One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format
high resolution recordings has been the fact that the legacy (CD) and
high-resolution (DVD-A or SACD) portions of virtually all of these
recordings distributed until recently, have been produced in ways that are
sufficiently different that it is reasonable to expect them to sound
different. This audible difference would be aside from any purported
benefits of high resolution formats.

IOW, the high resolution layers sound different from the legacy format
layers because they were produced in such a way that they would sound
different, even if distributed in the same format. On the one hand they
invite comparison of the two formats, but behind the scenes they stack the
deck.

Here a well-known mastering engineer Steve Hoffman brags about a recording
he remastered for recent release:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...&postcount=174

"....those of you who have the SACD I mastered of Credence "Willie And The
Poor Boys", put on "FORTUNATE SON". Play the CD layer first and listen to
just the ECHO SEND on the drums on the intro of the song. When the snare
hits, the echo responds, correct? Now, switch over to the DSD layer and
listen to the same thing. Notice how you can now not only hear a bit more of
the echo, you can more clearly hear in what stereo direction it is going in
the sound picture? That is what I mean by MORE resolution on the DSD layer.
There can't be anything above 15k on that song; it's mainly midrange
energy."

Here's how Steve Hoffman describes how he produced the SACD and CD layers of
that release:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...&postcount=181

"The DSD and CD mastering was done at the same time via a split feed in the
studio."

This can be interpreted is a clear representation that the DVD and CD tracks
differ only in terms of their format.

I was recently made aware that this statement has been disputed by others.
After reviewing the following technical data, I'm prone to side with the
skeptics.

Background: In their day, CCW had a reputation for technically clean
productions. Willie and the Poor Boys was no doubt recorded using some of
the better staff, techniques and equipment that were available in 1969. I
presume that we're talking analog tape, and maybe 24 KHz bandpass.
Therefore, there's very little bandwidth in the original tracks that can't
be accurately reproduced by a traditional CD (22 KHz bandpass).

This might lead you to believe that the CD layer on Steve Hoffman's
production of this music is the same recording as the DVD layer, just with
less resolution.

Now, let's look at a technical analysis of this recording:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=TZ...ut put=gplain

"thomh" wrote in message


"I compared the CD and SACD layer of the song Fortunate Son off of Steve
Hoffman's Willie And The Poor Boys Analog Productions SACD. This is the song
from the SACD that was discussed in the link I provided.

"Notice from the JPG links that the CD layer is mastered quite hot. In fact,
it clips over 200 times.

"I believe Hoffman is too much of a pro to let this happen unintentionally.
This should NOT happen on an audiophile release IMO.

http://home.online.no/~thomh/Fortunate_Son_CD.JPG

http://home.online.no/~thomh/Fortunate_Son_SACD.JPG

"Anyway, here are the stats from the CD layer and SACD layer of Hoffman's
Fortunate Son mastering. These cannot be the same mastering, can they?

Audition statistical analysis, 50 mSec windowing

SACD
----

Min Sample Value: -32768 -30383
Max Sample Value: 32759 30397
Peak Amplitude: 0 dB -.65 dB
Possibly Clipped: 2 0
DC Offset: -.002 -.002
Minimum RMS Power: -96.34 dB -96.34 dB
Maximum RMS Power: -9.99 dB -10.24 dB
Average RMS Power: -17.44 dB -17.18 dB
Total RMS Power: -16.68 dB -16.52 dB
Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits

CD
--

Min Sample Value: -32768 -32768
Max Sample Value: 32767 32767
Peak Amplitude: 0 dB -.01 dB
Possibly Clipped: 226 50
DC Offset: -.001 .062
Minimum RMS Power: -69.89 dB -70.51 dB
Maximum RMS Power:-8.57 dB -8.75 dB
Average RMS Power: -16.13 dB -15.8 dB
Total RMS Power: -15.31 dB -15.09 dB
Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits

------------ end of Thomh's technical analysis and quotes on this topic from
his post ----------

I see no way that these recordings differ only in format. The Cd audio
version seems to be a clear victim of "****ing in the soup" I find the
apparent representations that they should be compared to be offensive, as
that would be an insult to the intelligence of any technically-minded
reader.

If you follow this link, you will find the details of similar apparent
malfeasance perpetrated by Michael Bishop of Telarc:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=4780

So the bottom line is that high resolution formats are being pushed by
record labels that doctor what might be comparable recordings of the same
basic work in such a way that they are likely to sound different, even if
they were recorded in the same format. And they compound these deceptions,
by publicly claiming that it doesn't make a difference or that there is in
fact no difference.

in article , Arny Krueger at
wrote on 6/25/04 8:30 AM:

(SNIP)
IOW, the high resolution layers sound different from the legacy format
layers because they were produced in such a way that they would sound
different, even if distributed in the same format. On the one hand they
invite comparison of the two formats, but behind the scenes they stack the
deck.
(SNIP MORE EVIDENTIAL STUFF)
The Cd audio version seems to be a clear victim of "****ing in the soup" I
find the apparent representations that they should be compared to be
offensive, as that would be an insult to the intelligence of any
technically-minded reader.
If you follow this link, you will find the details of similar apparent
malfeasance perpetrated by Michael Bishop of Telarc:
http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=4780
So the bottom line is that high resolution formats are being pushed by
record labels that doctor what might be comparable recordings of the same
basic work in such a way that they are likely to sound different, even if
they were recorded in the same format. And they compound these deceptions,
by publicly claiming that it doesn't make a difference or that there is in
fact no difference.

