one-inch square of the original canvas with the corresponding square of the reproduction, on a quick-switch test. No one would ever claim that looking at a one-inch square bit of a painting is an effective way of judging its beauty. You're proposal here is nonsensical. Sure enough ... I'll look at a given square and I won't be able to say reliably whether it comes from the original or the reproduction. Clearly, this is testing for the wrong thing. What has to be compared is the Gestalt of looking at the whole painting (vs. the reproduction), because what I am responding to as beautiful is the whole thing, not individual squares. The thing is that an identification test makes sense in the case of pictures, because if I look at the original, then immediately after that the reproduction, and then "X", if I can't tell which one X is then there probably is no difference. But in the case of music the relevant stimulus is something that takes up a length of time, Depends on what you're listening for. If you're trying to judge the overall quality of a musical composition/performance, then of course you need to listen to the whole thing. But if you're trying to compare two audio reproduction systems, it can be much more effective to listen to and immediately compare much shorter snippets of sounds, particularly sounds that are notoriously challenging to reproduce. This isn't speculation. It's settled science among those who study human perception for a living. It's only rejected by the anti-empiricist fringe in the audiophile world. because the aesthetic reaction is to a long stretch of music, not to individual notes, and it is impossible to hold a long stretch in memory in order to make a direct comparison. Your final clause gets it right. It is indeed impossible to remember partial loudness differences for more than a brief moment, which renders long-term comparisons hopeless. bob ____________ "Further carefully-conducted blind tests will be necessary if these conclusions are felt to be in error." --Stanley P. Lip****z |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 27 May 2005 21:09:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: If you are going to do this, pick several sections of music that your prior listening suggests reveal the difference, and listen to that section for each, at least 3-4 minutes. ... Thank you for the suggestion. I will try to do as you suggest. The main challenge will be finding someone to cooperate. I have already posted results on (what I regard as) a quick-switch test where I usually misidentified the source. I tried again today, using speakers and much longer excerpts (ca. 5-10 minutes), without switching back and forth, and I seem to be improving: SOURCE GUESS SUCCESS 1. SACD SACD yes 2. CD CD yes 3. SACD SACD yes 4. CD SACD no 5. CD CD yes 6. CD CD yes 7. CD SACD no (By CD, I really mean my computer outputting 16/44.1.) Subjectively it seemed to me that trial 4 was harder than the previous three. Anyway, two things occur to me: fatigue can be a factor in this, and toward the end, my memory for what SACD sounds like may not have been so good since there was a string of 4 CDs in a row. Is it better to refresh with a sighted exposure to both stimuli before each trial? Mark So Mark, do you still find the two layers sounding quite different when you don't know which one is playing, and after some level matching? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| enhancing early reflections? | Pro Audio | |||
| Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
| Some Mixing Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
| Creating Dimension In Mixing- PDF available on Request (112 pages0 | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
