[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ I disagree about the mastering: the hi-rez formats show a quality on their own. But I agree somewhat on the «little difference»: the step from the CD to SACD and DVD-A is smaller than from vinyl to CD. The reason is that -- to throw in arbitrary percentages -- while the LP represents 50% of the original (analogue) master tape, the CD reaches 80% accuracy

Well, as you can guess, I've done this same sort of experiment with LPs and CDs. The result was that LPs have the capability of sounding as good as a CD. It's just a lot more trouble... the engineering and record mastering has to be perfect, it requires really good equipment, and the quality of vinyl needs to be very high, not the recycled stuff used in the late 70s/early 80s.

The one thing that I did find is that good sounding records were usually engineered a lot better than most things are today.

See ya
Steve

 

[mikeg]

That's also been my experience. When I heard my first SACDs on my new SACD player, I believed in the SACD format's superiorty. But, after a while, I noticed that some of my regular CDs, when played on this new SACD player, sounded just as good as the SACDs. So, I began to wonder whether this SACD hype was for real. And now, I'm fairly convinced that it's not for real. IMO, regular CDs and SACDs, when produced with equal care, will sound equally wonderful to most of us.
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot When I first got my SACD player, I popped on the Living Stereo disks and was amazed at the great sound. I posted a report to the web that the sound of SACDs was noticeably better than CDs. But when I actually compared the sound, instead of relying on my impressions, I found that the CD layer sounded just as good.

 

[Mastergill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot This isn't a PA system. This is a prototype for a new type of speaker design that is scalable from a room sized rig like this one, all the way up to arena sized equipment. If you're in the LA area, I would be happy to arrange a demo for you. It's pretty amazing to hear.

I don't ask you to post pics and specs this will bring the thread too much OT, but i still suspect it's designed for high SPL rather than transparency.
Horn speakers with active crossover and maybe some EQ? Too much complicated signal path i guess...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot I'm using an SACD player that has received good reviews. If there is no difference between CD and SACD performance at this level, people should know that so they don't waste money on consumer grade equipment that isn't capable of producing any sound improvement. If it requires pro equipment to judge DSD performance, why is the format being marketed to consumers?

To make the average Joe believe he has the latest of digital tech in is home?
This is the problem with almost all actual universal players. I'm sorry but this is not high-end. There's too much compromise in one box. There's not a wide range of stand alone high-end SACD converters to satisfy the perfectionist. Let say there's maybe no more than 5 truly high-end SACD converter and they are all aimed at the pro market.
Me i would jump on whatever high-res they want me to buy if i can get a SACD/DVD-A drive at a reasonable price and a separated top-notch DAC that i have choosed myself and without optical digital link please.


Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot I've done recording with 24/96 on a ProTools rig at the last studio I worked at. As I said earlier, the wider range allowed me more flexibility in mixing, but I couldn't hear the difference with a recording played flat. See ya Steve

It's more than just dynamics range. You should hear more stable, well defined soundstage with more depth, textures are more real, transients are lighting fast...compared to the same at 16bits...and this was just raw tracks comparison with a dual G5 running Logic with Mytek AD/DA and Meyer HD-1 monitor...not even a crazy mastering engineer setup.

Wordlength is more effective than sample rate IMO. You need good monitoring setup, it's not with NS10 & Co that you will hear strong differencies. BTW too many pro recording studio don't care enough about their monitoring setup.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ However, bypassing the intellect (although my wording was a bit more differentiating) has no negative meaning to me and certainly will do no harm in the context of music listening. Of course the intuitive approach is not exactly switching off the intellect, rather a direct wire to the mind, enabling easy comprehension of things the purely intellectual approach with all its censorship wouldn't allow.

I understand... some of my best friends are hippies! (insert smiley here)

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mastergill I don't ask you to post pics and specs this will bring the thread too much OT, but i still suspect it's designed for high SPL rather than transparency. Horn speakers with active crossover and maybe some EQ? Too much complicated signal path i guess...

Nope. This system performs the same at every volume level. It's the most amazing sound I've ever heard. I'm afraid I can't post pics, because the design is being shopped around right now. But if you're in LA, I could arrange a demonstration for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mastergill This is the problem with almost all actual universal players. I'm sorry but this is not high-end. There's too much compromise in one box. There's not a wide range of stand alone high-end SACD converters to satisfy the perfectionist. Let say there's maybe no more than 5 truly high-end SACD converter and they are all aimed at the pro market.

Well, then my conclusion is correct. For home applications without multichannel, SACD is a bust.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mastergill It's more than just dynamics range. You should hear more stable, well defined soundstage with more depth, textures are more real, transients are lighting fast...compared to the same at 16bits...and this was just raw tracks comparison with a dual G5 running Logic with Mytek AD/DA and Meyer HD-1 monitor...not even a crazy mastering engineer setup.

You just said that you need a pro grade setup to tell the difference. Which is it?

See ya
Steve

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Well, as you can guess, I've done this same sort of experiment with LPs and CDs. The result was that LPs have the capability of sounding as good as a CD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ (BTW: the percentages represent the degree of accuracy, not euphony.)

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot What recording have you noticed this difference with?

The first SACD I got, and I was sold on the format.
It is Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture from Telarc (recorded around 1999).
It is a pure DSD recording, perhaps the first such recording ever released commercially.
This SACD is relatively easy to find and sounds good both musically and sonically.
In the beginning of track 2, the string section is smoother on SACD.
In track 3, the brass in less edgy on SACD.
In track 6 the entire orchestra sounds better resolved on SACD, especially the triangles.
I would say the difference on track 2 is most obvious.
In fact I bought this SACD to audiotion my first SACD player in the store.
I plugged my K501 into the underpowering headphone jack of the Sony player, and played track 2.
Not knowing how to change the setting, I could not listen to CD layer in the store.
But I heard the SACD layer and thought--I have never heard strings like this on any CD, and so I bought the DVD/SACD player.
I have compared SACD and CD layers of this disc all too many times and my cousin once helped me do a blind test to show that the differences exist (not perfect becuase we could not calibrate the volume).
Even not for the SACD sound, this disc is a great buy.

 

[bigshot]

Have you heard that Telarc disc in its standard CD release? I don't have that one, but I do have the Pictures at an Exhibition and the Peer Gynt/Carmen one. I used those in my listening tests the other day, and they sounded just as good as the best SACDs we heard.

The solution to the balance problem is to rip the CD layer, burn it to CD-R, put a CD player alongside your SACD with a preamp to balance the level... then switch back and forth. I'm very sure with that kind of a setup, you will have a very difficult time picking the SACD in a blind test.

The only disk we found that took my friend's system right up to its limit was the 1812 Overture by Dorati on London twofer CD. None of the SACDs we tested had lows that reached anywhere near as low as that CD. I wonder why they recorded it like that actually... I don't know of many systems that would be able to cope with that kind of high pressure low frequencies at any kind of a volume.

See ya
Steve