I recently bought an inexpensive Pioneer DVD player that also plays
SACDs. I notice that the volume level of the SACDs is much lower that
that of DVDs or CDs. Is this to be expected? This seems to be more
true of 4 or 5 channel SACDs than 2 or 3 Channel ones such as the RCA
Living Stereo ones.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

---MIKE--- wrote:
I recently bought an inexpensive Pioneer DVD player that also plays
SACDs. I notice that the volume level of the SACDs is much lower that
that of DVDs or CDs. Is this to be expected? This seems to be more
true of 4 or 5 channel SACDs than 2 or 3 Channel ones such as the RCA
Living Stereo ones.

You might want to check that your channel level adjustments and
bass management and crossovers are applied similarly to all sources.


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

I also have a pioneer multi disk player(dvd47A) and right you are ! The
level is lower on a lot of the 5.1 dvd 's . A while back someone in this
group explained why that was.

As an update to the post - I asked this in a classical music news group
and got several answers. Apparently it's normal for SACD output levels
to be lower possibly because of the increased dynamic range of SACDs.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

On 29 Nov 2005 03:54:02 GMT, (---MIKE---)
wrote:

As an update to the post - I asked this in a classical music news group
and got several answers. Apparently it's normal for SACD output levels
to be lower possibly because of the increased dynamic range of SACDs.

That would be a nonsensical argument, as the noise floor of the player
will be the same in each case, so if in fact SACDs did have greater
dynamic range (not actually true), then you'd want a *higher*
full-scale output level.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
As an update to the post - I asked this in a classical music news group
and got several answers. Apparently it's normal for SACD output levels
to be lower possibly because of the increased dynamic range of SACDs.


SACD's (at least historically) do not use compression. Therefore the
average level is lower than CD. If CD mastering engineers did not use
compression, the apparent sound levels would be the same. Simple as that.

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
As an update to the post - I asked this in a classical music news group
and got several answers. Apparently it's normal for SACD output levels
to be lower possibly because of the increased dynamic range of SACDs.

In my limited usage of SAC my reaction is similar to my experience with
redbook CD-R and DVD-Video. Everyone simply has to increase the gain when
switching from a CD source to DVD-Video. The entire volume range appears to
be less, peaks and lows included. It's as if somewhat installed a resister
into the DVD-Video audio path. I get the same effect with SACD.

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
As an update to the post - I asked this in a classical music news group
and got several answers. Apparently it's normal for SACD output levels
to be lower possibly because of the increased dynamic range of SACDs.

Your reasoning wouldn't make sense, since the dynamic range of a CD is more
than adequate to cover the dynamic requirement of any piece of music. If
it's true--that SACD levels are lower than CD levels--there's some other
reason for it. For example, is it possible to readjust the levels of a DSD
recording without first converting it to PCM? (I don't know; I'm asking.)

Norm Strong

(---MIKE---) wrote in
:

I recently bought an inexpensive Pioneer DVD player that also plays
SACDs. I notice that the volume level of the SACDs is much lower that
that of DVDs or CDs.

Actually, there is a so called "loudness race" on the cd mastering market.
It seems that is a bit less easy with sacd:

Nika Aldrich said:
"
[...]
The CD is a very versatile format that actually allows illegal content -
waveforms that exceed its own boundaries. This can cause distortion upon
playback through D/A converters. The SACD has, built into its
specification, a system that prevents this from occurring - a sort of
mathematical algorithm that data passes through to analyze whether the
signal exceeds the boundaries of the converter. If it does, the signal
can't pass. The algorithm is actually fairly simple - 28 consecutive
samples. If a signal has 28 consecutive samples it is illegal and the SACD
scarlet book rejects it - the risk being "modulator overload."

The problems we are discussing - exceeding the legal bounds of the system -
are caused primarily by trying to push the system's overall amplitude very
high, aided and abetted by use of compression, normalizing and limiting.
Since SACD prevents this, what it is essentially preventing is the overuse
of compression, normalizing and limiting. If a mastering engineer attempts
to do this they are given a red flag in their mastering software and told,
essentially, "can't do that!"

The result is that the mastering engineer has to essentially make a choice:
hyper-compress the disk but turn it down to prevent modulator overload, or
let the disk breathe more, give it more dynamic range, and don't compress
it as much.

[...]
"

Hope this help.

There is no question that among the hundreds of CDs and SACDs that I own
that on SACDs recordings exhibit more dynamic range. The quiet passages
are quieter and the louder passages are louder. This helps SACDs sound
more true to life than most CD recordings.

Note that I said SACD "recordings" have (as a rule) more dynamic range
than CD recordings. I did not say that SACD has more dynamic range because
from a "practical" standpoint it does not. However, the smaller audiophile
labels that make up a great many of the SACD labels that support the
format are more apt, for better or worse, to push the limits of usuable
dynamic range in their quest to make superior recordings.

I celebrate this agressiveness which is one of the reasons I find SACDs,
as a group significantly more realistic sounding than most CDs. (Another
primary reason is that SACD offers multi-channel, CD can not). But this
"increase" in dynamic is not to everyones liking. I've seen many
complaints that the quiet passages on some discs is below the noise floor
of their listening rooms unless they crank up the volume and that then the
loud passages overly taxes the limits of their systems. Or people will
complain that the music lacks life because they attempt to listen at the
same volume control levels that they use when listening to less dynamic
CDs.

