[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot 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.

Building and rentig PA systems sounds like a really bad reference when it comes to hi-rez music reproduction if you ask me. And being a professional in music reproduction, whatever that means, doesn't automatically qualify for the golden ears award. I've had discussions with various sound engineers who pretend that electronics generally sound the same, and of course the CD format is perfect, because Shannon and Nyquist have proved it... Sort of flat-world equivalent...


Quote:

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.

I could name you hundreds of professionals involved in music production who can easily hear the difference the hi-rez formats make. I don't think your single vote has so much weight, the less so when I compare your statements with my hearing impressions.


Quote:

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%?

The number of people who can hear the difference doesn't tell much about the merits of a format, the more so given that the CD format isn't too far away from accuracy itself. Sometimes audiophiles are quite modest and can be happy with smaller improvements if they cure some subtle, but nevertheless decisive defects. On the other hand I find it odd how you can use a second (mid-fi) player for redbook playback (and the 963SA for SACD) to compare the formats just for the sake of A/B comparisons -- as if every player sounded the same anyway. Not a really professional approach.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon L 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.

I wish I could hear it myself one day. I tried hard to find a 24/192 recording in the DVD-A catalogue, but didn't succeed so far. Can you recommend a title? (Ideally one that's musically interesting and not necessarily mainstream.) I also think 24/192 has to be the best format to day, better than DSD. And maybe as good as we ever need.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl 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.

If you plot the degree of performance improvement against the cost, you'll see that as the price goes up over a certain point, the law of diminishing returns cuts in. You pay a lot more money for not much more improvement.

When I was putting together my first stereo system, a few like-minded friends and I did a lot of research and talked a lot about the equipment we wanted to get. One guy decided to build an all McIntosh system, because it was the "gold standard" of audiophiles.

My brother had a McIntosh system, and I wasn't particularly interested in duplicating that. I thought I could do a bit better by finding the best model for each component, instead of depending on one brand for everything. I went out and researched different components. I decided that I liked stripped down Thorens turntables, so I got one of those. A friend of my brother who made speakers for various companies as a contractor built me a custom set of speakers that I still use. I found a Phillips R2R that had better sound than my buddy's giant Teac. The amp I decided on was a Sanyo... yes, you heard me right... Sanyo.

At the stereo store, I didn't eliminate any piece of equipment from consideration until I heard it. The salesmen knew not to bother with me, because I would park my butt in a listening room and not come out for at least three hours. I had enough money for a good amp, and I was ready to buy. I was auditioning amps when a Sanyo amp got my attention. It didn't seem to have any of the limitations that other amps in its price range had. I asked the salesman to see the manual for it. I discovered that it had class A preamp circuitry and excellent THD and signal to noise spec. A/Bing it with other amps on the best speakers in the store, I couldn't find any difference between it and amps costing several times the price. So, I bought it, and it served me well for 20 years.

When I hooked it up and showed it to my friends, they thought I was crazy. The goofy disco commercials for Sanyo had been all over television, and everyone looked down on the brand. They couldn't get past the name and price. They just shook their heads and thought I had lost my mind. I later found out that in typical Japanese fashion, the product designers at Sanyo were very embarassed by the way their equipment was viewed in the US, largely because of the "SANNNNNNNYOOOOOOOOO!" commercials. They decided to go all out and make some really high quality equipment to try to defend the honor of their sagging brand name. The amp I discovered in my auditioning was one of those premium components. A couple of years later, they discontinued that "prestige line", and Sanyo went back to making mediocre electronics for the mass market.

My friend eventually built his McIntosh system, and I built my own system piece by piece. (I was able to save up the bucks to complete mine years before he completed his...) The final results were that his system sounded great, and so did mine. His components all worked well together, and because I had done my homework, so did mine. But he spent many times more than I did. I had money left over to buy a collection of over 5,000 LPs. With all that music, my system ended up sounding better.

Ever since then, I have never believed anything about audio gear until I get a chance to audition it for myself. My ears have served me well, because I've caught many mistakes in mixes through careful listening that engineers never would have caught concentrating on the board and their VU meters. The best advice I can give any audiophile is to think about what you hear, but don't let your brain turn your ears off.

See ya
Steve

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Now you are being plain condescending. The fact that you are a self-proclaimed "speakphile" reveals the bias in your post not to mention the direct tone and words chosen to relay that bias. Frankly, headphones are better than speakers in many ways, just like speakers are better than headphones in many ways. Neither one nor the other is somehow stunted in revealing the merits of a format. Many self-proclaimed speakerphiles claim that the merits of vinyl are only readily apparent with speakers, well, either they are deaf or they don't know what they are talking about or both. The merits of vinyl are easily discernable while listening to headphones, just like, I assume SACD's or DVD-a's if recorded well.


