Steven Sullivan wrote:
MD wrote:

bob wrote:

MD wrote:



So high sampling rates and more bits don't help? SACD, DVD-A, HDCD etc
are all nonsense? An entire industry is now putting out products which
offer no discernible benefit? All the reviewers, producers and artists
who use the medium do so for no reason? That's ridiculous.


SACD and DVD-A both offer the possibility of multichannel
sound--certainly a discernible benefit there. But just because a
company markets a "new and improved" product doesn't mean it's
necessarily a better product. That's why we need to look at independent
evaluations, which can be both measurements and (valid, reliable,
repeatable) listening tests. I know of no measureable differences
between Redbook and either hi-rez format that would be audible. Nor do
I know of any confirmed blind listening comparisons demonstrating that
higher resolution digital is audibly distinguishable from Redbook. Do
you? If not, I suggest you hold the ridicule.



How 'bout
this - the industry put out the original red book medium with less than
perfect results but didn't care at the time because most of the people
(of which you are apparently one) couldn't tell the difference or didn't
care. Now the industry is putting out a medium for those who care.
Additionally it seems that those who care are more abundant than
originally thought. (Plus I am sure home theater drives some of it)

Have you done comparisons to analog if so what and on what analog gear?


This is a laugh. As it happens, I have compared vinyl and digital forms
of the same recording. You haven't. You've compared different
recordings of the same performance. The kinds of comparisons you've
done tell you absolutely nothing about the different recording
technologies, because there are so many other variables involved.

bob



I have read many reviews where all 3 formats have been touted to sound
better than redbook - dozens of them.


Yes, and never have they performed the comparison in a fair way.


As for data - they have a higher sampling rate and are 24bit that in
itself carries a slew of measurement data -



'24 bit' is not a sampling rate. It is a wordlength (bit-depth).


implied in the
implementation. Do you think the difference cannot be heard or isn't
better? (HDCD was not made for multi-format or surround - it was
specifically designed to improve 2 channel listening)


HDCD can involve dynamic range compression/expansion as well as
bit-mapping. Unless you know what has been done during mastering, you are
in no position ot claim that audible differences are due to the *bit mapping*.


No I compared the same recording using the same masters - however some
were remastered - LP and CD. OK let's say you're right. I have
compared over a dozen LP's to their digital counterpart - in some cases
I have 4 versions of each. You say this tells me nothing about
different recording technologies because of too many variables. Give me
an example of the media you used that wasn't flawed - as you state.


That's irrelevant -- the point is you are making definite claims about
the cause of audible differences without accounting for all possible reasons
for those differences.


Also - given that I used so many different versions of the same
recording and the LP won out in the majority of the cases this seems to
prove that LP's sound better even given the variables I mentioned.


In which case one *might* conclude that whatever distortions that
LP imparts, are what you like (because LP is certainly going to sound
different from source, though that need not be the case for CD).
OR you might simply be biased towards LPs. OR you preferred the mastering of
these for LP, versus for CD.


Let's use Kansas Leftoveture - a very well recorded LP -


not particularly. It's got a very dry and not terribly realistic
mid-70's prog sound. Do you imagine those instruments actually
sounded like that if played over real amps in a real room?


especially
given it's mass produced. I have the original CD and LP as well as the
remastered CD and half-speed mastered LP. The half-speed master beats
them all - the remastered CD beats the standard LP but the standard LP
beats the original CD. (I have the same copies of Point of Know Return
and Miles Davis Kind of Blue and the results are the same)


Again, see above. Your *preference* proved NOTHING about the
formats themselves.



Lastly - you have yet to state the equipment you used in the
comparisons. i assume the Technics wasn't your analog reference.


Irrelevant.

So, you don't seem to understand digital (the confusion about
bits and sample rates is a giveaway) and you don't seem to understand
about controlling variables.



___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority


I didn't state that 24 bit was the sampling rate - however - I should
have written that part better

I wasn't stating why HDCD sounded better or how it does it. I was
stating that HDCD was driven to specifically address 2 channel listening
not multi format as DVD-A and SACD were. If redbook cannot be improved
on why HDCD?

The half speed master version is extremely well done. Additionally -
compared to it's genre the original Leftoveture recording, mastering etc
were very well done. Respond within the context. I never said it was a
stellar recording in general. (I can't tell if you just like being
contrary are an uninformed elitist or what you state is simply you opinion)

Stating what analog equipment has when doing a comparison and what
recording were compared is not irrelevant given the topic. The issue is
whether or not LPs sound better not which method seems to be (or is)
scientifically more accurate - or said another way - less flawed.

I do understand bits vs sample rate - I did a poor job at explaining myself

As for variables - they can't be controlled unless they exist.
Listening to analog and digital sources is the key here. Not rattling
off scientific theory or fact (at least what we "know" to be fact at
this time).

Have you done comparisons? if so of what? On what gear? If you won't
answer the question then it seems you are engaging in this thread
without participating fairly.


--