Quote:



Fair point indeed, now all you have to do is find 2 humans who can tell the difference under fairly controlled conditions.

Since few (if any) CDs even come close to exploiting the available 96db dynamic range of 16 bit encoding I wonder how many SACDs get close to exploiting what SACD can actually do.

Quote:



While I do appreciate the fact that Michael Bishop is a frequent poster on Audio Asylum and answers a lot of questions about Telarc's production process, I can't help but feel that his recordings are a huge step backwards. The midrange seems rather congested compared to the original Jack Renner discs, to the point that it simply sounds so inferior to me that I don't care if it's CD or SACD.

But to each his own, as far as recording perspective goes.....reviews of newer Telarc SACD's on SA-CD.net certainly appear to reflect a "love 'em or hate 'em" feeling among the reviewers.

Quote:



What gripes me is that a single popular disc can vary so markedly from cut to cut. When one looks at the credits, and finds that a cut was pieced together from sessions in three different studios (with background vocals possibly tracked in a fourth!) I suppose there is no question as to why that happens.

Quote:



Agreed. There is such a slight improvement that it's not enough for me to want the "improved quality" of the SACD over a better performance. A very good performance, well recorded on CD would win out for me every time over a somewhat inferior performance on a "perfect" SACD.

Quote:



Now that I have convinced myself that I can't hear much difference between the CD and SACD layers on Telarcs, I guess that is not as much of a concern for me!

Quote:



That seems to be the common quandary.......I have to admit, though, even if the performance is incredible, if the recording is awful, then I end up listening to the disc with better sonics. Some of the recent DGG remasters on CD of performances I loved on LP are horrifically bright and edgy--to me, thoroughly unlistenable regardless of the quality of the performance.

Quote:



At least in the classical realm, the surround channels contain real ambience information. I don't understand the concept of the "on the stage" perspective that is often used for DVD-A versions of pop/rock albums. To me, the producers should understand that a lot (if not a majority?) of residential surround systems must use in-ceiling speakers for the rear channels. If they mix for an "on stage" perspective, the result sounds like crap on such systems.

Quote:



pot-kettle-black

See ya
Steve

Quote:



If a recording really did exploit the full dynamic range of redbook, it would be painful to listen to. In order to hear the quiet stuff, the loud stuff would kill you.

See ya
Steve

Quote:



That'll change as you grow and develop your knowledge of music. Music is a language that you become more literate in the longer you are exposed to it. I used to think I knew everything about music, but the more I know, the more I know that I don't know- if you get my meaning. I've found that listening to different styles of music can teach me things about other styles. The things I've learned from Balinese gamelan have informed my listening to classical music; and the things I've learned from country music have increased my appreciation of jazz. It's all connected.

Performance is everything. Caruso on acoustic 78s can raise the hair on the back of your neck and give you goosebumps as well as any high bitrate digital recording. The recording is merely the vehicle to bring the performance to you. Thankfully, high fidelity recording was achieved fifty years ago. We've had half a century where the limitations of the format aren't important. That should free us up to focus on the music.

See ya
Steve

Quote:



Really?
I guess by that logic live music would be fatal

Quote:



Wrong...so wrong

Quote:



Don't be so suspicious.

There is a difference between CD/SACD.
I bought my first SACD player recently, a Marantz SA-11S1.
Since I didn't have any SACD's, I bought a few hybrid discs to replace copies of CD's I already had so I could see what it was all about.

The CD and the CD layer of the Hybrid discs sound the same. No surprise there.
BUT…..
The SACD layer has a more open, clear quality with a definite improvement in the high frequencies, details and soundstage size.
It’s not a night & day difference but anyone with decent equipment and good hearing will notice it and appreciate the improvement.
TR

Also, I have a regular CD's and an SACD only copy of the same music (no "hobbled" CD layer) The SACD sounded better.