"Despite" heh...

I realize your point was to get that across, but the fact that you use despite is childish, attacking, ridiculous and plain wrong. But moving back on topic...

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ I also think 24/192 has to be the best format to day, better than DSD. And maybe as good as we ever need.

At the last studio I worked for, I used a ProTools rig capable of 24/192 to record dialogue and music. I did a lot of comparisons of different settings and resolutions. What I discovered was that 24/192 is most useful at providing better resolution at lower volume levels. This meant that as I mixed, I had more latitude to pull up stuff that was recorded at too low a level, and I could compress dialogue with less "pumping", because the noise floor was lower.

However for playing back a mixed track which had dynamics at a normal listenable level, there didn't appear to be any advantage to 24/192 at all. I've ordered an SACD that is recorded, mixed and mastered in 24/192, and I am interested in testing that on my friend's system. I'll let you know how it sounds when it arrives and I have a chance to do a listening test.

I plan to rip the CD layer and burn it to a separate CD, so I can rack up the SACD right next to another CD player for easy A/Bing.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xantus 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.

I bet the CD layer was hot mixed. You could try ripping it and look at the waveform in that area.

(See http://prorec.com/prorec/articles.ns...256C2E005DAF1C )

See ya
Steve

 

[markl]

Quote:

Now you are being plain condescending. The fact that you are a self-proclaimed "speakphile" reveals the bias in your post not to mention the direct tone and words chosen to relay that bias. Frankly, headphones are better than speakers in many ways, just like speakers are better than headphones in many ways. Neither one nor the other is somehow stunted in revealing the merits of a format. Many self-proclaimed speakerphiles claim that the merits of vinyl are only readily apparent with speakers, well, either they are deaf or they don't know what they are talking about or both. The merits of vinyl are easily discernable while listening to headphones, just like, I assume SACD's or DVD-a's if recorded well.

Zanth, don't intend to be condescending, just reporting what I've heard, as a single data-pont. IMHO, it's much much easier to buy a great speaker system than it is a great headphone system. You have hundreds and hundreds of different speakers available at any price point, yet we have only a handfull of great headphones available at any price. IMO, the headphone arts lag FAR behind the speaker arts, I've said this many times here. It's sad but true. Many people think that the 1989 Sony R10 and Sennheiser Orpheus of similar vintage are still the best headphones ever made. How many 1989 speakers are still held up as the best ever made? Until we have as many hi-end headphone manufacturers competing in the market-place as we do speaker-manufacturers, headphones will forever lag behind speakers in this listeners opinion. To believe, as many here do, that headphones out-pace speakers by a factor of 10-to-one, is just plain silly hyperbole. Those people clearly haven't listened to good speakers and are subject to wishful thinking.

Is it possible that headphones can one day out-perform speakers? Maybe. But IMHO, we don't have examples of the headphone arts that might prove or disprove that argument.

I'm a headphone FREAK, yet I still find high-quality speakers to be more capable than even the best headphones. But that's just one data point.

Cheers.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

The system that I used to audition the SACDs was a pro rig that had been tweeked to reproduce the entire range of human hearing (20hz to 20khz) in perfect balance. Very few home stereo speakers are capable of that, and no headphones made can even come close. In particular, the definition of the bass on this rig was like nothing I've ever heard before. The response was perfectly smooth, all the way from the lowest lows to the low mids. The treble was clear and natural sounding. The triangle in Gaiete Parisienne was so realistic, it sounded like it was in the room, not on a recording.

The main advantage of the SACD system is extended frequency response (from zero hz to 2 Mhz). A system capable of reproducing the range of human hearing (and most likely beyond as well, though we didn't measure for that...) perfectly flat would be the best way to detect a difference. In addition, SACDs have a broader dynamic range (120 db as opposed to 96 db). We didn't audition all the way up at 120db, (although this system would have been perfectly capable of doing that) but we did audition at several listening volumes from a background listening volume all the way up to a level that could be heard several blocks away.

Tonight I am going over to visit my friend. He plans to play John Phillips Sousa marches for the entire neighborhood. The interesting thing about his horn loaded design is that it turns the sound into a "laser beam". There's much less falloff from dispersion at long distances than with traditional speakers.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Well, for every guy who worked in a recording studio a few times...

Over the past 20 years, I've produced 16 CDs (most of which I engineered myself), and I've served as producer and recording/post production supervisor on two television series, numerous TV commercials, two rock videos (including one for Björk), and a prime time TV special. I've spent more time in the studio than most people spend in bed.

