Some companies are starting to release audiophile-quality recordings on
audio-only DVDs, which will play in a regular DVD player and are encoded
in 24/96 PCM, I believe. The frequency range of such audio-only
programs is up to 44 kHz or something. The quantization is incomparably
superior to Redbook 16 bit.

Do such recordings actually sound better than regular CDs? Is this dark
horse format the real winner of the SACD/DVD-Audio tussle?

-Sean

On 9 Mar 2004 01:23:02 GMT, Sean Fulop wrote:

Some companies are starting to release audiophile-quality recordings on
audio-only DVDs, which will play in a regular DVD player and are encoded
in 24/96 PCM, I believe. The frequency range of such audio-only
programs is up to 44 kHz or something. The quantization is incomparably
superior to Redbook 16 bit.

Do such recordings actually sound better than regular CDs?

Yes. Chesky and Classic started issuing them about 5 years ago but
they called them DADs (Digital Audio Discs). Now, some others are
jumping in.

Is this dark horse format the real winner of the SACD/DVD-Audio tussle?

??? I think any new medium will have an even harder time getting out
of the audiophile niche without multichannel.

Kal

Sean Fulop wrote:



Some companies are starting to release audiophile-quality recordings on
audio-only DVDs, which will play in a regular DVD player and are encoded
in 24/96 PCM, I believe. The frequency range of such audio-only
programs is up to 44 kHz or something. The quantization is incomparably
superior to Redbook 16 bit.

Do such recordings actually sound better than regular CDs? Is this dark
horse format the real winner of the SACD/DVD-Audio tussle?

-Sean

I have at least one high-rez disc (24/96 2-channel) that I've compared to the
16/44 cd reissue and as far as I can tell there is no audible advantage to the
24/96.

IMO 16/44 is a perfect end-user release format. As for the advantage of higher
res for production I have no qualified opinion.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
Sean Fulop wrote:



Some companies are starting to release audiophile-quality recordings on
audio-only DVDs, which will play in a regular DVD player and are encoded
in 24/96 PCM, I believe. The frequency range of such audio-only
programs is up to 44 kHz or something. The quantization is incomparably
superior to Redbook 16 bit.

Do such recordings actually sound better than regular CDs? Is this dark
horse format the real winner of the SACD/DVD-Audio tussle?

-Sean

I have at least one high-rez disc (24/96 2-channel) that I've compared to
the
16/44 cd reissue and as far as I can tell there is no audible advantage to
the
24/96.

IMO 16/44 is a perfect end-user release format. As for the advantage of
higher
res for production I have no qualified opinion.

Tom's experience is too limited. As far back as 1996, a working consortium
of Japanese engineers did a study and determined that 66khz/20 bits was the
minimum required to get full resolution. This work in turn gave rise both
to DVD-A and SACD in commercial form.

I've got 110 SACD's and a dozen DVD-A's and I have been careful to buy some
where I can do a direct comparison with CD (and some with vinyl and one with
pre-recorded tape). In all cases, compared to a cd on the same machine, the
DVD-A's sound better and the SACD's sound better. There are some DVD-A's
and SACD's out there with very little to recommend them, but the vast
majority have better sound than their CD counterparts.

This is a difficult comparison, because not only do you have two media to
compare, you also have to make sure they come from the same mix. That is
easier to do with SACD...as many of the early Sony releases fell into that
category.

It is hard to make generalizations, but since I follow the SACD, DVD-A, and
Vinyl forums on Audio Asylum, I will venture that there is some consensus
that CD sound is behind that of SACD and DVD-A, and that vinyl may be
slightly ahead. The DVD-A camp has less use for vinyl; the SACD camp more
use for vinyl and SACD's "softer, more natural timbre" is often cited as
more analog-like and a reason for the enjoyment of the medium.

I like both new media as well as vinyl and am happy to be able to go
wherever I can find the music. But I have bought only one CD now in over 2
years. The remainder has been SACD, DVD-A, and Vinyl.

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
news:zQ93c.87528$ko6.445947@attbi_s02...
On 9 Mar 2004 01:23:02 GMT, Sean Fulop wrote:

Some companies are starting to release audiophile-quality
recordings on
audio-only DVDs, which will play in a regular DVD player and are
encoded
in 24/96 PCM, I believe. The frequency range of such audio-only
programs is up to 44 kHz or something. The quantization is
incomparably
superior to Redbook 16 bit.

Do such recordings actually sound better than regular CDs?

Yes. Chesky and Classic started issuing them about 5 years ago but
they called them DADs (Digital Audio Discs). Now, some others are
jumping in.

Is this dark horse format the real winner of the SACD/DVD-Audio
tussle?

??? I think any new medium will have an even harder time getting out
of the audiophile niche without multichannel.

DVD technology allows about 7 times as much information to be stored
on a disc as does CDDA. It should be easy to put out 24/96k stereo
recordings, containing up to 3 hours of analog originals. Whether or
not the public will buy them is another matter. Since I don't know
anyone (except John Atkinson) that can appreciate the improvement over
CDDA, it doesn't seem to be a candidate for brisk sales. Its big
advantage, the ability to put a complete opera on one disc, is only an
advantage to the consumer; it's a serious drawback to the RIAA.

Which brings up a question: How is it possible to sell an opera
recording on 2 CDs for $32, when you can get the same opera on DVD,
complete with surround sound, supra-titles and full motion video, for
$25. (And please don't tell me it's because the fidelity of the DVD
is inferior.)

Norm Strong

normanstrong wrote:


Which brings up a question: How is it possible to sell an opera
recording on 2 CDs for $32, when you can get the same opera on DVD,
complete with surround sound, supra-titles and full motion video, for
$25. (And please don't tell me it's because the fidelity of the DVD
is inferior.)

Norm Strong

I have also been puzzled by the much lower prices of DVD's compared to
CD's. I can get the A-S Mutter's excellent Beethoven Sonatas (Spring) on
DVD for about $15, with 2 hours of material on it including a LPCM
soundtrack and interviews plus background. And she is gorgeous to watch.
On CD, I have to pay at least twice as much, without the videos. The
other thing is that it is so much easier copying CD's than copying
(dual-layer) DVD's. Something is really strange with these business models.

Harry Lavo wrote:


It is hard to make generalizations, but since I follow the SACD, DVD-A, and
Vinyl forums on Audio Asylum, I will venture that there is some consensus
that CD sound is behind that of SACD and DVD-A, and that vinyl may be
slightly ahead.

If you read the posts in those forums, of course you will get those
types of consensus! It's like asking whether there is any cable break-in
effect in the cable forum.

The fact that those members believe vinyl is ahead of CD tells you all
you need to know about their grasp of technical fundamentals. Or lack
thereof.

The DVD-A camp has less use for vinyl; the SACD camp more
use for vinyl and SACD's "softer, more natural timbre" is often cited as
more analog-like and a reason for the enjoyment of the medium.

It is really sad if SACD manages to sound like a technically inferior
medium such as vinyl! What happened to the 120dB+ of dynamic range, and
the 40+KHz of bandwidth?


I like both new media as well as vinyl and am happy to be able to go
wherever I can find the music. But I have bought only one CD now in over 2
years. The remainder has been SACD, DVD-A, and Vinyl.

It is really sad if SACD manages to sound like a technically inferior
medium such as vinyl!

Since our auditory system is known to process _sound_ rather than
technical specifications, I doubt the (admitted) technical inferiority
of vinyl will matter much to my ears (and the brain between them). I
would be happy if a medium more durable than vinyl could be made to
sound like vinyl (minus the scraping and scratching noise, of course).

-Sean

Sean Fulop wrote:
It is really sad if SACD manages to sound like a technically inferior
medium such as vinyl!

Since our auditory system is known to process _sound_ rather than
technical specifications, I doubt the (admitted) technical inferiority
of vinyl will matter much to my ears (and the brain between them).
would be happy if a medium more durable than vinyl could be made to
sound like vinyl (minus the scraping and scratching noise, of course).

Easily done: transfer your vinyl to CDR.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Sean Fulop wrote:
It is really sad if SACD manages to sound like a technically inferior
medium such as vinyl!

Since our auditory system is known to process _sound_ rather than
technical specifications, I doubt the (admitted) technical inferiority
of vinyl will matter much to my ears (and the brain between them). I
would be happy if a medium more durable than vinyl could be made to
sound like vinyl (minus the scraping and scratching noise, of course).


Yeah, so why do you need the 120+dB of S/N, the 40+KHz of bandwidth, to
sound like vinyl?

Seems to me like if you want it to sound like vinyl, all you need is
about 70dB of S/N, 15 KHz or so of bandwidth. And add a lot of
processing during mastering to put back the euphonic properties of vinyl.

SACD's main selling point is higher accuracy, no?

-Sean

"Sean Fulop" wrote in message
news:ajs3c.510006$I06.5564499@attbi_s01...
It is really sad if SACD manages to sound like a technically inferior
medium such as vinyl!

Since our auditory system is known to process _sound_ rather than
technical specifications, I doubt the (admitted) technical inferiority
of vinyl will matter much to my ears (and the brain between them). I
would be happy if a medium more durable than vinyl could be made to
sound like vinyl (minus the scraping and scratching noise, of course).

-Sean


You could always record your vinyl onto CDs.

"Sean Fulop" wrote in message
news:ajs3c.510006$I06.5564499@attbi_s01...
It is really sad if SACD manages to sound like a technically inferior
medium such as vinyl!

Since our auditory system is known to process _sound_ rather than
technical specifications, I doubt the (admitted) technical inferiority
of vinyl will matter much to my ears (and the brain between them). I
would be happy if a medium more durable than vinyl could be made to
sound like vinyl (minus the scraping and scratching noise, of course).

Or the limited dynamic range, or the tracking distortion, or...this is one
discussion I thought had been settled years ago.

"chung" wrote in message
news:R3t3c.158771$Xp.688724@attbi_s54...
Sean Fulop wrote:
It is really sad if SACD manages to sound like a technically inferior
medium such as vinyl!

Since our auditory system is known to process _sound_ rather than
technical specifications, I doubt the (admitted) technical inferiority
of vinyl will matter much to my ears (and the brain between them). I
would be happy if a medium more durable than vinyl could be made to
sound like vinyl (minus the scraping and scratching noise, of course).


Yeah, so why do you need the 120+dB of S/N, the 40+KHz of bandwidth, to
sound like vinyl?


You don't, but read on.

Seems to me like if you want it to sound like vinyl, all you need is
about 70dB of S/N, 15 KHz or so of bandwidth. And add a lot of
processing during mastering to put back the euphonic properties of vinyl.

SACD's main selling point is higher accuracy, no?

No, SACD's main selling like has always been analog-like "ease" of listening
and transparency, combined with CD's frequency response flatness and
convenience in use.

You are the one who always seem to want to make this into an issue of
specs....SACD's appeal was almost instantaneous among people who valued good
analog sound. To me, from a sound standpoint it is most like pre-recorded
tape without it's defects, and with more transparency.

Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message
news:R3t3c.158771$Xp.688724@attbi_s54...
Sean Fulop wrote:
It is really sad if SACD manages to sound like a technically inferior
medium such as vinyl!

Since our auditory system is known to process _sound_ rather than
technical specifications, I doubt the (admitted) technical inferiority
of vinyl will matter much to my ears (and the brain between them). I
would be happy if a medium more durable than vinyl could be made to
sound like vinyl (minus the scraping and scratching noise, of course).


Yeah, so why do you need the 120+dB of S/N, the 40+KHz of bandwidth, to
sound like vinyl?

That was actually a rhetorical question, but I'm glad that you agree...



You don't, but read on.

Seems to me like if you want it to sound like vinyl, all you need is
about 70dB of S/N, 15 KHz or so of bandwidth. And add a lot of
processing during mastering to put back the euphonic properties of vinyl.

SACD's main selling point is higher accuracy, no?

No, SACD's main selling like has always been analog-like "ease" of listening
and transparency, combined with CD's frequency response flatness and
convenience in use.

So you are saying that SACD's can be less accurate than CD's as long as
it sounds "analog"? Hmmm, seems like definition of "euphonic" to me.


You are the one who always seem to want to make this into an issue of
specs....

No, not really. I find it amusing that some people believe that SACD's
sound like vinyl. And I am amused by those who believe that "vinyl is
"ahead" of SACD, DVD or CD", as your so-called consensus seems to
indicate. When you compare different delivery media, you have to
consider the technical specs. All three digital media trounced vinyl. Of
course, one may prefer vinyl, but there is really no basis for saying
that vinyl is ahead of SACD/DVD/CD, by any technical measurement.

BTW, SACD does not sound like vinyl at all. It is much better. So is
DVD-A and CD.

SACD's appeal was almost instantaneous among people who valued good
analog sound.

It seems to me that those who say so simply realize that the digital
technologies are ahead of vinyl, and they cannot ever get themselves to
admit that CD's sound good . So once SACD comes along, they have a
face-saving way of joining the digital revolution. Just my little
conspiracy theory, of course.

I do agree that the additional multi-channel capability of DVD-A and
SACD can make these newer media worthwhile.

To me, from a sound standpoint it is most like pre-recorded
tape without it's defects, and with more transparency.


This statement is an oxymoron. If you take away "its defects" and add
more transparency, then it *does not* sound like pre-recorded tape at all!

"chung" wrote in message
news:Z8y3c.93392$ko6.737993@attbi_s02...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message
news:R3t3c.158771$Xp.688724@attbi_s54...
Sean Fulop wrote:
It is really sad if SACD manages to sound like a technically
inferior
medium such as vinyl!

Since our auditory system is known to process _sound_ rather than
technical specifications, I doubt the (admitted) technical
inferiority
of vinyl will matter much to my ears (and the brain between them). I
would be happy if a medium more durable than vinyl could be made to
sound like vinyl (minus the scraping and scratching noise, of
course).


Yeah, so why do you need the 120+dB of S/N, the 40+KHz of bandwidth, to
sound like vinyl?

That was actually a rhetorical question, but I'm glad that you agree...



You don't, but read on.

Seems to me like if you want it to sound like vinyl, all you need is
about 70dB of S/N, 15 KHz or so of bandwidth. And add a lot of
processing during mastering to put back the euphonic properties of
vinyl.

SACD's main selling point is higher accuracy, no?

No, SACD's main selling like has always been analog-like "ease" of
listening
and transparency, combined with CD's frequency response flatness and
convenience in use.

So you are saying that SACD's can be less accurate than CD's as long as
it sounds "analog"? Hmmm, seems like definition of "euphonic" to me.


Or it has the absence of digital artifacts, same as vinyl and pre-recorded
tape.


You are the one who always seem to want to make this into an issue of
specs....

No, not really. I find it amusing that some people believe that SACD's
sound like vinyl. And I am amused by those who believe that "vinyl is
"ahead" of SACD, DVD or CD", as your so-called consensus seems to
indicate. When you compare different delivery media, you have to
consider the technical specs. All three digital media trounced vinyl. Of
course, one may prefer vinyl, but there is really no basis for saying
that vinyl is ahead of SACD/DVD/CD, by any technical measurement.

There you go again. They are saying vinyl is ahead in terms of "sound
quality", not technical specs.


BTW, SACD does not sound like vinyl at all. It is much better. So is
DVD-A and CD.


Then you need better vinyl, and better record playing equipment. On my
system, the LP's and SACD's (where I have identical recordings) are a
preference match overall, and very close in sound. Sometimes the SACD's
deep bass or high treble response give it the edge; other times the LP's
"presence" in the midrange gives it the edge. But if I have the two playing
on many LP's, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference. It also helps
that my LP's have been babied (and later "Lasted") since the
early/mid-sixties on so they are, with very few exceptions, in almost-new
condition.

SACD's appeal was almost instantaneous among people who valued good
analog sound.

It seems to me that those who say so simply realize that the digital
technologies are ahead of vinyl, and they cannot ever get themselves to
admit that CD's sound good . So once SACD comes along, they have a
face-saving way of joining the digital revolution. Just my little
conspiracy theory, of course.


That is your surmise; reality is different. The people who feel so simply
feel that analog reproduction has an "ease" that ordinary CD reproduction
does not, at least until you get into very expensive and somewhat esoteric
equipment.

I do agree that the additional multi-channel capability of DVD-A and
SACD can make these newer media worthwhile.


Good for you. Multichannel is a real step forward, IMO.

To me, from a sound standpoint it is most like pre-recorded
tape without it's defects, and with more transparency.


This statement is an oxymoron. If you take away "its defects" and add
more transparency, then it *does not* sound like pre-recorded tape at all!


In general character yes it does....highly dynamic, smooth and
non-fatiguing, flat 35-22,000khz response. And an absence of either vinyl
inner groove / dynamic distortion or digital fatigue.

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 23:20:38 GMT, Sean Fulop
wrote:

It is really sad if SACD manages to sound like a technically inferior
medium such as vinyl!

Since our auditory system is known to process _sound_ rather than
technical specifications, I doubt the (admitted) technical inferiority
of vinyl will matter much to my ears (and the brain between them). I
would be happy if a medium more durable than vinyl could be made to
sound like vinyl (minus the scraping and scratching noise, of course).

It can - just archive to CD-R and use de-clicking software.........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

chung wrote in message news:Nbq3c.223164$uV3.869285@attbi_s51...
normanstrong wrote:


Which brings up a question: How is it possible to sell an opera
recording on 2 CDs for $32, when you can get the same opera on DVD,
complete with surround sound, supra-titles and full motion video, for
$25. (And please don't tell me it's because the fidelity of the DVD
is inferior.)

Norm Strong

I have also been puzzled by the much lower prices of DVD's compared to
CD's. I can get the A-S Mutter's excellent Beethoven Sonatas (Spring) on
DVD for about $15, with 2 hours of material on it including a LPCM
soundtrack and interviews plus background. And she is gorgeous to watch.
On CD, I have to pay at least twice as much, without the videos. The
other thing is that it is so much easier copying CD's than copying
(dual-layer) DVD's. Something is really strange with these business models.

it is quite easy, though, to ripp the audio from a dvd and then burn
it onto a cdr if you choose.

Harry Lavo wrote:

"chung" wrote in message


Seems to me like if you want it to sound like vinyl, all you need is
about 70dB of S/N, 15 KHz or so of bandwidth. And add a lot of
processing during mastering to put back the euphonic properties of
vinyl.

SACD's main selling point is higher accuracy, no?

No, SACD's main selling like has always been analog-like "ease" of
listening
and transparency, combined with CD's frequency response flatness and
convenience in use.

So you are saying that SACD's can be less accurate than CD's as long as
it sounds "analog"? Hmmm, seems like definition of "euphonic" to me.


Or it has the absence of digital artifacts, same as vinyl and pre-recorded
tape.

There you go again, assuming that digital artifacts exist, with no
proof. The fact that there are CD's that sound great to you (I think you
said that) means that there are no digital artifacts, only
implementation/mastering issues.

BTW, you used to believe that PCM has unavoidable "digital
irritation". Why do you now think DVD-A is great?



You are the one who always seem to want to make this into an issue of
specs....

No, not really. I find it amusing that some people believe that SACD's
sound like vinyl. And I am amused by those who believe that "vinyl is
"ahead" of SACD, DVD or CD", as your so-called consensus seems to
indicate. When you compare different delivery media, you have to
consider the technical specs. All three digital media trounced vinyl. Of
course, one may prefer vinyl, but there is really no basis for saying
that vinyl is ahead of SACD/DVD/CD, by any technical measurement.

There you go again. They are saying vinyl is ahead in terms of "sound
quality", not technical specs.


When you compare two delivery media, you have to compare technical
specs. When you compare two recordings, yeah, you can "compare"
perceived sound quality.


BTW, SACD does not sound like vinyl at all. It is much better. So is
DVD-A and CD.


Then you need better vinyl, and better record playing equipment. On my
system, the LP's and SACD's (where I have identical recordings) are a
preference match overall, and very close in sound. Sometimes the SACD's
deep bass or high treble response give it the edge; other times the LP's
"presence" in the midrange gives it the edge. But if I have the two playing
on many LP's, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference. It also helps
that my LP's have been babied (and later "Lasted") since the
early/mid-sixties on so they are, with very few exceptions, in almost-new
condition.

SACD's appeal was almost instantaneous among people who valued good
analog sound.

It seems to me that those who say so simply realize that the digital
technologies are ahead of vinyl, and they cannot ever get themselves to
admit that CD's sound good . So once SACD comes along, they have a
face-saving way of joining the digital revolution. Just my little
conspiracy theory, of course.


That is your surmise; reality is different. The people who feel so simply
feel that analog reproduction has an "ease" that ordinary CD reproduction
does not, at least until you get into very expensive and somewhat esoteric
equipment.

I do agree that the additional multi-channel capability of DVD-A and
SACD can make these newer media worthwhile.


Good for you. Multichannel is a real step forward, IMO.

To me, from a sound standpoint it is most like pre-recorded
tape without it's defects, and with more transparency.


This statement is an oxymoron. If you take away "its defects" and add
more transparency, then it *does not* sound like pre-recorded tape at all!


In general character yes it does....highly dynamic, smooth and
non-fatiguing, flat 35-22,000khz response. And an absence of either vinyl
inner groove / dynamic distortion or digital fatigue.

Of course, many have trouble telling mastering tape from CD's. Not just
any pre-recorded tapes.

Oh, what is digital fatigue? Is there any in DVD-A?

Since our auditory system is known to process _sound_ rather than
technical specifications, I doubt the (admitted) technical inferiority
of vinyl will matter much to my ears (and the brain between them).
would be happy if a medium more durable than vinyl could be made to
sound like vinyl (minus the scraping and scratching noise, of course).



Easily done: transfer your vinyl to CDR.


