[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot 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

Let me digress from the topic for a while.

I would argue the other way around.

It is much harder to achieve accurate sound with speakers. No transducer can handle 20-20k Hz linearly while putting out high SPL, that is why multiple drivers are needed. Then crossover distortion becomes a big issue with multiple drivers. Speaker bass requires a large cabinet, but the cabinet creates additional problems, and ports in cabinets try to address the issue (generally provide more bass extension). Beefy amps means more amplification in terms of voltage and current and of course create more distortions than smaller amplification needed for headphones. Horn is just a means to increase efficiency to reduce the need of beefy amplification but introduces coloration that requires careful tuning. IMHO, essentially everything quoted above argue that it is easier to make headphones sound better. Naturally, hi-end headphones have lower measured distortions than speakers several times its price.

Speakers do excel in stereophonic sound perception due to natural crossfeed and pinneal interaction (used by the ear-brain to extract 3D information). In headphones these issues are addressed by crossfeed amp circuits, angled drivers or radical driver designs like K1000. Speakers also excel in bass impact on the body (vibrations felt by the body), which headphones can never really match.

All that being said, hi-end speakers and headphone systems nowadays both offer tremendous resolution and are equally capable of resolving minute differences (while price tags are quite different). Sony studio recently bought several pairs of Wilson Watt/Puppy speakers for SACD production monitoring. Is that a sign that they don't really care about SACD?

 

[mikeg]

In your opinion, how dependent is the performance of high quality speakers on high quality audio treatments of listening rooms? Do you expect high quality speakers to outperform your R10 setup, if the speakers are located in a large open living space that has not received any audio treatment?

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl 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.

 

[markl]

mikeg,
Here's what I know. I have a $2500 pair of full-range speakers, PSB Stratus Goldi's. Granted, these are widely held among those who know to out-perform very many speakers at their price range.

IMHO, as an audiophile (which I know is a dirty word to some, but to me it applies to anyone who loves music), these $2500 speakers vastly out-perform my $4000 headphones, which themselves vastly out-perform every other headphone I've ever heard. Do I believe the R10s are the be-all and end-all of headphone sound, that they can't be bettered? HARDLY. My opinion is that by rights we should have $300 headphones by now that wipe the floor with these dinosaurs. But we don't. Why? Because we have only a hand-full of headphone makers (what 6 of them?), and they only make an even smaller amount of "statement" or "high-end" headphones among them. Competition, innovation, and research is what makes audio better, and given that we have *thousands* of speaker-makers, my hypothesis is that the level of competition in that marketplace makes the best speakers WAY WAY WAY out ahead of the best headphones.

I know this is a headphone site, and we like to believe that modest headphones out-perform expensive speakers. This one person's opinion is that that just isn't so. At all. Take that FWIW.

 

[bigshot]

That would depend on the layout of the room. My parents put their speakers in opposite ends of the room with big upholstered chairs right in front of them. Nothing would have made that layout sound good! My living room is very cluttered, so I raised the height of the speakers so they clear the tops of all of the furniture. The sound comes at me from about eye level when I'm sitting down. There isn't as much space behind my listening position as I'd like, but I can't improve that without knocking out a wall.

See ya
Steve

 

[xantus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot 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

nope, this is at the intro to the song, the peaks barely even get over -6 db

hear it for yourselves:

hybrid SACD, cd layer
standard Redbook CD

mangled, clearly.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot 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.

No personal attack from my side. But you're trying so hard to display yourself as the professional with superior audio experience and authoritative opinion that it's hard to resist to scratch your paint a bit. Remember: like everybody else here you only have two ears.

I have portrayed my procedure as well, you just may not have noticed it. Still I think my criticism on your unprofessional method is justified. Moreover I have the 963SA and know it well. It's easy for me to hear the difference between CD and DSD because it's obvious. So it's impossible for me to trust your hearing, self-proclaimed professional or not.

 

[markl]

Record company dork: "Yes, hi, Bob Ludwig (Steve Hoffman, Bernie Grundman, etc.), yeah, big big fan or your work. OK, so on this latest hybrid SACD we're doing, we need you to forgo your usual standards and make the CD layer sound absolutely crappy, so we can perpetrate the myth that SACD sounds better. Ummm, can you add some distortion and use your tremendous skills to make it sound absolutely awful? Oh yeah, of course we're going to put your name on it so everyone knows that you are the dude who wrecked this music..."

 

[xantus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Record company dork: "Yes, hi, Bob Ludwig (Steve Hoffman, Bernie Grundman, etc.), yeah, big big fan or your work. OK, so on this latest hybrid SACD we're doing, we need you to forgo your usual standards and make the CD layer sound absolutely crappy, so we can perpetrate the myth that SACD sounds better. Ummm, can you add some distortion and use your tremendous skills to make it sound absolutely awful? Oh yeah, of course we're going to put your name on it so everyone knows that you are the dude who wrecked this music..."

right, so i'm just imagining the distortion/noise that's going on in the first sample? how could someone overlook that.

 

[markl]

!st of all, that Bjork album is horribly recorded, pitiful, it sounds like crap from the off, sorry, I wish it didn't because I LOVE her. The DVD-A version is in 24/48, which implies that that's the maximum resolution it was recorded in digitally, otherwise, they'd have used a higher resolution (24/96 or 24/192).