See ya
Steve

 

[Ferbose]

By saying that CD does not sound different from SACD, what does this mean?

1) DSD is a hoax (only hi-rez PCM works)? DSD does not outperform redbook?
(Does this mean Sony, Philips and all the audiophile labels involved in SACD are taking part in this scam?)

2) DSD and hi-rez PCM both don't offer any advantage on the playback side? CD really has no technical shortcoming?
(So for all these years coutless audiophiles complained about CDs and they are just imagining the shortcoming?)

3) Or digital music is hopeless as and no format change can save it? Only good old analog is the route to audio perfection?
(This would be shocking. There should be no fundamental reason that digital should sound worse than analog. The only reason digital would sound worse in certain aspects would be imperfections in D/A and A/D. Arguably, D/A and A/D are not perfect, but isn't higher sampling frequency and greater dynamic range going to help make them better?)

Admittedly, my audio setup is modest and I have no qualification as a audio professional or a golden ear. But in my own experience I do hear SACD as being better in a few subtle areas. Comparing the two layers of a hybrid SACD is an simple way to reveal the differences. And CD layers of some fine SACDs would qualify as fantastic sounding CDs in their own right.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Building and rentig (sic) PA systems sounds like a really bad reference when it comes to hi-rez music reproduction if you ask me. And being a professional in music reproduction, whatever that means, doesn't automatically qualify for the golden ears award.

It's a very good thing that I'm not living my life to please you! I'm sure you can find plenty of people who are better qualified to praise the beauty and richness of SACD.

It's interesting that instead of detailing their own testing procedures that led them to the conclusion that SACD sounded better, the people who hear a difference are resorting to personal attacks. I've outlined the procedure I used in detail, and they question my resume. There's a difference that I think just about anyone can discern.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl IMO, the headphone arts lag FAR behind the speaker arts, I've said this many times here. It's sad but true.

I'm actually amazed at how much the headphone designers have accomplished. It's a lot easier to achieve good sound when you have a cabinet with acoustically designed baffles, ports and horns; multiple drivers with carefully tweaked crossovers to optimize the performance; and nice beefy amps to push the whole thing. To be able to create sound that comes remotely close to that with a driver tiny enough to be worn on the ear is pretty amazing in my book.

See ya
Steve

 

[mikeg]

Are you comparing listening to two speaker setups, versus headphone listening? Or, are you sitting among 5-7 speakers when listening to your SACDs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose By saying that CD does not sound different from SACD, what does this mean?

As usual, I choose none of the above...

It means that 44.1/16 is perfectly capable of reproducing sound as good as human ears are able to hear it. Although higher sampling rates may provide a better theoretical resolution; in practice, it doesn't make a difference because human ears can't hear it. Likewise, from a practical standpoint, analogue recording is also capable of reproducing sound of the same high quality. It just takes top notch equipment and the proper engineering techniques.

There's an aspect to different releases of the same title that makes a huge difference though... and that is the mixing and mastering. An SACD mastered using an analogue fifth generation dub master isn't going to sound good. And an audio CD that is carefully mastered using the best elements available is going to sound great. But an SACD and CD that share the exact same carefully mastered source are going to sound for all intents and purposes the same.

The confusion lies in the fact that there's no way to tell what sort of source was used and what sort of remixing and remastering has been performed. You can't simply scan the cover for a logo to tell you like you can for different formats.

Many SACDs do sound better than the CD counterparts, but if you take the two and A/B them, you'll find that the sources and mastering techniques are so different, that there's no way to attribute the quality difference to the higher sampling rate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose But in my own experience I do hear SACD as being better in a few subtle areas. Comparing the two layers of a hybrid SACD is an simple way to reveal the differences.

I don't know about your deck, but in order to compare the SACD and CD layers on mine, I have to stop the disk and restart it. The volume level on the SACD is usually louder too. Both of these things would make it difficult for anyone to discern a subtle difference for certain.

I'll accept that there theoretically may be a very slight difference in certain setups or with certain ears. The problem is, a lot of people say that SACD sound is clearly superior. I can't reproduce that result at all.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg Are you comparing listening to two speaker setups, versus headphone listening? Or, are you sitting among 5-7 speakers when listening to your SACDs?

I got a chance to listen to a movie in 5.1 Dolby Digital the other night. It was amazing... a definite difference there. I've ordered a DVD with DTS 5.1 and I'm eager to listen to that.

I'm sure 5.1 SACD sounds great. But I'm not able to play that with the inputs on my amp. The only 5.1 input it will accept is optical, and the SACD player won't do that.

See ya
Steve