Believe me, I plan to. I just bought myself a CD recorder, and will be
making my first CDs-from-vinyl very soon. Now, of course, I have more
impetus to upgrade my rather midrange turntable setup. I'm wondering,
though, if the notorious "digital artifacts" resulting from PCM
quantization etc. will actually affect the resulting sound.

-Sean

Goro wrote:
chung wrote in message news:Nbq3c.223164$uV3.869285@attbi_s51...
normanstrong wrote:


Which brings up a question: How is it possible to sell an opera
recording on 2 CDs for $32, when you can get the same opera on DVD,
complete with surround sound, supra-titles and full motion video, for
$25. (And please don't tell me it's because the fidelity of the DVD
is inferior.)

Norm Strong

I have also been puzzled by the much lower prices of DVD's compared to
CD's. I can get the A-S Mutter's excellent Beethoven Sonatas (Spring) on
DVD for about $15, with 2 hours of material on it including a LPCM
soundtrack and interviews plus background. And she is gorgeous to watch.
On CD, I have to pay at least twice as much, without the videos. The
other thing is that it is so much easier copying CD's than copying
(dual-layer) DVD's. Something is really strange with these business models.

it is quite easy, though, to ripp the audio from a dvd and then burn
it onto a cdr if you choose.

I was referring to ripping the video as well as audio to recordable DVD's.

Yes, you can get the audio tracks from the DVD, and convert those to CD,
but it is a lot more work than copying from CD to CD.

"chung" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

"chung" wrote in message


Seems to me like if you want it to sound like vinyl, all you need is
about 70dB of S/N, 15 KHz or so of bandwidth. And add a lot of
processing during mastering to put back the euphonic properties of
vinyl.

SACD's main selling point is higher accuracy, no?

No, SACD's main selling like has always been analog-like "ease" of
listening
and transparency, combined with CD's frequency response flatness and
convenience in use.

So you are saying that SACD's can be less accurate than CD's as long as
it sounds "analog"? Hmmm, seems like definition of "euphonic" to me.


Or it has the absence of digital artifacts, same as vinyl and
pre-recorded
tape.

There you go again, assuming that digital artifacts exist, with no
proof. The fact that there are CD's that sound great to you (I think you
said that) means that there are no digital artifacts, only
implementation/mastering issues.

BTW, you used to believe that PCM has unavoidable "digital
irritation". Why do you now think DVD-A is great?


I used to believe standard CD gives "digital irritation". Still do.
Without the digital filter (as for example when used as an original signal
in a 24/96khz dvd-a, 44.1 or 48khz still sounds somewhat flat, two
dimensional, and "bright". The most irratating thing...the "edginess" and
distortion of high frequency sound... is obviously a funciton of the
playback filters needed for 16/44.1...and upsampling takes care of that...at
least in my Panasonic S55.



You are the one who always seem to want to make this into an issue of
specs....

No, not really. I find it amusing that some people believe that SACD's
sound like vinyl. And I am amused by those who believe that "vinyl is
"ahead" of SACD, DVD or CD", as your so-called consensus seems to
indicate. When you compare different delivery media, you have to
consider the technical specs. All three digital media trounced vinyl.
Of
course, one may prefer vinyl, but there is really no basis for saying
that vinyl is ahead of SACD/DVD/CD, by any technical measurement.

There you go again. They are saying vinyl is ahead in terms of "sound
quality", not technical specs.


When you compare two delivery media, you have to compare technical
specs. When you compare two recordings, yeah, you can "compare"
perceived sound quality.


To paraphrase Forrest Gump's mother: "media is as media does". You can't
separate the medium from the practical implimentation of same. Consumers
are not interested in theory. They are interested in the music, and they
are (negatively) interested in anything that stands in the way of them
obtaining that to their satisfaction.


BTW, SACD does not sound like vinyl at all. It is much better. So is
DVD-A and CD.


Then you need better vinyl, and better record playing equipment. On my
system, the LP's and SACD's (where I have identical recordings) are a
preference match overall, and very close in sound. Sometimes the SACD's
deep bass or high treble response give it the edge; other times the LP's
"presence" in the midrange gives it the edge. But if I have the two
playing
on many LP's, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference. It also
helps
that my LP's have been babied (and later "Lasted") since the
early/mid-sixties on so they are, with very few exceptions, in
almost-new
condition.

SACD's appeal was almost instantaneous among people who valued good
analog sound.

It seems to me that those who say so simply realize that the digital
technologies are ahead of vinyl, and they cannot ever get themselves to
admit that CD's sound good . So once SACD comes along, they have a
face-saving way of joining the digital revolution. Just my little
conspiracy theory, of course.


That is your surmise; reality is different. The people who feel so
simply
feel that analog reproduction has an "ease" that ordinary CD
reproduction
does not, at least until you get into very expensive and somewhat
esoteric
equipment.

I do agree that the additional multi-channel capability of DVD-A and
SACD can make these newer media worthwhile.


Good for you. Multichannel is a real step forward, IMO.

To me, from a sound standpoint it is most like pre-recorded
tape without it's defects, and with more transparency.


This statement is an oxymoron. If you take away "its defects" and add
more transparency, then it *does not* sound like pre-recorded tape at
all!


In general character yes it does....highly dynamic, smooth and
non-fatiguing, flat 35-22,000khz response. And an absence of either
vinyl
inner groove / dynamic distortion or digital fatigue.

Of course, many have trouble telling mastering tape from CD's. Not just
any pre-recorded tapes.


A rare CD, maybe. But comparing Janis Joplin's Pearl to Janis Joplin's
Pearl, or the Philadelphia Orcehestra's Verdi Requiem to the Philadelphia
Orchestra's Verdi Requiem, there is no comparison.

Oh, what is digital fatigue? Is there any in DVD-A?


Some. I have a supposed 24/96khz Count Basie Orchestra DVD-A that is barely
listenable, so bright and edgy and congested does it sound. May be
(probably is) the recording itself...the microphones..comb filtering..the
mix...perhaps overload somewhere along the way. But I've never heard that
kind of sound from a tape master.

Most 24/96 DVD-A's sound quite good, primarily because they remove the high
frequency problems inherent in the CD standard's practical implementation.
The little 24/192 I've heard sounds even better so the 24/96 implementation
as a practical matter still leaves room for improvement.

I'm not sure what your point is here. My issues have always largely been
with the high-end of the CD standard. And secondarily with CD's tendency to
have less depth and a 'flatter' bass and lower midrange dimensionality.
SACD solves these problems wonderfully. So does DVD-A. Both assuming
equipment that allows the advantage to come through, of course.

Sean Fulop wrote:

Since our auditory system is known to process _sound_ rather than
technical specifications, I doubt the (admitted) technical inferiority
of vinyl will matter much to my ears (and the brain between them).
would be happy if a medium more durable than vinyl could be made to
sound like vinyl (minus the scraping and scratching noise, of course).



Easily done: transfer your vinyl to CDR.


Believe me, I plan to. I just bought myself a CD recorder, and will be
making my first CDs-from-vinyl very soon. Now, of course, I have more
impetus to upgrade my rather midrange turntable setup. I'm wondering,
though, if the notorious "digital artifacts" resulting from PCM
quantization etc. will actually affect the resulting sound.

-Sean


The so-called "notarious digital artifacts" may simply be a lack of
vinyl artifacts. You know, the much wider frequency response, the higher
signal-to-noise ratio, etc. from CD/SACD/DVD-A constantly *remind* you
that you are not listening to analog.

In this case, if you are transferring from vinyl to CD, all the analog
artifacts are preserved, if you do the transfer correctly.

Harry Lavo wrote:


I used to believe standard CD gives "digital irritation". Still do.
Without the digital filter (as for example when used as an original signal
in a 24/96khz dvd-a, 44.1 or 48khz still sounds somewhat flat, two
dimensional, and "bright". The most irratating thing...the "edginess" and
distortion of high frequency sound... is obviously a funciton of the
playback filters needed for 16/44.1...and upsampling takes care of that...at
least in my Panasonic S55.


If you believe that upsampling takes care of edginess, then the
so-called edginess must not have been in the recording. Unless, of
course, you believe that upsampling intentionally alters the stored
information.

So you are wrong that standard CD gives "digital irritation". You may
have been irritated by certain implementations.



You are the one who always seem to want to make this into an issue of
specs....

No, not really. I find it amusing that some people believe that SACD's
sound like vinyl. And I am amused by those who believe that "vinyl is
"ahead" of SACD, DVD or CD", as your so-called consensus seems to
indicate. When you compare different delivery media, you have to
consider the technical specs. All three digital media trounced vinyl.
Of
course, one may prefer vinyl, but there is really no basis for saying
that vinyl is ahead of SACD/DVD/CD, by any technical measurement.

There you go again. They are saying vinyl is ahead in terms of "sound
quality", not technical specs.


When you compare two delivery media, you have to compare technical
specs. When you compare two recordings, yeah, you can "compare"
perceived sound quality.


To paraphrase Forrest Gump's mother: "media is as media does". You can't
separate the medium from the practical implimentation of same.

Of course you have to. There are many, many vinyl equipment that sound
horrible. Or many poorly mastered vinyl recordings. That did not stop
you from declaring that "vinyl is ahead of SACD/DVD-A/CD".

Any delivery medium can be mis-implementated, and you can't compare
technologies using poorly implemented equipment.

I would state that the percentage of CD players that sound "right" is an
order of magnitude higher than that for vinyl or tape.

If you state that CD's played on your latest player sound great, then
the CD technology must sound great.

Consumers
are not interested in theory. They are interested in the music, and they
are (negatively) interested in anything that stands in the way of them
obtaining that to their satisfaction.

Yeah, and that's why the majority of consumers are listening to CD's.



BTW, SACD does not sound like vinyl at all. It is much better. So is
DVD-A and CD.


Then you need better vinyl, and better record playing equipment.

Oh, now you are saying that I can't judge vinyl becasue I have poor
equipment? You can't have it both ways!

If what you said is true, I am sad to think that SACD, with its superior
S/N and bandwidth, manage to sound like vinyl, a technology the CD
trounced two decades ago.

On my
system, the LP's and SACD's (where I have identical recordings) are a
preference match overall, and very close in sound. Sometimes the SACD's
deep bass or high treble response give it the edge; other times the LP's
"presence" in the midrange gives it the edge. But if I have the two
playing
on many LP's, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference.

OK, were you in the "evaluative" mode or "comparative" mode? Inquiring
minds want to know!

But much more seriously, if you believe LP's have more mid-range
presence, whatever that means, it was mastered that way, via
equalization or compression. In other words, it's euphonic, unless you
believe LP to be more accurate than vinyl.

It also
helps
that my LP's have been babied (and later "Lasted") since the
early/mid-sixties on so they are, with very few exceptions, in
almost-new
condition.

Yeah, you could minimize the inevitable damage to vinyl.


SACD's appeal was almost instantaneous among people who valued good
analog sound.

It seems to me that those who say so simply realize that the digital
technologies are ahead of vinyl, and they cannot ever get themselves to
admit that CD's sound good . So once SACD comes along, they have a
face-saving way of joining the digital revolution. Just my little
conspiracy theory, of course.


