[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl 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.

I agree with this save for the out-pace bit. I think generally it is easier to find a headphone rig that will do very well, mopping the floor with a speaker rig at least 3-5x the cost. 10x though? I find taht hard to swallow as well for most things. HD650 + cable (500), solid amp to drive them (at least 650, for ease let's say a cool 1k). So for 1500 bucks...that means 15000 I can't beat that? Heh, I can do that with 6k in speaker land. My comment was more in relation to headphones simply not rising the challenge of speakers.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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) ?

Increased resolution.

 

[Veto]

Increased resolution.

QUOTE]
Of what ?
Frequency responce, dynamics etc or everything?

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xantus 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.

Incidentally I have all three versions of «Vespertine». I can't play Flac though, so I don't know what you mean with distortion -- I haven't taken the time for exploring the two layers for mixing differences. But what I can say is that the CD layer on the hybrid SACD sounds really good, comparable or identical to the original CD. Whatever has happened during the mastering process, I doubt that it was intentional. By all means this example is a bad one for substantiating the great audio conspiracy. No way the CD layer lets you think how good the SACD format sounds. There is a distinct sonic difference, but I even like the CD layer/version slightly better. The DVD-A version has the highest resolution and the greatest sonic potential (to my ears), but unfortunately its treble is a little soft -- at least on my player. All in all the quality differences are rather small between the three or four «Vespertine» releases.

 

[xantus]

foobar's only 2 clicks away ;P

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veto Of what? Frequency response, dynamics etc. or everything?

You've asked for sonic impressions -- and that's it. Maybe like a picture with higher pixel number and 24 bit color resolution instead of 16 bit...

Well, I perceive higher definition with overtones, also finer grain, as well as higher spatial depth. The latter two features apply even more to DVD-A, which shows less obvious increase of overtone definition, but higher liquidity instead.

 

[bigshot]

What does liquidity mean in relation to sound?

When you were doing your A/B listening, how did you deal with difference in volume between layers and the time it took to switch back and forth from one layer to the other?

One other question... You mentioned that on the Bjork SACD, you actually liked the CD layer a bit better than the SACD layer. What do you attribute that to?

Thanks
Steve

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot What does liquidity mean in relation to sound? Thanks Steve

It is hard to describe without having a refernece to direct someone to. Do you know what a grainy sound is? Think the exact opposite. My reference for the most liquid sound would be the Grado PS-1's. They have GOBS of detail but they present it in this almost velvety way. The midrange is just soooo smooth and it extends all the way up. No harshness, just this really wet sound that flows rather than coming at you in "packets"

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot What does liquidity mean in relation to sound?

Zanth gave a good description. I've heard the PS-1 and indeed found it to be very liquid -- actually overly so. Maybe it's even better to describe liquid as the opposite of dry and matt -- it's also somewhat related to brilliance, but not necessarily in the context of brightness.


Quote:

When you were doing your A/B listening, how did you deal with difference in volume between layers and the time it took to switch back and forth from one layer to the other?

I don't do A/B listening, so volume regulation is no issue

-- I'm used to slight regulations anyway since SACDs sound slightly lower on my UDP-1.


Quote:

One other question... You mentioned that on the Bjork SACD, you actually liked the CD layer a bit better than the SACD layer. What do you attribute that to?

Maybe it's because I was used to the CD version and had troubles accepting the slight difference from the SACD version? Or more seriously: It's hard to describe what I have to criticize on the SACD version. It seems to have slightly less midrange resolution and spatial depth, sounds a bit more sticky -- but actually the difference is rather small. Technically the conversion from 24 bit/48 kHz to DSD seems to be the culprit, as the DSD format adds its own limitations to the existing low-rez-PCM limitation (in the form of bandwidth restriction).

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth It is hard to describe without having a refernece to direct someone to. Do you know what a grainy sound it? Think the exact opposite. My reference for the most liquid sound would be the Grado PS-1's. They have GOBS of detail but htey present it in this almost velvety way. The midrange is just soooo smooth and it extends all the way up. No harshness, just this really wet sound that flows rather than coming at you in "packets"

OK. I know what grainy sounds like, and I've heard that as an element of groove wear on records, but I've never heard that on a well recorded and mastered CD. I've heard distortion caused by hot mastering, which is similar, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. If something already has a very smooth frequency response and no distortion, are you saying that it can still sound grainy? And is the graininess you hear an "all over" thing, or does it appear just in particular parts of the music? Is it part of all CDs or just certain ones?