As you well know, many CDs are mastered "hot" which is a result of trigger-happy mastering engineers pumping up the volume on modern CDs to make it "louder". Because 16/44.1 has limited dynamic range, it's quite likely that a "hot" mastered CD has some distortion on it and clipped wave-forms. Because SACD has far more dynamic range, even if the SACD was mastered at the same volume level as the CD, it's possible the extra dynamic range is sufficient that there is no digital clipping on it.

That said, I haven't heard the SACD version of that album (just the DVD-A and the CD), so I have no idea what alleged "distortion" you are referring to. But if you think that's deliberate in an attempt to make SACD sound better, sorry, but IMO, you're paranoid. Severely.

 

[xantus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl !st of all, that Bjork album is horribly recorded, pitiful, it sounds like crap from the off, sorry, I wish it didn't because I LOVE her. The DVD-A version is in 24/48, which implies that that's the maximum resolution it was recorded in digitally, otherwise, they'd have used a higher resolution (24/96 or 24/192). As you well know, many CDs are mastered "hot" which is a result of trigger-happy mastering engineers pumping up the volume on modern CDs to make it "louder". Because 16/44.1 has limited dynamic range, it's quite likely that a "hot" mastered CD has some distortion on it and clipped wave-forms. Because SACD has far more dynamic range, even if the SACD was mastered at the same volume level as the CD, it's possible the extra dynamic range is sufficient that there is no digital clipping on it. That said, I haven't heard the SACD version of that album (just the DVD-A and the CD), so I have no idea what alleged "distortion" you are referring to. But if you think that's deliberate in an attempt to make SACD sound better, sorry, but IMO, you're paranoid. Severely.

uhh, hello? I posted samples. take a listen and then we'll talk. the distortion is on the cd layer of the hybrid sacd and nowhere else, which was my whole argument from the beginning. it didn't just appear there by magic.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ No personal attack from my side. But you're trying so hard to display yourself as the professional with superior audio experience and authoritative opinion that it's hard to resist to scratch your paint a bit.

I'm not trying to display myself like that... I'm simply responding to posts that question the quality of the equipment I was using to test with, and my experience in being able to listen carefully. I know how people operate in sound forums... I've been down this road before. When you say something someone doesn't like, they blame the equipment because it doesn't cost enough... or doesn't have some special numerical specification. If that doesn't work, then they blame your ears and your experience at being able to discern differences. If that doesn't work, they try to get you to abandon all objectivity and admit that they might be able to hear things that you can't. I didn't want to go down that road... I just wanted a real answer about how much of a difference SACD makes, so I went out of my way to obtain the best quality equipment to test with, and I enlisted a person whose ears are trained to detect even more than mine are.

The question is, if the difference is that great, why aren't we able to reproduce it? Is there anyone in the LA area who can clearly demonstrate the difference to me? Is it not possible to clearly demonstrate the difference on anything but the very highest of high end equipment?

Thanks
Steve

 

[markl]

No one can make you hear what you can't hear. Any comments I might make about what you should be able to hear based on what I've heard are likely to be interpreted as condescending, and maybe they would be, but your one data point doesn't negate my one data point as someone who *can* hear a difference.

People *are* able to reproduce and demonstate the superiority of SACD and DVD-A, but you'd surely dismiss those as anecdotal evidence from brain-washed rubes without your vast and incredible experience/knowledge. Fine, we get it!

So, you've heard the Hi-Rez formats in one environment on one system, and have drawn absolute conclusions based on that experience, and you weren't impressed. Great. Next!

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Because 16/44.1 has limited dynamic range, it's quite likely that a "hot" mastered CD has some distortion on it and clipped wave-forms. Because SACD has far more dynamic range, even if the SACD was mastered at the same volume level as the CD, it's possible the extra dynamic range is sufficient that there is no digital clipping on it.

The increased dynamics of SACDs don't extend the range upward... it extends the resolution downwards. A 100% peak is still a 100% peak. A wider dynamic range simply means that you can hear more sound at lower volume levels...

Now, if you have the volume on your stereo turned up to the maximum dynamic volume level capable with a standard CD (96db), I guarantee you that your neighbors will burn you at the stake and any clipping you hear will be coming from your speakers. If you want to know what 96db sounds like, just put your ear up next to a jackhammer. (I'm not exaggerating... a jackhammer or pneumatic drill puts out 96db.) If you have speakers capable of a dynamic range of 120db, the range of the SACD format, I guarantee you that you will get a nice case of tinitnitis in less than ten minutes! 120db is as loud as an air raid siren or a jet engine at full throttle at 500 meters.

No music even comes close to reaching the dynamic range of the CD format, much less the wider range of SACD. It's important to keep in mind what these numbers stand for.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl No one can make you hear what you can't hear. Any comments I might make about what you should be able to hear based on what I've heard are likely to be interpreted as condescending, and maybe they would be, but your one data point doesn't negate my one data point as someone who *can* hear a difference. People *are* able to reproduce and demonstate the superiority of SACD and DVD-A, but you'd surely dismiss those as anecdotal evidence from brain-washed rubes without your vast and incredible experience/knowledge. Fine, we get it! So, you've heard the Hi-Rez formats in one environment on one system, and have drawn absolute conclusions based on that experience, and you weren't impressed. Great. Next!

And you can't disagree in a civil discussion without behaving like a set of equine hindquarters... Great. NEXT!

See ya
Steve

 

[Veto]

Not to destroy this most amusing little conversation

but as a truely, honest to god, serious question.
What is the foremost important improvement that the persons hear (those which are capable of hearing a difference) ?