Clearly, the dynamic range of recordings must be “managed”. However, I
have found that in recent years, especially with originally recorded DSD
SACDs, the expansive dynamic range really hits the mark. Significantly
more so than one hears on almost all CDs that I’ve heard. The best ones
keep the quiet passages just above the noise floor with little compromise
on dynamic range.

I might add that I have found that SACD recordings from the larger labels
like Universal have no more perceived dynamic range than their CD
recordings.

Also, as a rule I found early on that the CD layer of SACDs are recorded
at a higher level than the SACD counterpart. I have not made this type of
comparison in several years.

Robert C. Lang

RobertLang wrote:
There is no question that among the hundreds of CDs and SACDs that I own
that on SACDs recordings exhibit more dynamic range. The quiet passages
are quieter and the louder passages are louder. This helps SACDs sound
more true to life than most CD recordings.

Note that I said SACD "recordings" have (as a rule) more dynamic range
than CD recordings. I did not say that SACD has more dynamic range because
from a "practical" standpoint it does not. However, the smaller audiophile
labels that make up a great many of the SACD labels that support the
format are more apt, for better or worse, to push the limits of usuable
dynamic range in their quest to make superior recordings.

Another reason may be that some kinds of dynamic range limitation that are allowed
in Redbook, aren't in SACD spec.

Some 'audiophile labels' e.g. Telarc, have shown themselves to be willing to apply
compression to the CD layer that they don't use on the SACD layer.

Clearly, the dynamic range of recordings must be ?managed?. However, I have found that in
recent years, especially with originally recorded DSD SACDs, the expansive dynamic range
really hits the mark. Significantly more so than one hears on almost all CDs that I?ve
heard. The best ones keep the quiet passages just above the noise floor with little
compromise on dynamic range.

This was true for classical (and most pop) CDs prior to 1990 or so as well.

--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Ssully wrote:

Some 'audiophile labels' e.g. Telarc,
have shown themselves to be willing to
apply compression to the CD layer that
they don't use on the SACD layer.

Telarc has always claimed "The signal was not passed through any
processing device (i.e., compression, limiting, or equalization) at any
step during production."

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

I think what Mike is suggesting when he states that output or recording
levels are lower on SACD than CDs is that the "quiet" passages are (often)
recorded at a lower levels than similar passages on CD recordings.

So, when listening to the expansive opening quiet passages of a SACD
classical recording such as Shostakovich's Symphony #11 on Linn Records,
the perception will be that the recording level for the performance is
unusually low. This seems to be done to better accomodate the tremendous
louder passages further into the symphony. This extreme low level
recording of the quiet passages is *much* more common for SACD recordings
than it is for CD recordings that I have listen to.

For me this is an emphatically positive thing because I enjoy the
significantly greater dynamic range that I find more in SACD recordings
than when compared to CD recordings. But some don’t find it to be positive
at all. Some find it to be an annoyance for reasons I said elsewhere in
this thread.

And also while I have found that SACD "recordings" have (as a rule)
greater dynamic range than CD recordings. I am not say that the SACD
format has greater dynamic range than CD recordings.

So, you are correct when you state that many SACD recordings actually
would want a higher (considerably higher) full scale output level than CD
recordings when you factor in the louder passages.

Robert C. Lang

---MIKE--- wrote:
Ssully wrote:

Some 'audiophile labels' e.g. Telarc,
have shown themselves to be willing to
apply compression to the CD layer that
they don't use on the SACD layer.

Telarc has always claimed "The signal was not passed through any
processing device (i.e., compression, limiting, or equalization) at any
step during production."

Yeah, well....

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...dpost&p=235661

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...dpost&p=307066

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...dpost&p=242648

fwiw, it was a jazz, not classical, release.

--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Steven Sullivan writes:
[...]
Another reason may be that some kinds of dynamic range limitation that are allowed
in Redbook, aren't in SACD spec.

Is there indeed any such specification in the Redbook?

Even back in the late 70s, dithering was known, so I find it
hard to believe that the designers of the format would encourage
nonlinear processing like dynamic range limitation over simple
fading into the noise.

Regarding level differences, or dynamic range differences, why don't
you provide some numbers? Such things could be easily measured and
verified in the digital domain so that no analog anomalies would
creep in to the comparison.

Along these lines, are there any computer SACD players and associated
software that allow ripping the raw bitstream to a file?
--
% Randy Yates % "Ticket to the moon, flight leaves here today
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % from Satellite 2"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

Ssully wrote:

Yeah, well....

The statement In quotes was taken verbatim from the booklet in a Telarc
classical CD. Maybe they do compress the non-classical CDs OR maybe the
statement isn't 100 percent accurate.

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Randy Yates wrote:
Steven Sullivan writes:
[...]
Another reason may be that some kinds of dynamic range limitation that are allowed
in Redbook, aren't in SACD spec.

Is there indeed any such specification in the Redbook?

You mean, is thge use of extreme digital compression/limiting
with accompanying digital clipping
explicitly *encouraged* by Redbook spec? No. I doubt
the drafters ever even envisioned it.

Regarding level differences, or dynamic range differences, why don't
you provide some numbers? Such things could be easily measured and
verified in the digital domain so that no analog anomalies would
creep in to the comparison.

It's easy to provide numbers -- e.g., the difference between the CD and
SACD layers of "Dark Side of the Moon', which were documented by
Stereophile (I confirmed this on my own too) --
but it's wrong to attribute them to the formats, except in the sense
that I've done: one format allows
abuses that the other doesn't. (This assumes the file remains
entirely in the DSD domain ; of course one could do all sorts
of processing in PCM, then transcode the result to DSD, to achieve that
modern overhyped CD sound in an SACD release.)