When I think of digital noise, I think of those weird blurpy underwater artifacts in MP3s and the splat of blown out peaks in hot mastered records. I don't normally think of it in terms of grain. I've always found that the texture of my final mix is exactly what gets put down on the ADAT or DA-88. If I bump it down to a CD-R, it still sounds the same.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ I don't do A/B listening

If the difference between the two types of sound isn't very great, could your results be related to the way you're listening? You mentioned that some SACDs sound better than CDs and others don't... could this just be natural subjective randomness caused by the widely separated way you're comparing two very similar sounds? I would think it would be very difficult to determine if the mixes are the same if you don't do A/B comparisons. It's very difficult to hold relative balances in your head for any length of time. I know this first hand from the mixes I've supervised... I'm not criticizing your opinion, I'm just trying to figure out how you came to it.

See ya
Steve

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot If the difference between the two types of sound isn't very great, could your results be related to the way you're listening? You mentioned that some SACDs sound better than CDs and others don't... could this just be natural subjective randomness caused by the widely separated way you're comparing two very similar sounds?

I gain my certitude from the consistency and repeatability of my impressions.


Quote:

I would think it would be very difficult to determine if the mixes are the same if you don't do A/B comparisons.

My experience is that I'm not so good with A/B comparisons, so I prefer the «free» method, which is also more fun and still lets you enjoy what you hear. Actually this may even be the key to the better perception: the more direct, intuitive approach bypassing the purely intellectual perception.

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot 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.

I thought increasing word length (16-> 24 bit) not only increases dynamic range, but also reduces quantization noise. SACD could also enhance dynamic range by higher sampling frequency in Sigma-Delta encoding. If 16 bit is indeed enough, why would different companies go to great lengths at developing different noise-shaping algorithms that could extend the effective dynamic range to 18 or 20 bit. If I recall correctly, UV22, SBM (Sony) and K2 (JVC) are all noise shaping algoriths aimed at reducing quantization noise and increase the effective dynamic range of CDs. I recall reading Bob Katz saying that it is possible to approach 20 bit dynamic range on CDs using noise shaping. He also believes increased word length is more important than increasing sampling frequency. If 16 bit is good enough, what is the deal with all this noise shaping? Or are you arguing that due to the noise shaping on CDs, it is already good enough?

To me the main difference between SACD and CD manifests itself the most in solo violin playing high notes. Other differences such as air, details and tighter bass are much more subtle. In fact I don't understand why SACD should have tighter bass.

 

[Veto]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot If the difference between the two types of sound isn't very great, could your results be related to the way you're listening? You mentioned that some SACDs sound better than CDs and others don't...

Exactly what I wonder about.
I think I can hear a difference but it's real hard to do A/B testing.
The slightest change in volume can realy make a great influence and just knowing what you're listening to doesn't help either.

For me the really great thing with SACD disks is the better mastering (well most of the time). If that is what it takes for the music bizz to put some effort into it, I (how sadly that may sound) gladly pay the extra cash for that.

Veto

 

[Mastergill]

bigshot, don't take offense but using PA system for checking accuracy (as it seems according to your posts), etc...is a big joke. You and your pro friend should book a few hours in a well-known pro mastering house (a real one you know, not a dude with a computer in his basement), you'll see what high resolution means!.

I can't believe someone who claim so loud being a "pro" can rely on a consumer Philips universal player for judging DSD accuracy. Ever heard about EMM labs, dCS, Genex, or even the semi-pro Tascam DV-RA1000?.

Don't judge DSD technology with only commercial SACD release. Record the same source with PCM 16bits, then with DSD (and also 24bits PCM), if you have reasonably good hearing (and more important, top-notch monitoring setup), there's no contest between 16 bits and high-res.

The actual debate amongst pro recordist is DSD vs 24bitsPCM or 24/96 vs 24/192.
Redbook vs. high-res is a case closed more than 10 years ago...