Quote:



Interesting.......in 2005, my son's HS band director transcribed the finale of Colin McPhee's "Tabuh Tabuhan" for their Symphonic Band......in 2006, I chaperoned the band on a trip to FL, and we stopped off at the assistant director's alma mater, Western Carolina University, where they have a gamelan--that was pretty wild, hearing it live......and earlier this year, I heard the Chicago SO perform "Tabuh Tabuhan" after a pre-concert lecture by a fellow from MIT who is an expert in Balinese music and McPhee's impact there.

Indeed, it is all connected!

Quote:



Except you can't find any live music that would actually exploit the full dynamic range of redbook due to the naturally high ambient noise floor. Noise floor (20 dB) + limit of full dynamic range of redbook (96 dB) == 116 dB == ears bleeding.

Quote:



Well some hybrids have different mixes/engineered versions for the two layers. The SACD might be a whole new mix but the CD layer might just be an old reused version. A better test to see if you can hear the difference is to take the SACD and downsample it to redbook and record it on a cdr and see if you hear a difference. This is the way they did it in that study someone posted and I think it really is the most accurate way to test. This way you personally can make sure the two (SACD and CD) are the same mix.

Quote:



How does one go about that without introducing another D/A and A/D conversion?

Someone with SACD editing/mastering capabilities can "downsample".......but it seems to me that the average audiophile would have to re-record the analog outputs from an SACD player.

Quote:



That is how Meyer and Moran did their tests they added a 16/44.1 A/D/A stage after the analog outputs. Though, surely someone somewhere, probably Finland , has hacked this problem ?

Here's a link to the explanation about the tests performed by Meyer and Moran that were submitted in the recent AES paper, "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback."

It seems like a fair test, even though the original home audio system was by no means up to the task. They eventually went to a few mixing and mastering facilities and tested some young ears. Their findings indicate that there were no significant differences between the SACD layer and the downsampled conversion except at levels higher than "normal." Normal was considered to be 85 dB at the listening chair, calibrated using a pink noise sample. Theoretically, some quieter jazz and classical music would require the 10 dB boost they used to hear the details, so it's halfway feasible that a normal user might hear differences in low level accuracy.

Is it worth paying more for a slightly higher fidelity recording with copy protection? Maybe not. People like Head-Fier markl have noticed significant quality differences between early CDs (esp. from places like West Germany) and current ones, so perhaps it would be a more cost-effective idea to focus high-res efforts on a better CD mastering process, like those employed during the manufacture of HDCD, XRCD, XRCD2, K2, and K2HD.

Quote:



Precisely. I have to disagree with any argument that specifically states the dynamic range of 16 bit recording is somehow inadequate. OK, I know I continue to argue that higher bitrates can provide more authentic acoustic instrument timbre, but dynamic range seriously is not a problem! Even with the classical music I listen to (which is acknowledged to have the greatest dynamic range of all), you'd be lucky to have everything from the quietest passage to the loudest passage fit outside anything more than a 40 dB envelope. As you say, it's not the music itself doing that, but the fact that natural ambient background noise is a lot louder than people think.

Quote:



I can understand where you are coming from, but I think the final result is very system dependant and also perhaps dependant upon what you are used to hearing in live performances. I do agree about the "congested" feel, however I often actually notice similar things in live performances too depending upon the concert hall and the proportion of total seats occupied by the audience. It's my view that many recordings sound more like orchestra rehersals in terms of acoustics, whereas I think the Telarcs approach more of the "full hall" feel. I also think that Bishop's technique works on an assumption that the playback system will be of very high resolution throughout the reproduction chain - in other words, nothing is highlighted or overblown because there is the expectation / hope that the system and listening room will take care of all of that.

I think that Bishop achieves very highly in terms of imaging - the front to back, left to right imaging is superb to my ears, so perhaps there is some price to pay for that in other respects.

I have to say though, that I don't think Telarc's use of Monster cable is doing them any favours. I think it tends to emphasise all the characteristics that you mentioned.

In the end though, I am still much more a fan of the early techniques used by RCA, Decca and Mercury, etc than I am the modern approach.