SACD Advantage for Headphones - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike 

 

I fail to see how this has to do with anything, especially with some words missing?

 

methinks he needs to buy a more expensive keyboard cable.

Sorry, guys, I was multitasking.  I went back and corrected the missing words.  But I never intended to write a complete description or thesis.  What I referred to in my badly worded example was the issue about which format: the best vinyl masters vs. the best digital formats are superior since the original waveforms being captured in the recording are mostly analog, save for the electronic synthesizers. The FIM recording above was mastered from the original analog master tapes direct-to-HDD in a bit-perfect format bypassing the conventional mastering process of creating a master disc.  And the way it was done resulted in a remarkable fidelity in preserving that "you are there" three-dimensional sound stage that is seldom heard even from modern fully digitally mastered SACD recordings.  That "analog" sound refers to a qualitative impression and not a quantitative one, so I guess you are right, it doesn't belong here in Sound Science.  But it is that "magic" as you put it that makes me to listen to one particular recording vs. another many times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by warp08 

the best vinyl masters vs. the best digital formats are superior since the original waveforms being captured in the recording are mostly analog, save for the electronic synthesizers.

I beg to differ - most mastering will be done digitally anyway, so effectively you're doing analog > digital > digital (final master) > analog, when you could have cut out the analog.

Now, the difference is that vinyl is typically handled different in terms of mastering.  I've hand instances where a vinyl is superior to the digital, and a case where the digital is superior to the vinyl (NIN The Slip, the vinyl noise floor was way to high on all pressings).  Usually the vinyl mastering is better though which is why many are still in love with the sound here.  

Now, you could say beyond this you may also like the distortion, flutter, cartridge colorations, possible preamp colorations, etc. in the chain.  However, those are more likely to be considered inferior in terms of accurately reproducing the signal they are sent.

Well, that's interesting but not the process FIM describes.  The link says their mastering process requires that the final master file (digital) is sent via FTP "bit-by-bit" (which isn't exactly true if you know anything about OSI) and is stamped by their machines directly from the file.  That's it.  Mastering is done by audio engineers, which may / may not know what they're doing and such their quality can be excellent to awful (since they are an audiophile label I'll give them the benefit of a doubt and say they do).

Therefore, whether it's from tape or not is entirely up to the artist and engineer.  It could be straight digital anyway.

They then go on about BLER, but it in itself only tells so much:

http://www.mscience.com/faq13.htm

FIM also makes some really widespread accusations with no proof that multiple transfers means more jitter.  Read/Write errors maybe, but jitter . . . ?  They're stretching it a bit to say the least.

Quote:

I disagree, you are never going to get the soundstage you speak of unless you have a binaural recording.  I'd say you may be over romanticizing this a bit heavily.

Quote:

This too sounds romanticized.

Quote:

Originally Posted by warp08 What I referred to in my badly worded example was the issue about which format: the best vinyl masters vs. the best digital formats are superior since the original waveforms being captured in the recording are mostly analog, save for the electronic synthesizers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by warp08 

The FIM recording above was mastered from the original analog master tapes direct-to-HDD in a bit-perfect format bypassing the conventional mastering process of creating a master disc.  And the way it was done resulted in a remarkable fidelity in preserving that "you are there" three-dimensional sound stage that is seldom heard even from modern fully digitally mastered SACD recordings. 

I think you need to read up on the mastering process. I know it's a mysterious process for most but seriously...find a book on mastering or some forums (like Steve Hoffman's) and read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bflatfinesse 

I want to thank everyone for their informative replies.  The only question remaining for me is that with my current setup- HD 600 headphones and a Little Dot MKV solid state desktop amp, would I be able to hear any differences if I were to invest in a decent but not top of the line SACD/CD player? If I were to buy an SACD player, I would probably get Onkyo's C-S5VL. Thanks.

Once again, it depends mostly on the recording.  If the recording has better dynamic range or other substantial differences then most definitely yes.

Listened to my first SACD ever some days ago. Trondheimsoliniste divertimenti. It´s really nice because it´s both SACD/Bluray so nice reference material.

2l.no has a lot of high res downloads btw.

Comparing CD to SACD there was a world of difference on my Oppo BD83SE/Traformator Head One/LCD-2 combo. Using the DAC19 for the CD version didn´t help much to get red book on the level of SACD.

I thought the CD was quite good already though.