Along these lines, are there any computer SACD players and associated
software that allow ripping the raw bitstream to a file?

AFAIK there are no software or hardware SACD tools available to the
consumer for digital extraction (or even playback, afaik),
legally or otherwise.

DVD-A has been cracked, but SACD encryption has not.

--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Steven Sullivan writes:
[...]
It's easy to provide numbers -- e.g., the difference between the CD and
SACD layers of "Dark Side of the Moon', which were documented by
Stereophile (I confirmed this on my own too) --
but it's wrong to attribute them to the formats, except in the sense
that I've done: one format allows
abuses that the other doesn't. (This assumes the file remains
entirely in the DSD domain ; of course one could do all sorts
of processing in PCM, then transcode the result to DSD, to achieve that
modern overhyped CD sound in an SACD release.)

Is it your position, then, that, throughout the mixing/mastering
stages, use of linear PCM, even when using, e.g., 32-bit processing,
allows abuses that DSD does not?

In the case of dynamic range compression, I don't understand how the
PCM format "allows" this "abuse" while DSD does not. In both cases the
mixing/mastering engineer is free to apply dynamic range compression.

It seems that this is not a problem in "freedom of abuse" but rather of
choices in mixing/mastering.

You seem to be implying, then, that the PCM mixing/mastering engineers
make choices that DSD mixing/mastering engineers don't. The remedy to
that is not to change formats, but to change mixing/mastering
engineers practices and perceptions, no? In other words, CDs COULD be
made to sound as good as SACDs if the choices in their mixing/mastering
were made properly.

In fact, if we had access to the DSD bitstream, we could "transcode"
the DSD into 44.1 kHz, 16-bit PCM. If care was taken in the decimation
and subsequent word-length reduction (via, e.g., the POW-R algorithm),
the resulting CD should sound identical, except for format differences.

Do you agree or disagree? Are there other abuses you were referring to?
--
% Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
%%%% % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

Randy Yates wrote:
Steven Sullivan writes:
[...]
It's easy to provide numbers -- e.g., the difference between the CD and
SACD layers of "Dark Side of the Moon', which were documented by
Stereophile (I confirmed this on my own too) --
but it's wrong to attribute them to the formats, except in the sense
that I've done: one format allows
abuses that the other doesn't. (This assumes the file remains
entirely in the DSD domain ; of course one could do all sorts
of processing in PCM, then transcode the result to DSD, to achieve that
modern overhyped CD sound in an SACD release.)

Is it your position, then, that, throughout the mixing/mastering
stages, use of linear PCM, even when using, e.g., 32-bit processing,
allows abuses that DSD does not?

Yes...

In the case of dynamic range compression, I don't understand how the
PCM format "allows" this "abuse" while DSD does not. In both cases the
mixing/mastering engineer is free to apply dynamic range compression.

This already appeared once in this thread:

Nika Aldrich said:
"
[...]
The CD is a very versatile format that actually allows illegal content -
waveforms that exceed its own boundaries. This can cause distortion upon
playback through D/A converters. The SACD has, built into its
specification, a system that prevents this from occurring - a sort of
mathematical algorithm that data passes through to analyze whether the
signal exceeds the boundaries of the converter. If it does, the signal
can't pass. The algorithm is actually fairly simple - 28 consecutive
samples. If a signal has 28 consecutive samples it is illegal and the SACD
scarlet book rejects it - the risk being "modulator overload."

The problems we are discussing - exceeding the legal bounds of the system -
are caused primarily by trying to push the system's overall amplitude very
high, aided and abetted by use of compression, normalizing and limiting.
Since SACD prevents this, what it is essentially preventing is the overuse
of compression, normalizing and limiting. If a mastering engineer attempts
to do this they are given a red flag in their mastering software and told,
essentially, "can't do that!"

The result is that the mastering engineer has to essentially make a choice:
hyper-compress the disk but turn it down to prevent modulator overload, or
let the disk breathe more, give it more dynamic range, and don't compress
it as much. "

Randy Yates wrote:
Steven Sullivan writes:
[...]
It's easy to provide numbers -- e.g., the difference between the CD and
SACD layers of "Dark Side of the Moon', which were documented by
Stereophile (I confirmed this on my own too) --
but it's wrong to attribute them to the formats, except in the sense
that I've done: one format allows
abuses that the other doesn't. (This assumes the file remains
entirely in the DSD domain ; of course one could do all sorts
of processing in PCM, then transcode the result to DSD, to achieve that
modern overhyped CD sound in an SACD release.)

Is it your position, then, that, throughout the mixing/mastering
stages, use of linear PCM, even when using, e.g., 32-bit processing,
allows abuses that DSD does not?

In the case of dynamic range compression, I don't understand how the
PCM format "allows" this "abuse" while DSD does not. In both cases the
mixing/mastering engineer is free to apply dynamic range compression.

It seems that this is not a problem in "freedom of abuse" but rather of
choices in mixing/mastering.

sigh Yes, it's that too.

You seem to be implying, then, that the PCM mixing/mastering engineers
make choices that DSD mixing/mastering engineers don't. The remedy to
that is not to change formats, but to change mixing/mastering
engineers practices and perceptions, no? In other words, CDs COULD be
made to sound as good as SACDs if the choices in their mixing/mastering
were made properly.

