[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot There are three types of audiophiles... The first type judges sound quality by how much the equipment costs. The second type judges sound quality based on charts and diagrams and numbers expressed in bits, kilohertz and decibels. The third type judges sound by how it sounds to his own ears.

Steve, you forgot the forth type -- who judges sound by his/her own ears and thinks his/her judgement and hearing ability is valid for everybody else.

If you go back to old DVD 963 SA threads, you'll notice that a lot (most?) of the posters could hear the effect from the upsampling switch, most of them could also hear the effect from the Audio Direct switch. These are still subtle effects compared to the difference between CD and SACD playback on the very same player. Independent of recording quality and resolution, the DSD layer always sounds different to my ears. So if you're unable to hear it, I don't have to further explain what the logical conclusion is.


Quote:

To human ears, the higher sampling rate makes absolutely no difference, at least with analogue recordings.

Yes, it does. The higher sampling rate can renounce the sharp high-cut filter with its resonance-induced transient smearing.


Quote:

(I'll soon find out if it makes a difference with 192/24 recordings.)

Excellent idea! But still take care not to universalize your impressions!

BTW, I would rather go for pure-DSD productions which will offer optimal performance of the format (such as from Telarc), 24/192 recordings seem very rare on SACDs.

 

[markl]

Quote:

There are three types of audiophiles... The first type judges sound quality by how much the equipment costs. The second type judges sound quality based on charts and diagrams and numbers expressed in bits, kilohertz and decibels. The third type judges sound by how it sounds to his own ears. The first type ends up with a very expensive system that he is convinced sounds great. The second type ends up with a very complicated system that he is convinced sounds great. The third type ends up with a system that sounds great.

There's a fourth type. The type of audiophile on a budget who convinces himself that everything in his budget range is as good as audio gets so he need not have "lust in his heart" for anything else. Typically this type rejects the term "audiophile" as a descriptor of himself, and wills himself to believe that everything outside his budget range must be "snake-oil" only purchased by slobbering idiot "audiophools" with more money than brains. They like to pat themselves on the back for being so incredibly clever to see through all the stuff they can't currently attain. That's one convenient way to resolve cognitive dissonance, we see it all the time here on the site. Ironically, many of these people stick around in the hobby and end up with much more expensive gear that they then heartily agree sounds better than what they used to hold up as the "be all and end all".

Personally, I can't nearly afford all the great audio gear I would love to have, but that doesn't mean that I believe that given the limits of my budget, what I can currently afford is as good as audio gets. Or that people with more expensive systems than me are idiots.

I would never argue (and don't know who would) that every more expensive audio product is automatically better than the less expensive version. I've owned a $2400 amp, auditioned another $2K amp and still prefer my "modest" RS HR-2 ($875). I'm currently working on a review of some $140 cables that offer considerably more performance than the $750 cables they replaced. Etc. Etc. However, having sampled dozens and dozens of different headphones, sources, amps, power amps, cables of all kinds, speakers, and subwoofers of all kinds, I've reached the conclusion that if you plot the performance of audio equipment on a chart, the overall trend line would be clear: just like everything else in life, in audio, "better" generally costs more.

Look at my source-- it's a mass-market SACD player, the Sony 555ES, which retailed at $1600 when new. A decent player with decent playback, which I had modified heavily with much better componentry, including an entirely new all-discrete analog output section. Now, with the higher-quality (and, yes, more expensive) parts installed, the $1600 player sounds like a million bucks. At $400 list price for a DVD player, build quality and component quality just isn't going to be all it can be. It could definitely be improved, and indeed there are people who will modify that particular Phillips player.
Quote:

Have you heard Let It Be Naked? That is *nothing* like either Phil Spector's mix, or the mix that the Beatles left behind when they abandoned the album.

You've got one example, and it's not available on SACD. And the whole purpose of it is that it was re-mixed, it wasn't hidden and perpetrated as a "stealth" re-mix to trick the public. You are just plain wrong, wrong, wrong, if you think they are going around willy-nilly and re-mixing albums. The Stones SACDs were not re-mixed, either, sorry (unless it's the odd track here or there for which presumably the original mix tape is missing or detriorated). Think of the additional expense of having to pay mixing engineers to sort through all the multi-tracks (some of which are bound to be missing) to try to re-create what already exists-- a 2-channel master that everyone already knows and loves. Makes no sense. This would still be a problem with all remastered Redbook CDs, not just an artifact of creating hi-rez versions. Where are all the stealth Redbook remaster re-mixes? Quote:

I'm saying they don't sound *better* than a regular CD with the exact same mastering.

Well, we'll have to disagree. All you have to do is switch between the SACD and CD layer of any hybrid (same mastering engineer) and the difference should be plain. If it's not to you, then I would blame your equipment or your ears. Sorry if that sounds harsh, don't know how else to say it... Quote:

When properly engineered, analogue was just as capable of producing true audiophile sound as current technology.

100% agree there, which you'd see if you'd read my earlier post. You argue against a lot of straw men that no one here has presented as their actual argument.

Cheers.

 

[Guss2]

In my system,all things being equal,SACD beats Redbook quite easily.Gary.

