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.

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

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.
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.

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

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


--

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


--

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.


--

MD wrote:
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?

You seem to be of the opinion that the mere existence of a 'new improved' product
is sufficient to demonstrate that it is indeed an improvement.

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.

Which sounds *better* is a subjective call. To some people the sound of a 78
is *better*.

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).

Listening to analog and digital sources WHERE THE ONLY DIFFERNCE IS ANALOG VS DIGITAL
is the key. *That's* what controlling variables means.

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.

I have compared LP to a CDR of LP. *THAT* is what you should try. Good luck setting
it up for a DBT, though.




--

Steven Sullivan wrote:
MD wrote:

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?


You seem to be of the opinion that the mere existence of a 'new improved' product
is sufficient to demonstrate that it is indeed an improvement.


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.


Which sounds *better* is a subjective call. To some people the sound of a 78
is *better*.


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).


Listening to analog and digital sources WHERE THE ONLY DIFFERNCE IS ANALOG VS DIGITAL
is the key. *That's* what controlling variables means.


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.


I have compared LP to a CDR of LP. *THAT* is what you should try. Good luck setting
it up for a DBT, though.




I don't actually think new has to be better - hence my use of analog and
tubes. However - someone decided to dump a lot of money in to HDCD. I
haven't compared the 2 mediums so I actually don't know if HDCD sounds
better. Have you heard both? If so I do you think there is a
difference and if so is it "better"?


--

MD wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
MD wrote:

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?


You seem to be of the opinion that the mere existence of a 'new improved' product
is sufficient to demonstrate that it is indeed an improvement.


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.


Which sounds *better* is a subjective call. To some people the sound of a 78
is *better*.


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).


Listening to analog and digital sources WHERE THE ONLY DIFFERNCE IS ANALOG VS DIGITAL
is the key. *That's* what controlling variables means.


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.


I have compared LP to a CDR of LP. *THAT* is what you should try. Good luck setting
it up for a DBT, though.




I don't actually think new has to be better - hence my use of analog and
tubes. However - someone decided to dump a lot of money in to HDCD. I
haven't compared the 2 mediums so I actually don't know if HDCD sounds
better. Have you heard both? If so I do you think there is a
difference and if so is it "better"?


Yes, I have heard CD vs. HDCD, over an HDCD-decoding player.. But I did not know if the
mastering was otherwise the same, or if the player treated both sources the same, so I *could
not* conclude that any differences I heard were due to HDCD vs. CD. (From the few where I
have looked at the waveforms, it appeared that the mastering was *quite different*, actually)

So, are ou going to simply keep repeating the irrelevant question 'Have you heard both??'
for every pair of recordings, or are you going to acknowledge the limitations on what you can
know about *why* they sound different?


--

Steven Sullivan wrote:
MD wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:

MD wrote:


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?


You seem to be of the opinion that the mere existence of a 'new improved' product
is sufficient to demonstrate that it is indeed an improvement.



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.


Which sounds *better* is a subjective call. To some people the sound of a 78
is *better*.



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).


Listening to analog and digital sources WHERE THE ONLY DIFFERNCE IS ANALOG VS DIGITAL
is the key. *That's* what controlling variables means.



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.


I have compared LP to a CDR of LP. *THAT* is what you should try. Good luck setting
it up for a DBT, though.





I don't actually think new has to be better - hence my use of analog and
tubes. However - someone decided to dump a lot of money in to HDCD. I
haven't compared the 2 mediums so I actually don't know if HDCD sounds
better. Have you heard both? If so I do you think there is a
difference and if so is it "better"?



Yes, I have heard CD vs. HDCD, over an HDCD-decoding player.. But I did not know if the
mastering was otherwise the same, or if the player treated both sources the same, so I *could
not* conclude that any differences I heard were due to HDCD vs. CD. (From the few where I
have looked at the waveforms, it appeared that the mastering was *quite different*, actually)

So, are ou going to simply keep repeating the irrelevant question 'Have you heard both??'
for every pair of recordings, or are you going to acknowledge the limitations on what you can
know about *why* they sound different?


I understand that even if someone likes analog more than the LP it could
be for reasons other than the playback end. However - if the trend
continues the playback end becomes the greater factor. You seem to be
trying to find ways to excuse the possibility that it's the playback
that makes the (or a big part of the ) difference. I now have most of
Steely Dan's LPs as well as their remastered CD. Every cut on LP sounds
better. The difference is consistent - the highs especially cymbals
sound much more realistic. They extend in time to a natural roll off.
I have now compared over 2 dozens LPs to their CD counter parts.
All of the CDs and LPs have varied from original release to remasters.
Given this I believe that playback has more to do with what I hear than
the recording/mastering process. As for CD sound it does have it's
advantages. Bass is tighter and their is less noise. For instance I
have the original RCA pressing of Harry Belefontes Carnagie Hall
release. The LP is not in the best of shape so the pops and ticks are
distracting. When I compare the music on the LP to the CD I can't hear
much of a difference so I usually listen to the CD. I choose CD because
there is so much of the music is low in volume - so the ticks are very
audible - and the dynamic range of the music is beyond LPs capabilities.


--

Steven Sullivan wrote:
MD wrote:
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?

You seem to be of the opinion that the mere existence of a 'new improved' product
is sufficient to demonstrate that it is indeed an improvement.

Now that is a funny thing to say to someone who has expressed a
preference for LPs over CDs.




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.

Which sounds *better* is a subjective call.


Wow, that is quite a revelation.


To some people the sound of a 78
is *better*.


I have heard about such people.




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).

Listening to analog and digital sources WHERE THE ONLY DIFFERNCE IS ANALOG VS DIGITAL
is the key. *That's* what controlling variables means.


You are simply out of luck then because with LPs and Cds hardware is
always going to be an issue.



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.

I have compared LP to a CDR of LP. *THAT* is what you should try.


Why? What does that have to do with the topic?


Good luck setting
it up for a DBT, though.



Good point. For all we know your comparison was affected by your bias
that CD is a transparent medium. I still don't see why anyone would
consider that comparison meaningful anyway. It tells you nothing about
what is on any commecial CDs. You know, the CDs consumers actually have
access to.




Scott


--