Yes, of course. I haven't ever indicated otherwise.

In fact, if we had access to the DSD bitstream, we could "transcode"
the DSD into 44.1 kHz, 16-bit PCM. If care was taken in the decimation
and subsequent word-length reduction (via, e.g., the POW-R algorithm),
the resulting CD should sound identical, except for format differences.

Do you agree or disagree? Are there other abuses you were referring to?

No.

--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Steven Sullivan wrote:

snip

In the case of dynamic range compression, I don't understand how the
PCM format "allows" this "abuse" while DSD does not. In both cases the
mixing/mastering engineer is free to apply dynamic range compression.


This already appeared once in this thread:

Nika Aldrich said:
"
[...]
The CD is a very versatile format that actually allows illegal content -
waveforms that exceed its own boundaries. This can cause distortion upon
playback through D/A converters. The SACD has, built into its
specification, a system that prevents this from occurring - a sort of
mathematical algorithm that data passes through to analyze whether the
signal exceeds the boundaries of the converter. If it does, the signal
can't pass. The algorithm is actually fairly simple - 28 consecutive
samples.

This is a little confusing. I think he meant to say 28 consecutive
identical samples (all ones or all zeros).

If a signal has 28 consecutive samples it is illegal and the SACD
scarlet book rejects it - the risk being "modulator overload."

The problems we are discussing - exceeding the legal bounds of the system -
are caused primarily by trying to push the system's overall amplitude very
high, aided and abetted by use of compression, normalizing and limiting.
Since SACD prevents this, what it is essentially preventing is the overuse
of compression, normalizing and limiting. If a mastering engineer attempts
to do this they are given a red flag in their mastering software and told,
essentially, "can't do that!"

The result is that the mastering engineer has to essentially make a choice:
hyper-compress the disk but turn it down to prevent modulator overload, or
let the disk breathe more, give it more dynamic range, and don't compress
it as much. "

chung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

snip

In the case of dynamic range compression, I don't understand how the
PCM format "allows" this "abuse" while DSD does not. In both cases the
mixing/mastering engineer is free to apply dynamic range compression.


This already appeared once in this thread:

Nika Aldrich said:
"
[...]
The CD is a very versatile format that actually allows illegal content -
waveforms that exceed its own boundaries. This can cause distortion upon
playback through D/A converters. The SACD has, built into its
specification, a system that prevents this from occurring - a sort of
mathematical algorithm that data passes through to analyze whether the
signal exceeds the boundaries of the converter. If it does, the signal
can't pass. The algorithm is actually fairly simple - 28 consecutive
samples.

This is a little confusing. I think he meant to say 28 consecutive
identical samples (all ones or all zeros).

Not sure he meant that -- rarely would you see 28 identical samples in something
that wasn't clipped. But sure, you really want to avoid 28 identical samples at
0 dBFS. The thing is, nowadays, lots of CD mastering uses the trick of reduing the
level to less than 0 db, *after* its already been clipped. THe result looks like flat-topped
..waves that never hit 0 dbFS.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
chung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

snip

In the case of dynamic range compression, I don't understand how the
PCM format "allows" this "abuse" while DSD does not. In both cases the
mixing/mastering engineer is free to apply dynamic range compression.


This already appeared once in this thread:

Nika Aldrich said:
"
[...]
The CD is a very versatile format that actually allows illegal content -
waveforms that exceed its own boundaries. This can cause distortion upon
playback through D/A converters. The SACD has, built into its
specification, a system that prevents this from occurring - a sort of
mathematical algorithm that data passes through to analyze whether the
signal exceeds the boundaries of the converter. If it does, the signal
can't pass. The algorithm is actually fairly simple - 28 consecutive
samples.

This is a little confusing. I think he meant to say 28 consecutive
identical samples (all ones or all zeros).

Not sure he meant that -- rarely would you see 28 identical samples in something
that wasn't clipped. But sure, you really want to avoid 28 identical samples at
0 dBFS. The thing is, nowadays, lots of CD mastering uses the trick of reduing the
level to less than 0 db, *after* its already been clipped. THe result looks like flat-topped
.waves that never hit 0 dbFS.

I assume that the 28 samples are DSD, i.e., 1 bit, samples. In other
words, 28 consecutive ones or 28 consecutive zeros.

On 15 Dec 2005 03:12:29 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

chung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

snip

In the case of dynamic range compression, I don't understand how the
PCM format "allows" this "abuse" while DSD does not. In both cases the
mixing/mastering engineer is free to apply dynamic range compression.


This already appeared once in this thread:

Nika Aldrich said:
"
[...]
The CD is a very versatile format that actually allows illegal content -
waveforms that exceed its own boundaries. This can cause distortion upon
playback through D/A converters. The SACD has, built into its
specification, a system that prevents this from occurring - a sort of
mathematical algorithm that data passes through to analyze whether the
signal exceeds the boundaries of the converter. If it does, the signal
can't pass. The algorithm is actually fairly simple - 28 consecutive
samples.

This is a little confusing. I think he meant to say 28 consecutive
identical samples (all ones or all zeros).

They don't have to be ones or zeros to be identical.

Not sure he meant that -- rarely would you see 28 identical samples in something
that wasn't clipped.

That would be the point................

But sure, you really want to avoid 28 identical samples at
0 dBFS. The thing is, nowadays, lots of CD mastering uses the trick of reduing the
level to less than 0 db, *after* its already been clipped. THe result looks like flat-topped
.waves that never hit 0 dbFS.