That is your surmise; reality is different. The people who feel so
simply
feel that analog reproduction has an "ease" that ordinary CD
reproduction
does not, at least until you get into very expensive and somewhat
esoteric
equipment.

I do agree that the additional multi-channel capability of DVD-A and
SACD can make these newer media worthwhile.


Good for you. Multichannel is a real step forward, IMO.

To me, from a sound standpoint it is most like pre-recorded
tape without it's defects, and with more transparency.


This statement is an oxymoron. If you take away "its defects" and add
more transparency, then it *does not* sound like pre-recorded tape at
all!


In general character yes it does....highly dynamic, smooth and
non-fatiguing, flat 35-22,000khz response. And an absence of either
vinyl
inner groove / dynamic distortion or digital fatigue.

Of course, many have trouble telling mastering tape from CD's. Not just
any pre-recorded tapes.


A rare CD, maybe.

Hey, the existence of CD's that are indistinguishable, in the opinions
of people like Gabe Wiener, from the master tape, is validation that the
technology is essentially "blameless" as a delivery medium, to use Doug
Self's terminology.

But comparing Janis Joplin's Pearl to Janis Joplin's
Pearl, or the Philadelphia Orcehestra's Verdi Requiem to the Philadelphia
Orchestra's Verdi Requiem, there is no comparison.

Oh, what is digital fatigue? Is there any in DVD-A?


Some. I have a supposed 24/96khz Count Basie Orchestra DVD-A that is barely
listenable, so bright and edgy and congested does it sound. May be
(probably is) the recording itself...the microphones..comb filtering..the
mix...perhaps overload somewhere along the way. But I've never heard that
kind of sound from a tape master.

Unless you compared that against the master from which the DVD-A is
made, you are not saying anything meaningful regarding DVD-A.


Most 24/96 DVD-A's sound quite good, primarily because they remove the high
frequency problems inherent in the CD standard's practical implementation.

And what exactly are those?

The little 24/192 I've heard sounds even better so the 24/96 implementation
as a practical matter still leaves room for improvement.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Oh, it's simply that those who think vinyl is ahead of SACD/CD/DVD-A are
wrong. Or those who believe PCM has an inherent irritation are not being
objective.

My issues have always largely been
with the high-end of the CD standard.

What does the high-end of the CD standard mean? You mean players that
cost a lot of money and have no better performance? I'm with you there.

And secondarily with CD's tendency to
have less depth and a 'flatter' bass and lower midrange dimensionality.
SACD solves these problems wonderfully. So does DVD-A. Both assuming
equipment that allows the advantage to come through, of course.

Maybe you need a better CD player?

chung wrote:

On my
system, the LP's and SACD's (where I have identical recordings) are a
preference match overall, and very close in sound. Sometimes the SACD's
deep bass or high treble response give it the edge; other times the LP's
"presence" in the midrange gives it the edge. But if I have the two
playing
on many LP's, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference.

OK, were you in the "evaluative" mode or "comparative" mode? Inquiring
minds want to know!

But much more seriously, if you believe LP's have more mid-range
presence, whatever that means, it was mastered that way, via
equalization or compression. In other words, it's euphonic, unless you
believe LP to be more accurate than vinyl.


Meant to say "more accurate than SACD" in that last sentence.

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:33:40 -0600
Subject: Audio over DVD video?
From: Sean Fulop
Message-Id:


Oh, it's simply that those who think vinyl is ahead of SACD/CD/DVD-A
are wrong.



So, now you're negatively judging a preference? Let's not go down that road. The "people" who think
vinyl is "ahead" of CD are only wrong if their claim is that vinyl is
technically ahead. This is not only wrong, it would be irrelevant even
if it were true, since we don't listen to spec sheets. I hope such
people are meaning to say that they think vinyl sounds better, which is
an expression of a preference that cannot be right or wrong.


Or those who believe PCM has an inherent irritation are not being
objective.


PCM has certain formal inadequacies both mathematically and
implementationally. Mathematically, there is quantization of the
signal level. At 16 bits, sound level is quantized into 65,535 steps.
In analog, there are no loudness steps. Has it been proven that no
human can hear whether there is 16-bit quantization of sound level?
Obviously this alters the output waveform, and thus, its Fourier
spectrum and everything else.

Implementationally, there is clock jitter which cannot be perfectly
eliminated. This distorts the output waveform. Bob Harley has written
that people can detect just 1 picosecond of clock jitter. (Don't ask
me how he arrived at this figure.)

Obviously vinyl has higher magnitude distortions than these. But, if
the above digital distortions (however slight they may be) are causing listener fatigue and vinyl's (however large they may be) are actually
increasing the listener's enjoyment of the sound, which do you think
the listener will prefer?

Some have said that CDs can be made which are indistinguishable from master tapes. Vinyl afficionados will say that LPs can be pressed which sound _better_ than the master tapes. This is only possible by means of the distortions inherent in vinyl playback. This is why vinyl will always be "ahead" of digital formats for those people, until an electronic "vinylizer" is created that imitates the effects of records.


-Sean

chung wrote in message news:ZQM3c.328$C51.8554@attbi_s52...
Goro wrote:
chung wrote in message news:Nbq3c.223164$uV3.869285@attbi_s51...
normanstrong wrote:


Which brings up a question: How is it possible to sell an opera
recording on 2 CDs for $32, when you can get the same opera on DVD,
complete with surround sound, supra-titles and full motion video, for
$25. (And please don't tell me it's because the fidelity of the DVD
is inferior.)

Norm Strong

I have also been puzzled by the much lower prices of DVD's compared to
CD's. I can get the A-S Mutter's excellent Beethoven Sonatas (Spring) on
DVD for about $15, with 2 hours of material on it including a LPCM
soundtrack and interviews plus background. And she is gorgeous to watch.
On CD, I have to pay at least twice as much, without the videos. The
other thing is that it is so much easier copying CD's than copying
(dual-layer) DVD's. Something is really strange with these business models.

it is quite easy, though, to ripp the audio from a dvd and then burn
it onto a cdr if you choose.

I was referring to ripping the video as well as audio to recordable DVD's.

yes, but right now, it's just a bit more time-consuming with one extra
step. Rip the .vobs. use DVDShrink to burn onto dvdr.
unfortunately, since a dvd is 4-9GB of data, and dvd reads are about
24x and dvd writes are 2.4x to 8x, it takes a bit longer to rip and
burn than cd.

although, you are correct, it is a near trivial task to copy a cd
these days.

Yes, you can get the audio tracks from the DVD, and convert those to CD,
but it is a lot more work than copying from CD to CD.

flask rips dvd to a .ac3, then ac3dec converts the .ac3 to a .wav,
then burn the .wav. a few more steps, but not that bad. although if
you want chapters stops....

chung wrote:
Of course you have to. There are many, many vinyl equipment that sound
horrible. Or many poorly mastered vinyl recordings. That did not stop
you from declaring that "vinyl is ahead of SACD/DVD-A/CD".


Let's just say that many experienced observational listeners agree that LP
playback at its best sounds more like live music than CD playback at its best.

Any delivery medium can be mis-implementated, and you can't compare
technologies using poorly implemented equipment.


Early CD (the first 10 years) was notorius for this. Some would argue that
16/44 will never sound as good as the best LP playback and SACD.

If you state that CD's played on your latest player sound great, then
the CD technology must sound great.


CD recording/playback technology and implementation have improved quite a bit
(pun intended) in the past 10 years.

Yeah, and that's why the majority of consumers are listening to CD's.


Other reasons would be availabilty, convenience, portability, etc. over the LP.

If what you said is true, I am sad to think that SACD, with its superior
S/N and bandwidth, manage to sound like vinyl, a technology the CD
trounced two decades ago.


"Trounced"? Has listening to music become a competitive sport? While CD may
be technologically superior in many ways (certainly not all), the proof is in
the listening. And experienced listeners disagree...

But much more seriously, if you believe LP's have more mid-range
presence, whatever that means, it was mastered that way, via
equalization or compression. In other words, it's euphonic, unless you
believe LP to be more accurate than vinyl.


CD may measure better, but ultimately musically "accurate" is in the ears of
the beholder. Each to his own...
Regards,
Mike

Mkuller wrote:
chung wrote:
Of course you have to. There are many, many vinyl equipment that sound
horrible. Or many poorly mastered vinyl recordings. That did not stop
you from declaring that "vinyl is ahead of SACD/DVD-A/CD".


Let's just say that many experienced observational listeners agree that LP
playback at its best sounds more like live music than CD playback at its best.

Didn't Dick Pierce post a report here about a test where
most 'experienced listeners' performed poorly when they tried to match a
recording's volume to the volume of the original, from memory?
(IIRC, the only one who got it right was a conductor).

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Sean Fulop wrote:
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:33:40 -0600
Subject: Audio over DVD video?
From: Sean Fulop
Message-Id:


Oh, it's simply that those who think vinyl is ahead of SACD/CD/DVD-A
are wrong.



So, now you're negatively judging a preference?

OK, how about this. In my opinion, those who think vinyl is ahead of
SACD/CD/DVD-A are wrong. That's my preference, too, no?

Of course, the point is that deciding whether a certain recording is
better or not is clearly a preference. Deciding which format one likes
better is a preference. However, saying that a delivery technology is
ahead of another requires some technical basis, which is clearly lacking
if one states that "vinyl is ahead of SACD/DVD-A/CD".

Let's not go down that road. The "people" who think
vinyl is "ahead" of CD are only wrong if their claim is that vinyl is
technically ahead.

This is not only wrong, it would be irrelevant even
if it were true, since we don't listen to spec sheets. I hope such
people are meaning to say that they think vinyl sounds better, which is
an expression of a preference that cannot be right or wrong.

I would grant you that if they are saying that they prefer the vinyl
sound, than there is no right or wrong. But saying that vinyl is ahead
of SACD etc. implies a comparison of delivery formats. Since you can
capture exactly the sound of vinyl (by recording the output of phono
preamp in hi-rez) using these digital formats, it is clear that these
formats, especially SACD/DVD-A, are "ahead" of vinyl. You cannot capture
the outputs of SACD, for instance, and hope to have the same sound
playing back an LP version of what you captured.



Or those who believe PCM has an inherent irritation are not being
objective.


PCM has certain formal inadequacies both mathematically and
implementationally. Mathematically, there is quantization of the
signal level. At 16 bits, sound level is quantized into 65,535 steps.
In analog, there are no loudness steps. Has it been proven that no
human can hear whether there is 16-bit quantization of sound level?

If you understand dithering, you would have a new appreciation of how
PCM really works. Dithering has reduced the "steps" by several orders of
magnitude. On the other hand, LP sound is also fundamentally "quantized"
by the noise on the medium, just like CD is, except the LP noise level
is higher.

Obviously this alters the output waveform, and thus, its Fourier
spectrum and everything else.

Implementationally, there is clock jitter which cannot be perfectly
eliminated. This distorts the output waveform. Bob Harley has written
that people can detect just 1 picosecond of clock jitter. (Don't ask
me how he arrived at this figure.)