I went into this a long while back over HDCD, the proprietary
44/16-plus-trick expansion processor system (you 'need' a special box on
playback to 'realise' the 'added range and sonics' of the HDCD system over
standard 44/16 CD audio) triggered by some remastered MANNHEIM STEAMROLLER
releases. it led to me discovering that there was a 2-way shell game going
on the FIRST - the HDCD system was designed ALONGSIDE their own
REMARKABLE (still some say the best in the industry) custom digital
mastering and processing toolset box. Thus, On the one hand, you could make
a STELLAR SOUNDING (whether you wanted classical wide-range transparent
pristine sonics or a slammed-n-squashed sparkle-till-it-hurts pop release)
finished recording with this rig before EVER getting into the
trick-expansion stuff. Remembering that dithered 44/16 is capable of
MARVELOUS sonics with dynamics BEYOND most any playback system anyone has
outside of an anechoic chamber, the whole CONCEPT of STRETCHING that range
is pretty specious to begin with. That you could HEAR differences in the
formats was laid finally to DIFFERENT MASTERINGS that squashed/diddled the
NORMAL CD version a tad MERELY so that one could get the sonics BACK in the
HDCD-decoded version... hiding the fact that you could have simply mastered
the nice wide-range version to 44/126 in the FIRST place and heard the same
results.
JUST what you're pointing out here.

"Caveat Emptor" is a phrase whose very LANGUAGE tells you how far to go back
for the concept... and I'm pretty sure the Romans didn't invent it.

I hardly find this worth getting all bent out of shape over... (dissapointed
as I am to find TELARC mentioned in teh same breath) though I'd say doing as
you have here, politely but clearly pointing out to The Masses just how few
clothes The Emporer really IS wearing, is a fine thing.


--
John I-22
(that's 'I' for Initial...)
Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key.
--

in article , Arny Krueger at
wrote on 6/25/04 8:30 AM:

(SNIP)
IOW, the high resolution layers sound different from the legacy format
layers because they were produced in such a way that they would sound
different, even if distributed in the same format. On the one hand they
invite comparison of the two formats, but behind the scenes they stack the
deck.
(SNIP MORE EVIDENTIAL STUFF)
The Cd audio version seems to be a clear victim of "****ing in the soup" I
find the apparent representations that they should be compared to be
offensive, as that would be an insult to the intelligence of any
technically-minded reader.
If you follow this link, you will find the details of similar apparent
malfeasance perpetrated by Michael Bishop of Telarc:
http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=4780
So the bottom line is that high resolution formats are being pushed by
record labels that doctor what might be comparable recordings of the same
basic work in such a way that they are likely to sound different, even if
they were recorded in the same format. And they compound these deceptions,
by publicly claiming that it doesn't make a difference or that there is in
fact no difference.

I went into this a long while back over HDCD, the proprietary
44/16-plus-trick expansion processor system (you 'need' a special box on
playback to 'realise' the 'added range and sonics' of the HDCD system over
standard 44/16 CD audio) triggered by some remastered MANNHEIM STEAMROLLER
releases. it led to me discovering that there was a 2-way shell game going
on the FIRST - the HDCD system was designed ALONGSIDE their own
REMARKABLE (still some say the best in the industry) custom digital
mastering and processing toolset box. Thus, On the one hand, you could make
a STELLAR SOUNDING (whether you wanted classical wide-range transparent
pristine sonics or a slammed-n-squashed sparkle-till-it-hurts pop release)
finished recording with this rig before EVER getting into the
trick-expansion stuff. Remembering that dithered 44/16 is capable of
MARVELOUS sonics with dynamics BEYOND most any playback system anyone has
outside of an anechoic chamber, the whole CONCEPT of STRETCHING that range
is pretty specious to begin with. That you could HEAR differences in the
formats was laid finally to DIFFERENT MASTERINGS that squashed/diddled the
NORMAL CD version a tad MERELY so that one could get the sonics BACK in the
HDCD-decoded version... hiding the fact that you could have simply mastered
the nice wide-range version to 44/126 in the FIRST place and heard the same
results.
JUST what you're pointing out here.

"Caveat Emptor" is a phrase whose very LANGUAGE tells you how far to go back
for the concept... and I'm pretty sure the Romans didn't invent it.

I hardly find this worth getting all bent out of shape over... (dissapointed
as I am to find TELARC mentioned in teh same breath) though I'd say doing as
you have here, politely but clearly pointing out to The Masses just how few
clothes The Emporer really IS wearing, is a fine thing.


--
John I-22
(that's 'I' for Initial...)
Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key.
--