And they would have 28 or more identical samples, representing a flat
top more than 0.6 milliseconds wide. It's not rocket science.........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 15 Dec 2005 03:12:29 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

chung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

snip

In the case of dynamic range compression, I don't understand how the
PCM format "allows" this "abuse" while DSD does not. In both cases the
mixing/mastering engineer is free to apply dynamic range compression.


This already appeared once in this thread:

Nika Aldrich said:
"
[...]
The CD is a very versatile format that actually allows illegal content -
waveforms that exceed its own boundaries. This can cause distortion upon
playback through D/A converters. The SACD has, built into its
specification, a system that prevents this from occurring - a sort of
mathematical algorithm that data passes through to analyze whether the
signal exceeds the boundaries of the converter. If it does, the signal
can't pass. The algorithm is actually fairly simple - 28 consecutive
samples.

This is a little confusing. I think he meant to say 28 consecutive
identical samples (all ones or all zeros).

They don't have to be ones or zeros to be identical.

Not sure he meant that -- rarely would you see 28 identical samples in something
that wasn't clipped.

That would be the point................

But sure, you really want to avoid 28 identical samples at
0 dBFS. The thing is, nowadays, lots of CD mastering uses the trick of reduing the
level to less than 0 db, *after* its already been clipped. THe result looks like flat-topped
.waves that never hit 0 dbFS.

And they would have 28 or more identical samples, representing a flat
top more than 0.6 milliseconds wide. It's not rocket science.........

I had in mind the fact that Cool Edit/Audition wouldn't recognize those 28 identical
samples as 'possible clipping', if they weren't at 0 dBFS. ( And also that all
samples are in some context 'consecutive', of course, so Nika indeed meant 'identical'
consecutive samples)

If SACD spec disallows 28 consecutive identical samples at levels *other than* 0 dBFS,
more power to it....that is the point on which I was unclear.
Though I gather there must be *some* intelligent discrimination
of level in the spec, otherwise digital silence would be illegal too.

--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Steven Sullivan wrote:
RobertLang wrote:
Clearly, the dynamic range of recordings must be ?managed?. However, I
have found that in recent years, especially with originally recorded DSD
SACDs, the expansive dynamic range really hits the mark. Significantly
more so than one hears on almost all CDs that I?ve heard. The best ones
keep the quiet passages just above the noise floor with little compromise
on dynamic range.

This was true for classical (and most pop) CDs prior to 1990 or so as well.

So what happened in 1990 (or thereabouts)? Did recording/mastering
engineers just lose their heads?

I'm not a great believer in the sonic value of SACD (except, of course,
for its multichannel capability). I've yet to hear any that impressed
me more than the typical XRCD, for example. But if, in practice, many
CDs are compressed and/or contain clipped waveforms, and their SACD
counterparts are not (in part because the SACD spec makes this
difficult), then I might have to rethink my ambivalence about them.

bob

bob wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
RobertLang wrote:
Clearly, the dynamic range of recordings must be ?managed?. However, I
have found that in recent years, especially with originally recorded DSD
SACDs, the expansive dynamic range really hits the mark. Significantly
more so than one hears on almost all CDs that I?ve heard. The best ones
keep the quiet passages just above the noise floor with little compromise
on dynamic range.

This was true for classical (and most pop) CDs prior to 1990 or so as well.

So what happened in 1990 (or thereabouts)? Did recording/mastering
engineers just lose their heads?

Theres' an article about the Loudness wars in the latest issue of
Mix that gives some historical insight.

http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_big_squeeze/

My experience has been completely the reverse from your experience. That
is, my SACDs, especially (but not only) originally recorded DSD SACDs
*consistently* sound closer to live and thus sound better to me,
significantly better, than my XRCDs. My XRCDs probably don't crack the top
100 in my collection in this regard. Why? I can't say for sure and I am
not saying it’s a format issue. But when it comes to dynamic range the
XRCDs, as do most other CDs, simply don't compete with the SACDs in my
collection. And you are right, when you factor in the multi-channel
capability of SACD; XRCD is strictly "old hat".

Robert C. Lang

On 20 Dec 2005 02:51:59 GMT, "RobertLang" wrote:

My experience has been completely the reverse from your experience. That
is, my SACDs, especially (but not only) originally recorded DSD SACDs
*consistently* sound closer to live and thus sound better to me,
significantly better, than my XRCDs.

Ahh, but are you properly qualified to judge the closeness of your
system to the sound of live music? :-)

My XRCDs probably don't crack the top
100 in my collection in this regard. Why? I can't say for sure and I am
not saying it’s a format issue. But when it comes to dynamic range the
XRCDs, as do most other CDs, simply don't compete with the SACDs in my
collection. And you are right, when you factor in the multi-channel
capability of SACD; XRCD is strictly "old hat".

Actually, since no known *master* tape has a dynamic range of greater
than 85dB, that argument is clearly untrue. And of course, XRCDs have
the same dynamic range as any other 16-bit recording. OTOH, leaving
aside the multichannel question, I find no sonic advantage at all in
SACD. I wonder under what conditions you are comparing the two?

Regrettably, it looks like the public has given its verdict, and
*both* the 'hi-res' formats will be consigned to the dust of history,
along with other technically superior failures like Elcaset.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

My experience has been completely the reverse from your experience. That
is, my SACDs, especially (but not only) originally recorded DSD SACDs
*consistently* sound closer to live and thus sound better to me,
significantly better, than my XRCDs.