 

[Wmcmanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot There are three types of audiophiles... The first type judges sound quality by how much the equipment costs. The second type judges sound quality based on charts and diagrams and numbers expressed in bits, kilohertz and decibels. The third type judges sound by how it sounds to his own ears. The first type ends up with a very expensive system that he is convinced sounds great. The second type ends up with a very complicated system that he is convinced sounds great. The third type ends up with a system that sounds great.

I'm glad you cleared that up for us, bigshot.

 

[Jon L]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guss2 In my system,all things being equal,SACD beats Redbook quite easily.Gary.

That's the thing, though. All things are not equal, whether you know it or not. Often the SACD's, even with same starting master, undergo a more careful mastering process than the redbook version. As anyone who's compared redbook CD's to 24 bit remastered versions (by someone who cares) will know, mastering makes a huge difference.

Also, one can't compare the redbook layer and SACD layer of hybrid disks b/c the redbook layer is often "crippled" on purpose to show off SACD's and b/c the laser has to penetrate the extra layer of SACD to read the redbook layer.

For my money, 24 bit/192 kHz original recordings, not just remaster, is what I pray every night to succeed. Comparing original 24/192 DVD-A recordings to anything else (that includes EVERYTHING else, including vinyl) is so mind-boggling, one can't help but curse the current music industry/consumers for not embracing it as the audio standard.

 

[markl]

Quote:

Also, one can't compare the redbook layer and SACD layer of hybrid disks b/c the redbook layer is often "crippled" on purpose

yeah, and there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll...

 

[Kram Sacul]

I just want my 24-bit, 96 or 192khz PCM, on my computer. FLACed.

 

[mikeg]

Love your comment. Thanks for a great laugh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus I'm glad you cleared that up for us, bigshot.

 

[mikeg]

I sense a mild disagreement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl yeah, and there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll...

 

[xantus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl yeah, and there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll...

uh, yeah. so that horrid noise on 'hidden place' on the CD layer of the Vespertine SACD hybrid is just my imagination? cause it sure ain't there on the sacd layer. and it definitely isnt there on the standard redbook release.

*crawls off his grassy knoll*

 

[markl]

I'm not saying there aren't differences between the SACD and CD layers, I agree SACD sounds better.

But the idea that record companies are *deliberately* forcing mastering engineers to cobble, hobble, corrupt and dilute the CD masters on hybrid SACDs is just plain laughable. That's paranoid schizophrenic talk. The hybrids are mostly bought by people without SACD systems, and have no idea what hi-rez is. The fact that they do have an SACD layer that .00000000001% of the buying public can take advantage of, is totally incidental, the main selling point is the "remastered" CD layer.

If anyone has even a SHRED of evidence of any mastering engineer deliberately doing a crappy job on the CD layer of an SACD hybrid, and making it sound like dirt, I will eat my hat (if I owned one

).

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ But still take care not to universalize your impressions!

I've supervised sound mixes for CD release and television, and I've engineered and released CDs myself. I've been in the business for twenty years. The friend who auditioned the sound with me has been designing, building and renting PA systems for clubs, halls and arenas for the past twenty five years. We've got ears that should be capable of telling the difference if there is one.

On the internet in discussion boards, you have people who know what they're talking about, and you have people who don't. The proportion of the former to the latter is pretty slim at times. I'm sure with a simple google search, I can find a discussion board where the majority of posters think the world is flat, that we never landed on the moon, and that planes never crashed into buildings on 9-11.

I'm not saying that my ears hear things exactly the same as everyone else. What I'm saying is that if the difference between SACD and regular CDs was at all noticeable, odds are either me or my friend would have noticed it.

Some audiophiles love science, but they don't follow the scientific method. They really want to believe that a pile of rocks in the corner or a green marker pen will make their system sound better. If someone comes along and tells them they did a carefully controlled test and the green marker pen didn't make any difference, they first say "Well, you didn't pay enough for that system." Then they say, "Your ears may tell you that, but mine are golden." When it comes to A/Bing the SACD and standard CD layer, the equipment manufacturers have made it pretty doggone difficult to do a test. You have to stop and restart the machine, and the levels are completely different. Just the fact that the SACD layer is usually louder than the CD layer is enough to make most people say the SACD sounds better.

Assuming the difference between SACD and CD is detectable, but it's so small that two professionals can't hear the difference, what does that say about SACD as a format? Again, assuming you *can* hear a difference with your ears. What are the odds that 20% of the American public can hear it? ...how about 10%? ...2%?

SACD is clearly NOT what they advertised it to be... the next step in sound reproduction.

See ya
Steve

 

[markl]

Well, for every guy who worked in a recording studio a few times there are many similar professionals who swear by SACD. Each opinion is just that, one data point, and shouldn't be mistaken for the absolute TRUTH about the subject (my own included).

 

[mikeg]

Steve - Is there a possibility that these differences of opinion are at least partly due to your use of speakers for the comparisons, while those who take the opposite view are using headphones? Isn't is possible that their headphones distinguish minute differences between the fomats, which your speakers fail to distinguish?

 

[markl]

I think it's the other way around. I'm a speaker-phile who happens to have a pretty good headphone set-up. People on this site like to pretend that headphones beat out speakers, and often claim that headphones represent a better value by a factor of 10X or even more. Personally, I would say that the new hi-rez formats out-perform CD *even if* or *despite* the fact that you are limited to using headphones.