I wouldn't put too much faith on what Harley says or not says . This
is what he said: "One pitfall, however, is that cables and interconnects
need to to break in before they sound their best". That tells us all we
need to know about his competence.

See, you are now comparing technical parameters, which BTW, is the right
way to compare delievry formats. Jitter in digital playback on any
competent equipment is several orders of magnitude lower than that of
vinyl playback equipment. Wow and Flutter is the same effect as jitter,
except orders of magnitude higher!


Obviously vinyl has higher magnitude distortions than these. But, if
the above digital distortions (however slight they may be) are causing listener fatigue and vinyl's (however large they may be) are actually
increasing the listener's enjoyment of the sound, which do you think
the listener will prefer?

Well, that's the thing. If Harry can find some CD, played on his new
player, that he really likes, that pretty much proves that any "digital
fatigue" is *not* an essential by-product of PCM. I have not felt any
digital fatigue lsitening to good recordings on CD's, but bad
recordings, digital or vinyl, indeed give me plenty of fatigue, so much
so that I don't want to listen to those again.

Is there any proof that competent CD playback equipment causes fatigue?
I really believe it's the lack of analog artifacts that causes that
particular fatigue!


Some have said that CDs can be made which are indistinguishable from master tapes. Vinyl afficionados will say that LPs can be pressed which sound _better_ than the master tapes. This is only possible by means of the distortions inherent in vinyl playback. This is why vinyl will always be "ahead" of digital formats for those people, until an electronic "vinylizer" is created that imitates the effects of records.



You are defining "euphonic distortion". Do you want a delivery medium to
*always* add distortion?


-Sean

"chung" wrote in message
news:1MU3c.3812$zS4.34031@attbi_s51...
Harry Lavo wrote:


I used to believe standard CD gives "digital irritation". Still do.
Without the digital filter (as for example when used as an original
signal
in a 24/96khz dvd-a, 44.1 or 48khz still sounds somewhat flat, two
dimensional, and "bright". The most irritating thing...the "edginess"
and
distortion of high frequency sound... is obviously a function of the
playback filters needed for 16/44.1...and upsampling takes care of
that...at
least in my Panasonic S55.


If you believe that upsampling takes care of edginess, then the
so-called edginess must not have been in the recording. Unless, of
course, you believe that upsampling intentionally alters the stored
information.

So you are wrong that standard CD gives "digital irritation". You may
have been irritated by certain implementations.


The entire first decade of CD *required* digital filters that created
fatigue. And in comparison to vinyl, the sound often (usually, actually)
was flat in the bass and lower midrange. My Phillips 880 was the first
player I auditioned in eight years that mitigated this problem. Using DACs
hand-selected for their linearity.



You are the one who always seem to want to make this into an issue
of
specs....

No, not really. I find it amusing that some people believe that
SACD's
sound like vinyl. And I am amused by those who believe that "vinyl
is
"ahead" of SACD, DVD or CD", as your so-called consensus seems to
indicate. When you compare different delivery media, you have to
consider the technical specs. All three digital media trounced
vinyl.
Of
course, one may prefer vinyl, but there is really no basis for
saying
that vinyl is ahead of SACD/DVD/CD, by any technical measurement.

There you go again. They are saying vinyl is ahead in terms of
"sound
quality", not technical specs.


When you compare two delivery media, you have to compare technical
specs. When you compare two recordings, yeah, you can "compare"
perceived sound quality.


To paraphrase Forrest Gump's mother: "media is as media does". You
can't
separate the medium from the practical implementation of same.

Of course you have to. There are many, many vinyl equipment that sound
horrible. Or many poorly mastered vinyl recordings. That did not stop
you from declaring that "vinyl is ahead of SACD/DVD-A/CD".

Any delivery medium can be mis-implementated, and you can't compare
technologies using poorly implemented equipment.


Vinyl is as good as its playback equipment. CD, no matter how good the
equipment, does not sound as good as SACD or DVD-A on average. And some
would say vinyl. And during its first decade, CD was hopeless. During the
LP's first decade, my father's Garrard/Norelco, Newcomb Triode, JBL corner
horn system made music that sounded "alive".

I would state that the percentage of CD players that sound "right" is an
order of magnitude higher than that for vinyl or tape.


Not my experience, but getting better since the mid-90's.

If you state that CD's played on your latest player sound great, then
the CD technology must sound great.


The CD's sound great only in comparison to what went before, due to the
upsampling *workaround* that obviates CD's inherent shortcoming...the
filtering needed for playback. And of course it can do nothing about the 16
bit resolution. DVD-A's on the same player are noticeably more transparent,
and accordingly show more *depth* even in stereo (without multichannel).

Consumers
are not interested in theory. They are interested in the music, and
they
are (negatively) interested in anything that stands in the way of them
obtaining that to their satisfaction.

Yeah, and that's why the majority of consumers are listening to CD's.


Agree, because they don't yet know that something better is available that
is equally convenient.a



BTW, SACD does not sound like vinyl at all. It is much better. So is
DVD-A and CD.


Then you need better vinyl, and better record playing equipment.

Oh, now you are saying that I can't judge vinyl because I have poor
equipment? You can't have it both ways!


I'm saying that if you find SACD doesn't sound similar to vinyl at all, then
their is something wrong with either your SACD player or your vinyl, and I
would suspect the latter since you seem to disdain vinyl. People who
disdain vinyl rarely have invested in a first-class vinyl setup.

If you want to say the average CD player today sounds better than the
average vinyl system did in the late '70's, then I can agree with you.

If what you said is true, I am sad to think that SACD, with its superior
S/N and bandwidth, manage to sound like vinyl, a technology the CD
trounced two decades ago.


Trounced in convenience, frequency extension, and maintenance. Not
necessary (I and many others would argue not-at-all) in sound quality.

On my
system, the LP's and SACD's (where I have identical recordings) are a
preference match overall, and very close in sound. Sometimes the
SACD's
deep bass or high treble response give it the edge; other times the
LP's
"presence" in the midrange gives it the edge. But if I have the two
playing
on many LP's, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference.

OK, were you in the "evaluative" mode or "comparative" mode? Inquiring
minds want to know!


Sequential evaluative mode with brief bouts of comparative thrown in to
check specific details, over many listening session and over two years time.

But much more seriously, if you believe LP's have more mid-range
presence, whatever that means, it was mastered that way, via
equalization or compression. In other words, it's euphonic, unless you
believe LP to be more accurate than vinyl.


Perhaps. Or it might be that the greater mid-range transparency of vinyl
yields the *presence effect*.

It also
helps
that my LP's have been babied (and later "Lasted") since the
early/mid-sixties on so they are, with very few exceptions, in
almost-new
condition.

Yeah, you could minimize the inevitable damage to vinyl.


If kept clean, not played repeatedly with no break between plays, and
eventually treated with last, they sound better than when they escaped their
sleeves the first time (thanks to "Last"). Last, BTW, does a wonderful job
of removing traces of mid-range or high-frequency "distortion" that seem to
exist on many fresh-pressed records. (And before you jump me, I am not
talking of inner groove distortion).


SACD's appeal was almost instantaneous among people who valued good
analog sound.

It seems to me that those who say so simply realize that the digital
technologies are ahead of vinyl, and they cannot ever get themselves
to
admit that CD's sound good . So once SACD comes along, they have a
face-saving way of joining the digital revolution. Just my little
conspiracy theory, of course.


That is your surmise; reality is different. The people who feel so
simply
feel that analog reproduction has an "ease" that ordinary CD
reproduction
does not, at least until you get into very expensive and somewhat
esoteric
equipment.

I do agree that the additional multi-channel capability of DVD-A and
SACD can make these newer media worthwhile.


Good for you. Multichannel is a real step forward, IMO.

To me, from a sound standpoint it is most like pre-recorded
tape without it's defects, and with more transparency.


This statement is an oxymoron. If you take away "its defects" and
add
more transparency, then it *does not* sound like pre-recorded tape
at
all!


In general character yes it does....highly dynamic, smooth and
non-fatiguing, flat 35-22,000khz response. And an absence of either
vinyl
inner groove / dynamic distortion or digital fatigue.

Of course, many have trouble telling mastering tape from CD's. Not just
any pre-recorded tapes.


A rare CD, maybe.

Hey, the existence of CD's that are indistinguishable, in the opinions
of people like Gabe Wiener, from the master tape, is validation that the
technology is essentially "blameless" as a delivery medium, to use Doug
Self's terminology.


Frankly, as much as Gabe is revered here, I have yet to hear *ANY* other
studio engineer or mastering engineer who claims that a final CD sounds
exactly like the master tape.

But comparing Janis Joplin's Pearl to Janis Joplin's
Pearl, or the Philadelphia Orchestra's Verdi Requiem to the
Philadelphia
Orchestra's Verdi Requiem, there is no comparison.

Oh, what is digital fatigue? Is there any in DVD-A?


Some. I have a supposed 24/96khz Count Basie Orchestra DVD-A that is
barely
listenable, so bright and edgy and congested does it sound. May be
(probably is) the recording itself...the microphones..comb
filtering..the
mix...perhaps overload somewhere along the way. But I've never heard
that
kind of sound from a tape master.

Unless you compared that against the master from which the DVD-A is
made, you are not saying anything meaningful regarding DVD-A.


I have done the next best thing. Compared prerecorded tape to vinyl, cd,
and sacd.


Most 24/96 DVD-A's sound quite good, primarily because they remove the
high
frequency problems inherent in the CD standard's practical
implementation.

And what exactly are those?


The need for *un-natural* high-orders of filtration.

The little 24/192 I've heard sounds even better so the 24/96
implementation
as a practical matter still leaves room for improvement.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Oh, it's simply that those who think vinyl is ahead of SACD/CD/DVD-A are
wrong. Or those who believe PCM has an inherent irritation are not being
objective.


You are welcome to your opinions, stated as such. However, you might wish
to reconsider your statement above since it is not couched as your opinion.
I am willing to grant that you probably intended it to be.

My issues have always largely been
with the high-end of the CD standard.

What does the high-end of the CD standard mean? You mean players that
cost a lot of money and have no better performance? I'm with you there.


I mean high-frequency response aberrations that are audible, in practice. I
mean the difference in listening to jazz cymbals recorded and played back as
straight CD, versus the same played back with upsampling and mild
filtration. One sounds like crap; the other sounds like music.

And secondarily with CD's tendency to
have less depth and a 'flatter' bass and lower midrange dimensionality.
SACD solves these problems wonderfully. So does DVD-A. Both assuming
equipment that allows the advantage to come through, of course.

Maybe you need a better CD player?


No, these are a function of bit depth, and you *should* be able to hear
them.

Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message



If you believe that upsampling takes care of edginess, then the
so-called edginess must not have been in the recording. Unless, of
course, you believe that upsampling intentionally alters the stored
information.

So you are wrong that standard CD gives "digital irritation". You may
have been irritated by certain implementations.


The entire first decade of CD *required* digital filters that created
fatigue.