Ahh, but are you properly qualified to judge the closeness of your
system to the sound of live music? :-)

Well, I don't have a "license", but I believe that in broad or general
terms I can judge (if not able to quantify) what sounds closer to real. Is
it possible for me to be "tripped up" and mistake a live music from a
short-recorded clip? Yes, I'm sure, but on rare occasions. Some sources
are simply recorded better (sound closer to real) than other.

For years in this forum and elsewhere listeners have said, practically
unchallenged, that XRCDs sound "better" (closer to live) than the other
Red Book because of mastering. For the most part I agree with that
assessment. Well, in turn, I'm saying that in my collection among the
SACDs and Red Book, in general, and XRCDs in particular that my SACDs
sound, as a group significantly better.

My XRCDs probably don't crack the top
100 in my collection in this regard. Why? I can't say for sure and I am
not saying it’s a format issue. But when it comes to dynamic range the
XRCDs, as do most other CDs, simply don't compete with the SACDs in my
collection. And you are right, when you factor in the multi-channel
capability of SACD; XRCD is strictly "old hat".

Actually, since no known *master* tape has a dynamic range of greater
than 85dB, that argument is clearly untrue. And of course, XRCDs have
the same dynamic range as any other 16-bit recording.

No argument in that there is no "practical" or "inherent" dynamic range
differences between Red Book and SACD with respect to "format".

But there is no question that among the hundreds of CDs (including XRCDs)
and SACDs that I own that on SACDs recordings exhibit more dynamic range.
The quiet passages are quieter and the louder passages are louder. This
helps SACDs sound more true to life than most CD recordings including
XRCDs.

Note that I said SACD "recordings" have (as a rule) more dynamic range
than CD "recordings" in my collection. I have not said that the SACD
"format" has more dynamic range.

So why do the SACD recordings in my collection exhibit more dynamic range
than most of the CD recordings in my collection? I attribute it to
mastering. The smaller audiophile labels that make up a great many of the
SACD labels that support the format are more apt, for better or worse, to
push the limits of usuable dynamic range (found in either CDs or SACDs) in
their quest to make superior recordings.

By the way, these same labels produced better sounding CDs, in my opinion,
than their competition, probably because of mastering.

So if 85db is the theoretical limit for dynamic range for a mastertape
then I would guess that the SACD recordings in my collection more often
approach that limit than CD recordings in my collection due to the
mastering of the audiophiles labels that have be attracted to SACD.

OTOH, leaving
aside the multichannel question, I find no sonic advantage at all in
SACD. I wonder under what conditions you are comparing the two?

Being that approximately 90 out of the last 100 SACD recordings I have
purchased have been multi-channel releases I'm not about to "leave aside"
the multi-channel question. And why should I? It's actually difficult
*not* to buy a multi-channel SACD recording these days. And unlike dynamic
range for which there are no practical differences between SACD and CD the
multi-channel factor is huge and allows SACD to potentially surge ahead of
CD with respect to sound quality.

Regrettably, it looks like the public has given its verdict, and
*both* the 'hi-res' formats will be consigned to the dust of history,
along with other technically superior failures like Elcaset.

If that does come to past that would be pathetic, for you, and me as music
lovers. SACD has begun to realize the potential that brings "music closer
to live" than CD could ever hope to achieve.

Robert C. Lang

RobertLang wrote:
My experience has been completely the reverse from your experience. That
is, my SACDs, especially (but not only) originally recorded DSD SACDs
*consistently* sound closer to live and thus sound better to me,
significantly better, than my XRCDs.

Ahh, but are you properly qualified to judge the closeness of your
system to the sound of live music? :-)

Well, I don't have a "license", but I believe that in broad or general
terms I can judge (if not able to quantify) what sounds closer to real. Is
it possible for me to be "tripped up" and mistake a live music from a
short-recorded clip? Yes, I'm sure, but on rare occasions. Some sources
are simply recorded better (sound closer to real) than other.

For years in this forum and elsewhere listeners have said, practically
unchallenged, that XRCDs sound "better" (closer to live) than the other
Red Book because of mastering. For the most part I agree with that
assessment. Well, in turn, I'm saying that in my collection among the
SACDs and Red Book, in general, and XRCDs in particular that my SACDs
sound, as a group significantly better.

My XRCDs probably don't crack the top
100 in my collection in this regard. Why? I can't say for sure and I am
not saying it?s a format issue. But when it comes to dynamic range the
XRCDs, as do most other CDs, simply don't compete with the SACDs in my
collection. And you are right, when you factor in the multi-channel
capability of SACD; XRCD is strictly "old hat".

Actually, since no known *master* tape has a dynamic range of greater
than 85dB, that argument is clearly untrue. And of course, XRCDs have
the same dynamic range as any other 16-bit recording.

No argument in that there is no "practical" or "inherent" dynamic range
differences between Red Book and SACD with respect to "format".

But there is no question that among the hundreds of CDs (including XRCDs)
and SACDs that I own that on SACDs recordings exhibit more dynamic range.
The quiet passages are quieter and the louder passages are louder. This
helps SACDs sound more true to life than most CD recordings including
XRCDs.