Big OSAF. In fact it's trivially easy to prove that you are wrong. There
are early CD players that use *analog* filtering. In fact, a lot of
people believe that it is the poor implementation of the analog filters
that gave sub-optimal results.

The digital filters, most often used in conjunction with over-sampling,
made the reconstruction filter much easier to implement and less
critical. There is no evidence that digital filters cause fatigue. If
you have such evidence, please share with us.

And in comparison to vinyl, the sound often (usually, actually)
was flat in the bass and lower midrange.

Maybe you are used to the non-flatness of the vinyl response?

My Phillips 880 was the first
player I auditioned in eight years that mitigated this problem. Using DACs
hand-selected for their linearity.

Even early CD players have excellent frequency response, so your claim
of frequency response difference between those and your Philips in bass
and lower-midrange is unfounded.


snip
.

Of course you have to. There are many, many vinyl equipment that sound
horrible. Or many poorly mastered vinyl recordings. That did not stop
you from declaring that "vinyl is ahead of SACD/DVD-A/CD".

Any delivery medium can be mis-implementated, and you can't compare
technologies using poorly implemented equipment.


Vinyl is as good as its playback equipment. CD, no matter how good the
equipment, does not sound as good as SACD or DVD-A on average.

That's a curious qualification, "on average". How do you do your
sampling? What's the population size? According to whose criteria?
Evaluative or Comparative? How do you know it's the same mastering?

And some
would say vinyl.

There are always those who say vinyl. Especially if you listen to those
who hang out at the vinyl forums.

And during its first decade, CD was hopeless.

Another OSAF. There were many CD's from the early to 80's that sound
great, easily beating the vinyl versions.

During the
LP's first decade, my father's Garrard/Norelco, Newcomb Triode, JBL corner
horn system made music that sounded "alive".

You mean like the very first recording, on wax cylinders, sounded live
to the listeners?

I would state that the percentage of CD players that sound "right" is an
order of magnitude higher than that for vinyl or tape.


Not my experience, but getting better since the mid-90's.

If you state that CD's played on your latest player sound great, then
the CD technology must sound great.


The CD's sound great only in comparison to what went before, due to the
upsampling *workaround* that obviates CD's inherent shortcoming...the
filtering needed for playback.

Yet another OSAF. What is the theoretical basis for saying upsampling
improve the sound? If you understand PCM, you will realize that
filtering is not an *inherent* shortcoming. The real inherent
limitations of the CD format is (a) bandwidth limited to about 21KHz,
and (b) signal to noise ratio limited to about 93 dB. Filtering is not
an inherent shortcoming, in any PCM technology.

And of course it can do nothing about the 16
bit resolution. DVD-A's on the same player are noticeably more transparent,
and accordingly show more *depth* even in stereo (without multichannel).

Yeah, at the same time, LP with its much reduced resolution, sound
wonderful to you. So it's really not resolution, is it?


Consumers
are not interested in theory. They are interested in the music, and
they
are (negatively) interested in anything that stands in the way of them
obtaining that to their satisfaction.

Yeah, and that's why the majority of consumers are listening to CD's.


Agree, because they don't yet know that something better is available that
is equally convenient.a

I hope you are not saying that LP's are more convenient . SACD and
DVD-A, with their *potentially* higher perforrmance, are really not
viable formats, due to the severe shortage of quality recordings. There
is really nothing that can displace CD's right now.




BTW, SACD does not sound like vinyl at all. It is much better. So is
DVD-A and CD.


Then you need better vinyl, and better record playing equipment.

Oh, now you are saying that I can't judge vinyl because I have poor
equipment? You can't have it both ways!


I'm saying that if you find SACD doesn't sound similar to vinyl at all, then
their is something wrong with either your SACD player or your vinyl, and I
would suspect the latter since you seem to disdain vinyl. People who
disdain vinyl rarely have invested in a first-class vinyl setup.

Actually I don't disdain vinyl per se. I understand its limitations, and
its place in history. I still have about a 500 disc vinyl collection.
What I find amusing is those who tried so hard to defend vinyl on a
shaky technical basis. Vinyl is the inferior technology, plain and
simple. It does not mean that you can't enjoy that format, since there
are still many LP recordings that are outstanding. But to say that vinyl
is a better delivery format, or that "vinyl is ahead of SACD" is to live
in the past.


If you want to say the average CD player today sounds better than the
average vinyl system did in the late '70's, then I can agree with you.

If what you said is true, I am sad to think that SACD, with its superior
S/N and bandwidth, manage to sound like vinyl, a technology the CD
trounced two decades ago.


Trounced in convenience, frequency extension, and maintenance. Not
necessary (I and many others would argue not-at-all) in sound quality.

There is accuracy, and there is euphonic distortion. Which do you want
in a delivery format?


On my
system, the LP's and SACD's (where I have identical recordings) are a
preference match overall, and very close in sound. Sometimes the
SACD's
deep bass or high treble response give it the edge; other times the
LP's
"presence" in the midrange gives it the edge. But if I have the two
playing
on many LP's, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference.

OK, were you in the "evaluative" mode or "comparative" mode? Inquiring
minds want to know!


Sequential evaluative mode with brief bouts of comparative thrown in to
check specific details, over many listening session and over two years time.

Uhh, after all of that, and you think we can't tell the difference
between vinyl and SACD?


But much more seriously, if you believe LP's have more mid-range
presence, whatever that means, it was mastered that way, via
equalization or compression. In other words, it's euphonic, unless you
believe LP to be more accurate than vinyl.


Perhaps. Or it might be that the greater mid-range transparency of vinyl
yields the *presence effect*.

You do understanding that nowhere in the audio frequency band does vinyl
have a better signal-to-noise ratio than CD, right?

Here's a question for you. Do you believe that you can capture the
output of a phono preamp playing an LP, using DSD (or LPCM) and create a
SACD that sound indistinguishable to the LP?

Can you go the other way, making an LP from a SACD, and make it sound
close to the SACD?

What does that tell you?


It also
helps
that my LP's have been babied (and later "Lasted") since the
early/mid-sixties on so they are, with very few exceptions, in
almost-new
condition.

Yeah, you could minimize the inevitable damage to vinyl.


If kept clean, not played repeatedly with no break between plays, and
eventually treated with last, they sound better than when they escaped their
sleeves the first time (thanks to "Last"). Last, BTW, does a wonderful job
of removing traces of mid-range or high-frequency "distortion" that seem to
exist on many fresh-pressed records. (And before you jump me, I am not
talking of inner groove distortion).

snip


Hey, the existence of CD's that are indistinguishable, in the opinions
of people like Gabe Wiener, from the master tape, is validation that the
technology is essentially "blameless" as a delivery medium, to use Doug
Self's terminology.


Frankly, as much as Gabe is revered here, I have yet to hear *ANY* other
studio engineer or mastering engineer who claims that a final CD sounds
exactly like the master tape.

You really need to stay away from the vinyl forums! And not just listen
to the vinyl engineers.


But comparing Janis Joplin's Pearl to Janis Joplin's
Pearl, or the Philadelphia Orchestra's Verdi Requiem to the
Philadelphia
Orchestra's Verdi Requiem, there is no comparison.

Oh, what is digital fatigue? Is there any in DVD-A?


Some. I have a supposed 24/96khz Count Basie Orchestra DVD-A that is
barely
listenable, so bright and edgy and congested does it sound. May be
(probably is) the recording itself...the microphones..comb
filtering..the
mix...perhaps overload somewhere along the way. But I've never heard
that
kind of sound from a tape master.

Unless you compared that against the master from which the DVD-A is
made, you are not saying anything meaningful regarding DVD-A.


I have done the next best thing. Compared prerecorded tape to vinyl, cd,
and sacd.

Of course they sound different, and you have a pre-established bias
against CD. So what else is new?



Most 24/96 DVD-A's sound quite good, primarily because they remove the
high
frequency problems inherent in the CD standard's practical
implementation.

And what exactly are those?


The need for *un-natural* high-orders of filtration.

OSAF! What is unnatural about digital filtering? Do you also find the
DSD technology unnatural? You know, it certainly sounds more mysterious
to most people.


The little 24/192 I've heard sounds even better so the 24/96
implementation
as a practical matter still leaves room for improvement.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Oh, it's simply that those who think vinyl is ahead of SACD/CD/DVD-A are
wrong. Or those who believe PCM has an inherent irritation are not being
objective.


You are welcome to your opinions, stated as such. However, you might wish
to reconsider your statement above since it is not couched as your opinion.
I am willing to grant that you probably intended it to be.

My issues have always largely been
with the high-end of the CD standard.

What does the high-end of the CD standard mean? You mean players that
cost a lot of money and have no better performance? I'm with you there.


I mean high-frequency response aberrations that are audible, in practice. I
mean the difference in listening to jazz cymbals recorded and played back as
straight CD, versus the same played back with upsampling and mild
filtration. One sounds like crap; the other sounds like music.

For a while I thought we had something to agree on .


And secondarily with CD's tendency to
have less depth and a 'flatter' bass and lower midrange dimensionality.
SACD solves these problems wonderfully. So does DVD-A. Both assuming
equipment that allows the advantage to come through, of course.

Maybe you need a better CD player?


No, these are a function of bit depth, and you *should* be able to hear
them.


Vinyl has about a 12-bit resolution. Do you hear that?

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

....many snips to specific content .....

"chung" wrote in message



Yeah, and that's why the majority of consumers are listening to CD's.


Agree, because they don't yet know that something better is available that
is equally convenient.a

That's because there is no better "sounding" medium although IMO dolby
digital-V, DVD-A and SACD offer improved spatial performance but require
multichannel speaker systems. Indeed good 2-channel to multichannel converters
like the Lexicon Logic 7 formats are a big step forward all by themselves.

Oh, now you are saying that I can't judge vinyl because I have poor
equipment? You can't have it both ways!


I'm saying that if you find SACD doesn't sound similar to vinyl at all, then
their is something wrong with either your SACD player or your vinyl, and I
would suspect the latter since you seem to disdain vinyl. People who
disdain vinyl rarely have invested in a first-class vinyl setup.

This is the final line of argument I've ultimately heard from every high-end
proponent in defending the party-line on cable, vinyl, tube, pens and any other
tweak for which there exists no evidentiary support .... if you don't
appreciate this "difference" it's because you haven't invested enough
time/energy/money in the pursuit of audio/music. IOW if you fail to appreciate
inaudible difference it's your own fault :-)


If what you said is true, I am sad to think that SACD, with its superior
S/N and bandwidth, manage to sound like vinyl, a technology the CD
trounced two decades ago.


Trounced in convenience, frequency extension, and maintenance. Not
necessary (I and many others would argue not-at-all) in sound quality.

I would disagree; CD trounced Lp in sound quality from the beginning.

Yeah, you could minimize the inevitable damage to vinyl.


If kept clean, not played repeatedly with no break between plays, and
eventually treated with last, they sound better than when they escaped their
sleeves the first time (thanks to "Last"). Last, BTW, does a wonderful job
of removing traces of mid-range or high-frequency "distortion" that seem to
exist on many fresh-pressed records. (And before you jump me, I am not
talking of inner groove distortion).