Comparing SACDs, which don't allow overcompression, to rock/pop
CDs from about 1990 onwards, when compression and limiting abuse
began to become widespread mastering practice, is not fair.
So let's compare apples to apples, please. SACD vs. XRCD.
Name an example where the SACD has more dynamic range than
the XRCD. Then we can perhaps actually measure whether this
is true. Because dynamic range is measurable.

Note that I said SACD "recordings" have (as a rule) more dynamic range
than CD "recordings" in my collection. I have not said that the SACD
"format" has more dynamic range.

Again, if you are including popular music (as opposed to classical)
from the last decade and half, ther reason for that is
purely a mastering issue. (THough I doubt your SACDs go *louder*
than typical modern rock and dance music discs).

So why do the SACD recordings in my collection exhibit more dynamic range
than most of the CD recordings in my collection? I attribute it to
mastering. The smaller audiophile labels that make up a great many of the
SACD labels that support the format are more apt, for better or worse, to
push the limits of usuable dynamic range (found in either CDs or SACDs) in
their quest to make superior recordings.

Classical discs are one area that has mostly been free from such abuse,
though. So there's no particular reason a comparison of classical
CDs to SACDs should show significantly more dynamic range.
With XRCDs, where every attempt is made to assure high quality
reproduction, such differenec seems even more unlikely.

If that does come to past that would be pathetic, for you, and me as music
lovers. SACD has begun to realize the potential that brings "music closer
to live" than CD could ever hope to achieve.

And that is a claim about the *format* -- which as you said earlier is not
the reason for the differemce you claim to hear.

It is also a claim that is unfounded.

--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
RobertLang wrote:
My experience has been completely the reverse from your experience. That
is, my SACDs, especially (but not only) originally recorded DSD SACDs
*consistently* sound closer to live and thus sound better to me,
significantly better, than my XRCDs.

Ahh, but are you properly qualified to judge the closeness of your
system to the sound of live music? :-)

Well, I don't have a "license", but I believe that in broad or general
terms I can judge (if not able to quantify) what sounds closer to real.
Is
it possible for me to be "tripped up" and mistake a live music from a
short-recorded clip? Yes, I'm sure, but on rare occasions. Some sources
are simply recorded better (sound closer to real) than other.

For years in this forum and elsewhere listeners have said, practically
unchallenged, that XRCDs sound "better" (closer to live) than the other
Red Book because of mastering. For the most part I agree with that
assessment. Well, in turn, I'm saying that in my collection among the
SACDs and Red Book, in general, and XRCDs in particular that my SACDs
sound, as a group significantly better.

My XRCDs probably don't crack the top
100 in my collection in this regard. Why? I can't say for sure and I am
not saying it?s a format issue. But when it comes to dynamic range the
XRCDs, as do most other CDs, simply don't compete with the SACDs in my
collection. And you are right, when you factor in the multi-channel
capability of SACD; XRCD is strictly "old hat".

Actually, since no known *master* tape has a dynamic range of greater
than 85dB, that argument is clearly untrue. And of course, XRCDs have
the same dynamic range as any other 16-bit recording.

No argument in that there is no "practical" or "inherent" dynamic range
differences between Red Book and SACD with respect to "format".

But there is no question that among the hundreds of CDs (including XRCDs)
and SACDs that I own that on SACDs recordings exhibit more dynamic range.
The quiet passages are quieter and the louder passages are louder. This
helps SACDs sound more true to life than most CD recordings including
XRCDs.

Comparing SACDs, which don't allow overcompression, to rock/pop
CDs from about 1990 onwards, when compression and limiting abuse
began to become widespread mastering practice, is not fair.
So let's compare apples to apples, please. SACD vs. XRCD.
Name an example where the SACD has more dynamic range than
the XRCD. Then we can perhaps actually measure whether this
is true. Because dynamic range is measurable.


He's already said he's not saying that. This is basically an attempt to
whip up debate where there is none.

Note that I said SACD "recordings" have (as a rule) more dynamic range
than CD "recordings" in my collection. I have not said that the SACD
"format" has more dynamic range.

Again, if you are including popular music (as opposed to classical)
from the last decade and half, ther reason for that is
purely a mastering issue. (THough I doubt your SACDs go *louder*
than typical modern rock and dance music discs).


He's already acknowledged that. But the end result is "real".

So why do the SACD recordings in my collection exhibit more dynamic range
than most of the CD recordings in my collection? I attribute it to
mastering. The smaller audiophile labels that make up a great many of the
SACD labels that support the format are more apt, for better or worse, to
push the limits of usuable dynamic range (found in either CDs or SACDs)
in
their quest to make superior recordings.

Classical discs are one area that has mostly been free from such abuse,
though. So there's no particular reason a comparison of classical
CDs to SACDs should show significantly more dynamic range.
With XRCDs, where every attempt is made to assure high quality
reproduction, such differenec seems even more unlikely.


So perhaps it is due to better transient response and lack of pre-echo,
especially?

If that does come to past that would be pathetic, for you, and me as
music
lovers. SACD has begun to realize the potential that brings "music closer
to live" than CD could ever hope to achieve.

And that is a claim about the *format* -- which as you said earlier is not
the reason for the differemce you claim to hear.

It is also a claim that is unfounded.

Lack of compression = more real. What is difficult to understand?

Multi-channel = more real. What is difficult to understand?

More natural transient response = more real. What is difficult to
understand?

"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing
stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Comparing SACDs, which don't allow overcompression, to rock/pop
CDs from about 1990 onwards, when compression and limiting abuse
began to become widespread mastering practice, is not fair.

Perhaps you have gotten my post mixed up with another post. I have never
made any such comparisons.

So let's compare apples to apples, please. SACD vs. XRCD.
Name an example where the SACD has more dynamic range than
the XRCD. Then we can perhaps actually measure whether this
is true. Because dynamic range is measurable.

I don't think I'll take the bait. I could name dozens of examples very
easily, so I must be missing something here. So, before I get embroiled in
endless debate tell me where are you going with this? If I gave you some
titles what information could you derive from it and what would you do
with it?

Besides, its OK for you (not you personally) to say, with impunity, that
XRCDs sound better as a group than other CDs. It has a biblical acceptance
with no proof being required. (And I don’t need any proof). But the minute
I say that my SACDs sound better than my XRCDs then I have to “compare
apples to apples”, “name, names”, “provide measurements” etc.

Again, if you are including popular music (as opposed to classical)
from the last decade and half, ther reason for that is
purely a mastering issue. (THough I doubt your SACDs go *louder*
than typical modern rock and dance music discs).

I never said that my SACD recordings go *louder*, per say, and I've never
mentioned rock. I said that my SACD recordings as a group consistently
exhibit more "dynamic range" than my CD recordings as a group.

Classical discs are one area that has mostly been free from such abuse,
though. So there's no particular reason a comparison of classical
CDs to SACDs should show significantly more dynamic range.

I have no basis to disagree with you. I have said several times that I
thought the differences maybe due to mastering and not due to format. It
is you who has suggested (I think) that the absence of compression in SACD
mastering may account for audible differences.

If that does come to past that would be pathetic, for you, and me as
music
lovers. SACD has begun to realize the potential that brings "music
closer
to live" than CD could ever hope to achieve.

And that is a claim about the *format* -- which as you said earlier is
not
the reason for the differemce you claim to hear.

It is also a claim that is unfounded.

Let me make it clear. When it comes to the issue of "dynamic range",
*format*, in my opinion, does not play a significant role in differences
because both CD and SACD have more than enough "dynamic range". So, that
my SACD recordings exhibit more dynamic range than my CD recordings
probably has more to do with mastering than with *format*. (But maybe
format does have something to do with it, since you say that SACD does not
*allow* over compression. I don't know and it is really not that
important).

BUT when I say, "SACD has begun to realize the potential that brings
"music
closer to live than CD could ever hope to achieve.", that *is* a format
issue. That is not a mastering issue. The CD *format*, including XRCD, is
a hopelessly limited two-channel format. Not to mention that XRCD is far
too expensive. SACD (I'm talking multi-channel) simply blows it away with
respect to sound quality and closer-to-realism music reproduction.

RobertLang wrote:
So let's compare apples to apples, please. SACD vs. XRCD.
Name an example where the SACD has more dynamic range than
the XRCD. Then we can perhaps actually measure whether this
is true. Because dynamic range is measurable.

I don't think I'll take the bait. I could name dozens of examples very
easily, so I must be missing something here. So, before I get embroiled in
endless debate tell me where are you going with this? If I gave you some
titles what information could you derive from it and what would you do
with it?

Besides, its OK for you (not you personally) to say, with impunity, that
XRCDs sound better as a group than other CDs. It has a biblical acceptance
with no proof being required. (And I don't need any proof). But the minute
I say that my SACDs sound better than my XRCDs then I have to "compare
apples to apples", "name, names", "provide measurements" etc.

Your statement that SACDs sound better than XRCDs isn't at issue. Your
statement that SACDs have greater dynamic range than XRCDs is. That's
why Steven asked for specific examples that could be measured. If
you're right, that would be a very good thing for audiophiles to know.

snip

Not to mention that XRCD is far
too expensive.

Well, yeah, if you pay JVC prices. But JVC relicenses many of its
masters back to the original labels, which issue them at much more
reasonable rates. See, for example, www.fantasyjazz.com.

bob

Your statement that SACDs sound better than XRCDs isn't at issue. Your
statement that SACDs have greater dynamic range than XRCDs is. That's
why Steven asked for specific examples that could be measured. If
you're right, that would be a very good thing for audiophiles to
know.

To clear up confusion that you have about what I have said, please see
(the link below) my initial post on the subject as well as my subsequent
posts.

http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/...es/174440.html

I attribute (my opinion only) the differences in dynamic range between my
XRCDs and my SACDs in my collection and why my SACDs, as a group, exhibit
greater dynamic range, is due to mastering *not* format.

Steven is fully aware that this is my position/opinion (not claim) and has
referred to it on more than one occasion.

RobertLang wrote:
Your statement that SACDs sound better than XRCDs isn't at issue. Your
statement that SACDs have greater dynamic range than XRCDs is. That's
why Steven asked for specific examples that could be measured. If
you're right, that would be a very good thing for audiophiles to
know.

To clear up confusion that you have about what I have said, please see
(the link below) my initial post on the subject as well as my subsequent
posts.

http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/...es/174440.html

I attribute (my opinion only) the differences in dynamic range between my
XRCDs and my SACDs in my collection and why my SACDs, as a group, exhibit
greater dynamic range, is due to mastering *not* format.

Yes, yes, we know, and we agree that if SACDs have greater dynamic
range, it will be because of the mastering. But it would be interesting
to some of us to know whether they do tend to have greater dynamic
range than even XRCDs, and if so how much. That's why Steven asked you
for a few examples where you've compared the two, so that this can be
measured.

bob