Well that's what we all love...a medium that cannot repeat good music right
away without damage. And requires routine maintenance. That's kind of like
saying that synthetic oil is not as good as regular because although it's more
slippery and doesn't wear out with use it's worse because it reduces the
personal involvement of the car owner.



Hey, the existence of CD's that are indistinguishable, in the opinions
of people like Gabe Wiener, from the master tape, is validation that the
technology is essentially "blameless" as a delivery medium, to use Doug
Self's terminology.


Frankly, as much as Gabe is revered here, I have yet to hear *ANY* other
studio engineer or mastering engineer who claims that a final CD sounds
exactly like the master tape.

Then you've not spoken with John Eargle or James Gibeau have you?



I mean high-frequency response aberrations that are audible, in practice. I
mean the difference in listening to jazz cymbals recorded and played back as
straight CD, versus the same played back with upsampling and mild
filtration. One sounds like crap; the other sounds like music.

Not if it's "jazz." Jazz ain't music; it's mostly a bunch of guys who all know
only one song trying to find a space when no one else is playing to sneak it
in. :-)

Just my opinion, of course. But the most musically inclined enthusiasts I know
are jazz fans and they tend to be primarily involved with the "music" and it's
presentation in a fashion like you'd hear it in a club....with people talking
and with their backs to the performance while drinking lots of alcoholic
beverage.

These are people who play 78s, 45s, Lp, cassette, DAT (mostly live; recorded
themselves at festivals), Cd, DVD and whatever medium contains the
"performance."

None of them seem to give a damn about any new medium UNLESS it brings new
performance to the fore. I only know one ot two that has any semblance of a
high-end audio playback system (in the common parlance) but I do know one who
has a 7-foot horn outdoor loudspeaker specifically designed to playback open
reel tapes (dubbed from the above media) for jazz club meetings.

One might ask; well doesn't he use open-reel because it's the best sounding
medium? Well the system was built in the 70s using 2 Viking open reel recorders
(4 channels with 1 of them used for program selection ) so that he could
'orchestrate' playback from dubbed recordings without having to change media or
playback equipment. This was all truly done for the "love of the music" and not
for that love masquerading as nostalgic equipment/media fixation.

Harry Lavo wrote:
Most 24/96 DVD-A's sound quite good, primarily because they remove the
high
frequency problems inherent in the CD standard's practical
implementation.

And what exactly are those?


The need for *un-natural* high-orders of filtration.

As on SACD?


What does the high-end of the CD standard mean? You mean players that
cost a lot of money and have no better performance? I'm with you there.


I mean high-frequency response aberrations that are audible, in practice. I
mean the difference in listening to jazz cymbals recorded and played back as
straight CD, versus the same played back with upsampling and mild
filtration. One sounds like crap; the other sounds like music.

You are comparing DA implementations here, not 16 bit PCM versus anything
else. Bad DA is not the format's fault.

And secondarily with CD's tendency to
have less depth and a 'flatter' bass and lower midrange dimensionality.
SACD solves these problems wonderfully. So does DVD-A. Both assuming
equipment that allows the advantage to come through, of course.

Maybe you need a better CD player?
No, these are a function of bit depth, and you *should* be able to hear
them.

There is no flat bass because there is 'only' 16 bit available. Flat bass
is caused at other places in the chain.

Nousaine wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

Frankly, as much as Gabe is revered here, I have yet to hear *ANY* other
studio engineer or mastering engineer who claims that a final CD sounds
exactly like the master tape.

Then you've not spoken with John Eargle or James Gibeau have you?

I have a hard time thinking of *any* studio engineers who have actually
done the proper blind tests to confirm claims they make about digital copies vs.
master tapes. Do Eargle and Gibeau meet the challenge?

(Are there any engineers who claims that the final *LP* sounds exactly like the master
tape? ;)

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

"Michel Hafner" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
Most 24/96 DVD-A's sound quite good, primarily because they remove
the
high
frequency problems inherent in the CD standard's practical
implementation.

And what exactly are those?


The need for *un-natural* high-orders of filtration.

As on SACD?

Nope, SACD gets a gradual filter, just like upsampled CD and DVD-A. The
problem isn't in the ultrasonics. It's in the effects (or lack thereof) in
the audible range created by the need for high-order filters starting below
22khz.



What does the high-end of the CD standard mean? You mean players that
cost a lot of money and have no better performance? I'm with you
there.


I mean high-frequency response aberrations that are audible, in
practice. I
mean the difference in listening to jazz cymbals recorded and played
back as
straight CD, versus the same played back with upsampling and mild
filtration. One sounds like crap; the other sounds like music.

You are comparing DA implementations here, not 16 bit PCM versus anything
else. Bad DA is not the format's fault.

A standard that in most practical implementations cannot reproduce music
correctly even in the subjective sense is a flawed standard. The
16bit/44.1khz Redbook standard is/was a flawed standard. Even the engineers
who created it came to understand that 20bit/66khz would be required to
reach the limits of human hearing. So why all the defensiveness?


And secondarily with CD's tendency to
have less depth and a 'flatter' bass and lower midrange
dimensionality.
SACD solves these problems wonderfully. So does DVD-A. Both
assuming
equipment that allows the advantage to come through, of course.

Maybe you need a better CD player?
No, these are a function of bit depth, and you *should* be able to hear

them.

There is no flat bass because there is 'only' 16 bit available. Flat bass
is caused at other places in the chain.

One of the clearly audible advantages of SACD and DVD-A heard through decent
equipment on a good, hi-rez system is much more apparent depth and
dimensionality to instruments and the human voice. This is particularly
apparent in the bass, and is generally ascribed to the greater bit depth and
lowered noise floor in the upper bass and midrange where human hearing is
most acute.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

...many snips to specific content .....

"chung" wrote in message



Yeah, and that's why the majority of consumers are listening to CD's.


Agree, because they don't yet know that something better is available
that
is equally convenient.a

That's because there is no better "sounding" medium although IMO dolby
digital-V, DVD-A and SACD offer improved spatial performance but require
multichannel speaker systems. Indeed good 2-channel to multichannel
converters
like the Lexicon Logic 7 formats are a big step forward all by themselves.


Your opinion, Tom, not a proven fact. Or even an opinion heard by most who
have heard the high-res formats.

Oh, now you are saying that I can't judge vinyl because I have poor
equipment? You can't have it both ways!


I'm saying that if you find SACD doesn't sound similar to vinyl at all,
then
their is something wrong with either your SACD player or your vinyl, and
I
would suspect the latter since you seem to disdain vinyl. People who
disdain vinyl rarely have invested in a first-class vinyl setup.

This is the final line of argument I've ultimately heard from every
high-end
proponent in defending the party-line on cable, vinyl, tube, pens and any
other
tweak for which there exists no evidentiary support .... if you don't
appreciate this "difference" it's because you haven't invested enough
time/energy/money in the pursuit of audio/music. IOW if you fail to
appreciate
inaudible difference it's your own fault :-)


Ironically, you fail to appreciate the fact that I am arguing that good
vinyl, played on a fine turntable system and a SACD of the same performance
should sound similar. I know, because mine does and so does the system of
another friend. Chung argues his SACD's sound much better than his vinyl.
Since I *know* that vinyl can sound about as good as SACD, their must be
something wrong with his vinyl system. He never talks about it; just
disparages vinyl. There were a lot of crappy sounding vinyl systems in
existance; he may have one of them which would certain color his view. But
to paraphrase him, it says nothing about the medium.


If what you said is true, I am sad to think that SACD, with its
superior
S/N and bandwidth, manage to sound like vinyl, a technology the CD
trounced two decades ago.


Trounced in convenience, frequency extension, and maintenance. Not
necessary (I and many others would argue not-at-all) in sound quality.

I would disagree; CD trounced Lp in sound quality from the beginning.


Again, you are welcome to your opinion. It is certainly not universally
shared among audiophiles.

Yeah, you could minimize the inevitable damage to vinyl.


If kept clean, not played repeatedly with no break between plays, and
eventually treated with last, they sound better than when they escaped
their
sleeves the first time (thanks to "Last"). Last, BTW, does a wonderful
job
of removing traces of mid-range or high-frequency "distortion" that seem
to
exist on many fresh-pressed records. (And before you jump me, I am not
talking of inner groove distortion).

Well that's what we all love...a medium that cannot repeat good music
right
away without damage. And requires routine maintenance. That's kind of like
saying that synthetic oil is not as good as regular because although it's
more
slippery and doesn't wear out with use it's worse because it reduces the
personal involvement of the car owner.


Who has ever argued that CD was not more convenient than vinyl. Nobody on
this forum that I can recall. How do you spell strawman?



Hey, the existence of CD's that are indistinguishable, in the opinions
of people like Gabe Wiener, from the master tape, is validation that
the
technology is essentially "blameless" as a delivery medium, to use Doug
Self's terminology.


Frankly, as much as Gabe is revered here, I have yet to hear *ANY* other
studio engineer or mastering engineer who claims that a final CD sounds
exactly like the master tape.

Then you've not spoken with John Eargle or James Gibeau have you?


No but I read a lot of audio press and for many years belonged to the AES
and do not recall anybody, including Eargle, making this statement.



I mean high-frequency response aberrations that are audible, in practice.
I
mean the difference in listening to jazz cymbals recorded and played back
as
straight CD, versus the same played back with upsampling and mild
filtration. One sounds like crap; the other sounds like music.

Not if it's "jazz." Jazz ain't music; it's mostly a bunch of guys who all
know
only one song trying to find a space when no one else is playing to sneak
it
in. :-)

Just my opinion, of course. But the most musically inclined enthusiasts I
know
are jazz fans and they tend to be primarily involved with the "music" and
it's
presentation in a fashion like you'd hear it in a club....with people
talking
and with their backs to the performance while drinking lots of alcoholic
beverage.


Well, if you don't like jazz then you are probably not the person to make
critical judgements about what sounds right or wrong in the reproduction of
jazz cymbals, are you?

These are people who play 78s, 45s, Lp, cassette, DAT (mostly live;
recorded
themselves at festivals), Cd, DVD and whatever medium contains the
"performance."

None of them seem to give a damn about any new medium UNLESS it brings new
performance to the fore. I only know one ot two that has any semblance of
a
high-end audio playback system (in the common parlance) but I do know one
who
has a 7-foot horn outdoor loudspeaker specifically designed to playback
open
reel tapes (dubbed from the above media) for jazz club meetings.

One might ask; well doesn't he use open-reel because it's the best
sounding
medium? Well the system was built in the 70s using 2 Viking open reel
recorders
(4 channels with 1 of them used for program selection ) so that he could
'orchestrate' playback from dubbed recordings without having to change
media or
playback equipment. This was all truly done for the "love of the music"
and not
for that love masquerading as nostalgic equipment/media fixation.

You know, I've belonged to jazz clubs, and I go to live performances (jazz
and otherwise) and I keep a nice boombox in the kitchen and a secondary
(hardly state of the art) system in my bedroom, and I like and listen to a
lot of music...on those systems, and in whatever house the jazz club met in.
That does not disqualify me from knowing what sounds more real or less real,
or what a really fine system can do for musical enjoyment, all else being
equal. Your point?

Harry Lavo wrote:

Most 24/96 DVD-A's sound quite good, primarily because they remove the high
frequency problems inherent in the CD standard's practical implementation.
The little 24/192 I've heard sounds even better so the 24/96 implementation
as a practical matter still leaves room for improvement.

If improvement is needed it's absolutely not in putting 24/192 on your
delivery medium instead of 24/96. That's absurd.
Can anyone provide even one double blind study where on the same 24/192
system the 192 version and the 96 version (the latter digitally decimated
from the 192 version) could be told apart with better luck than pure
chance? I'd really like to read it.

"Michel Hafner" wrote in message
news:d6r4c.19213$Gm5.55744@attbi_s04...
Harry Lavo wrote:

Most 24/96 DVD-A's sound quite good, primarily because they remove the
high
frequency problems inherent in the CD standard's practical
implementation.
The little 24/192 I've heard sounds even better so the 24/96
implementation
as a practical matter still leaves room for improvement.

If improvement is needed it's absolutely not in putting 24/192 on your
delivery medium instead of 24/96. That's absurd.
Can anyone provide even one double blind study where on the same 24/192
system the 192 version and the 96 version (the latter digitally decimated
from the 192 version) could be told apart with better luck than pure
chance? I'd really like to read it.


Are you aware that most companies that put out DVD-A's, if they include a
stereo track, do it at 24/192?
24/96 is reserved for the surround mix. Not speculation on my part. Fact.

Harry Lavo wrote:
"

The need for *un-natural* high-orders of filtration.

As on SACD?

Nope, SACD gets a gradual filter, just like upsampled CD and DVD-A.

Oversampling CD players use a gradual analog reconstruction filter.
They have been around for about 2 decades.

The
problem isn't in the ultrasonics. It's in the effects (or lack thereof) in
the audible range created by the need for high-order filters starting below
22khz.

Now that's really interesting. The vinyl system has significantly more
ripples in the passband and particularly in the upper midrange due to
(a) RIAA equalization errors, (b) cartridge (in conjunction with load
capacitance) response errors, (c)various mechanical resonances, (d)
tracking performance that varies as a function of signal frequency,
etc. There is also the bass signal summing to mono, reduced left-right
separation at high frequencies, an effective S/N of about 70dB at best,
and various wonderful effects. In fact, it's hard to find two vinyl
systems that measure within a dB of each other. How come these errors,
which are easily an order of magnitude higher than errors caused by the
filters in CD players, never stop vinylphiles from loving that format?
Yet, any relatively insignificant errors in CD players cause "fatigue",
make the music sound like "crap" and unlistenable?




What does the high-end of the CD standard mean? You mean players that
cost a lot of money and have no better performance? I'm with you
there.


I mean high-frequency response aberrations that are audible, in
practice. I
mean the difference in listening to jazz cymbals recorded and played
back as
straight CD, versus the same played back with upsampling and mild
filtration. One sounds like crap; the other sounds like music.

You are comparing DA implementations here, not 16 bit PCM versus anything
else. Bad DA is not the format's fault.

A standard that in most practical implementations cannot reproduce music
correctly even in the subjective sense is a flawed standard.

Great. By that definition, the LP is a severely flawed standard, based
on the magnitudes of the errors. That didn't seem to stop you from
saying it's "ahead of SACD/DVD-A".

The
16bit/44.1khz Redbook standard is/was a flawed standard. Even the engineers
who created it came to understand that 20bit/66khz would be required to
reach the limits of human hearing. So why all the defensiveness?

You seem to not understand the issue, which is not whether the CD is the
best standard. For reasons mostly associated with ease of mastering,
having more bits and wider bandwidth make the hi-rez formats better. But
the CD format has errors that are close to, if not below, human hearing
thresholds. In comparison, vinyl is grossly inadequate. Why the
defensiveness when we state to you that the vinyl system is the inferior
delivery format? Why attack CD in order to make vinyl look good?

The issue is that you way over-exaggerated the inadequacies of the CD
format, and simply glanced over the much bigger problems of vinyl.
That's what we are objecting to.



And secondarily with CD's tendency to
have less depth and a 'flatter' bass and lower midrange
dimensionality.
SACD solves these problems wonderfully. So does DVD-A. Both
assuming
equipment that allows the advantage to come through, of course.

Maybe you need a better CD player?
No, these are a function of bit depth, and you *should* be able to hear

them.

There is no flat bass because there is 'only' 16 bit available. Flat bass
is caused at other places in the chain.

One of the clearly audible advantages of SACD and DVD-A heard through decent
equipment on a good, hi-rez system is much more apparent depth and
dimensionality to instruments and the human voice.

It's the usual party line: if you can't hear the differences, your
system must not be decent enough.

By the way, how do you explain why vinyl, with its much lower effective
number of bits, had so much "depth" and "dimenion"?

This is particularly
apparent in the bass, and is generally ascribed to the greater bit depth and
lowered noise floor in the upper bass and midrange where human hearing is
most acute.

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

...many snips to specific content .....

......as before.......


That's because there is no better "sounding" medium although IMO dolby
digital-V, DVD-A and SACD offer improved spatial performance but require
multichannel speaker systems. Indeed good 2-channel to multichannel
converters
like the Lexicon Logic 7 formats are a big step forward all by themselves.


Your opinion, Tom, not a proven fact. Or even an opinion heard by most who
have heard the high-res formats.

Actually few 2-channel or high-rez have actually used the Lexicon system. In a
similar fashion your arguments haven't been shown to be fact either. And
"support" from folks many of who believe in all sorts of strange phenomena that
hasn't been shown to factual either doesn't add credence to your personal
opinion nor give it greater weight than mine.


.....



Ironically, you fail to appreciate the fact that I am arguing that good
vinyl, played on a fine turntable system and a SACD of the same performance
should sound similar. I know, because mine does and so does the system of
another friend. Chung argues his SACD's sound much better than his vinyl.
Since I *know* that vinyl can sound about as good as SACD, their must be
something wrong with his vinyl system. He never talks about it; just
disparages vinyl. There were a lot of crappy sounding vinyl systems in
existance; he may have one of them which would certain color his view. But
to paraphrase him, it says nothing about the medium.

I'd reverse that argument as say that if your vinyl and SACD sound the same
then it's quite likely there's something wrong with your SACD implementation.


Trounced in convenience, frequency extension, and maintenance. Not
necessary (I and many others would argue not-at-all) in sound quality.

I would disagree; CD trounced Lp in sound quality from the beginning.


Again, you are welcome to your opinion. It is certainly not universally
shared among audiophiles.

Nor is yours; I don't see the point.


Yeah, you could minimize the inevitable damage to vinyl.


If kept clean, not played repeatedly with no break between plays, and
eventually treated with last, they sound better than when they escaped
their
sleeves the first time (thanks to "Last"). Last, BTW, does a wonderful
job
of removing traces of mid-range or high-frequency "distortion" that seem
to
exist on many fresh-pressed records. (And before you jump me, I am not
talking of inner groove distortion).

Well that's what we all love...a medium that cannot repeat good music
right
away without damage. And requires routine maintenance. That's kind of like
saying that synthetic oil is not as good as regular because although it's
more
slippery and doesn't wear out with use it's worse because it reduces the
personal involvement of the car owner.


Who has ever argued that CD was not more convenient than vinyl. Nobody on
this forum that I can recall. How do you spell strawman?

I was arguing performance not convenience. I'm surprised you can't see the
difference. To me this argument has a strong element of "listening to vinyl,
like changing your own old-tech oil instead of
increasing your engine life with long-interval synthetic, is better because it
requires more owner attention." IMO the vinyl-love affair says more about the
ritual of playing than about the delivered performance.

Frankly, as much as Gabe is revered here, I have yet to hear *ANY* other
studio engineer or mastering engineer who claims that a final CD sounds
exactly like the master tape.

Then you've not spoken with John Eargle or James Gibeau have you?


No but I read a lot of audio press and for many years belonged to the AES
and do not recall anybody, including Eargle, making this statement.

I've heard John make that statement in conversation with my own ears.

I mean high-frequency response aberrations that are audible, in practice.
I
mean the difference in listening to jazz cymbals recorded and played back
as
straight CD, versus the same played back with upsampling and mild
filtration. One sounds like crap; the other sounds like music.

Not if it's "jazz." Jazz ain't music; it's mostly a bunch of guys who all
know
only one song trying to find a space when no one else is playing to sneak
it
in. :-)

Just my opinion, of course. But the most musically inclined enthusiasts I
know
are jazz fans and they tend to be primarily involved with the "music" and
it's
presentation in a fashion like you'd hear it in a club....with people
talking
and with their backs to the performance while drinking lots of alcoholic
beverage.


Well, if you don't like jazz then you are probably not the person to make
critical judgements about what sounds right or wrong in the reproduction of
jazz cymbals, are you?

The last time I remember I have yet to find a percussionist who shopped for
'jazz' cymbals. Just like I haven't been able to find a "country" violin or a
classical fiddle.

I didn't say anything about not liking jazz I just don't ascribe it the same
reverance that hard-core fans like to give it. But in any case I don't see how
"liking" a given musical format has anything to do with giving a description of
the accuracy of its acoustical reproduction.

Indeed an emotional attachment to a given program can impede perceptual
accuracy. Indeed, Pete Rose fans never seem to appreciate that he made more
diving catches of routine fly balls than anyone else in the history of the
game.



One might ask; well doesn't he use open-reel because it's the best
sounding
medium? Well the system was built in the 70s using 2 Viking open reel
recorders
(4 channels with 1 of them used for program selection ) so that he could
'orchestrate' playback from dubbed recordings without having to change
media or
playback equipment. This was all truly done for the "love of the music"
and not
for that love masquerading as nostalgic equipment/media fixation.

You know, I've belonged to jazz clubs, and I go to live performances (jazz
and otherwise) and I keep a nice boombox in the kitchen and a secondary
(hardly state of the art) system in my bedroom, and I like and listen to a
lot of music...on those systems, and in whatever house the jazz club met in.
That does not disqualify me from knowing what sounds more real or less real,
or what a really fine system can do for musical enjoyment, all else being
equal. Your point?

Back to you; that's my point exactly I don't have to be a jazz fan to
appreciate the acoustical accuracy of reproduction either. I've heard planty of
jazz; I have live recordings of same where I sat immediately adjacent to an
ORTF pair recording the event. And all the rest. None of that disqualifies me
in making a critical judgement of acoustical playback realism (a better word
than accuracy) either. Nor does a "love" of the musical type hyper-qualify me
either.

Sound is sound, no matter what the source; and I tire when advocates complain
when I won't acknowledge 'sound' that doesn't exist and then blame my taste and
preference in program and my playback equipment.