[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif materials used? i cannot explain myself, since i used an expensive plextor drive, used only 1 x burning and yet the deep tight bass is not matched in the copy! The original is k2hd cd! I also compared to a normal cd and the k2hd cd is far superieur to the normal cd, also again in the bottom department. The copy and the original k2hd sound different!the original k2hd cd sounds best. As usual, alot of things don't make any sense but it really sounds different on my system. Common sense tells you one thing, but my ears tell a different story!

Could you tell me which CDs i.e some actual k2hd titles you are talking about, then I can buy one or two and try it myself, if they are really that much better I would like to try a few anyway. My system has sufficient resolution to reveal any real differences and I can run the results through an audio analyser progam as well which is far more sensitive than my ears. If you can tell me the brand of gold CD-R you use I can replicate that part as well.

Thanks

Nick

 

[Mike Wazowski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bf2008 /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... For example, Mike, when you say you can tell formats apart ("I can tell an mp3/AAC or Ogg Vorbis from lossless even at high bit rate") it would be interesting if you could share results of ABX experiments. ...[/B]

What is ABX? I honestly don't know.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Wazowski /img/forum/go_quote.gif Still, many, many more people have reported difference playing Stereo SACD layer vs Redbook layer of the same disc.

The redbook layer is sometimes a different mastering than the SACD layer. That's why I did my comparison using a Pentatone DSD SACD hybrid... the layers are identical on those disks. If you use a reissue, the mastering becomes an issue.

I've also done comparisons between 24 bit and 16 bit on a ProTools workstation. There was no audible difference there for normal music listening either. Redbook flat out does the job. Mastering is the problem.

Anecdotes are great, but I'd suggest doing the comparison yourself. You'll find out what I did. Make sure you can get your money back when you discover that your SACD player sounds exactly like the line out of your iPod.

See ya
Steve

 

[bf2008]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xenithon /img/forum/go_quote.gif One most not forgot - or rather, factor in - the systems on which testing is done between songs/formats/albums/etc. When listening via Sennheiser HD595's through an entry level headphone, you may not get very far. Listen on a Stax Omega II system or an AKG K1000 and the differences may be frightfully clear.

Exactly!!! And that's more or less the point of this discussion. For example, when comparing mp3/lossless, if you did an ABX test with a better cd player, comparing tracks burnt from those formats, would you obtain better success rates? Like between the Marantz sa8001 and an entry level Marantz cd player. Would people obtain higher success rates in an ABX test as I did? That would show one source has "better resolution" than the other.
And what about ABX tests between different headphones? What would be the success rate? I guess this is difficult to do given that different headphones usually feel different just by wearing them. But what about ABX tests between different speakers? I think this issue is very interesting indeed.

 

[bf2008]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Wazowski /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is ABX? I honestly don't know.

Hi. It's basically a test to compare two sources, A and B, and tell whether X is A or B. Check wikipedia "abx test", it'll explain it better than me surely!
To do this test in a computer, comparing two audio files, to can download foobar2000, and when installing it make sure you click on "add ons", "abx test". Then, you select two files you add to the library, right click, and then "utils", "do abx test". Make sure first you normalize the files volumes, otherwise this may make the test not valid. Do this by right click, "replaygain", "scan per file", and then in the options when prompted for abx test, select "use replaygain".

Would be great if you could compare files in different formats and tell us your results!

 

[bigshot]

Even assuming there is an audible difference (which I don't believe), if you have to strain to hear and use a $2,000 set of headphones to detect the difference, how important of a difference is it?

The purpose of this hobby isn't to obsessively spend thousands of dollars dotting every i and crossing every t. It's to get great sound. You don't have to spend a million dollars and have stacks of equipment to do that. You just have to address what really matters. That takes a sense of proportion. It's a lot better to be smart about your choices than it is to just blindly buy the latest and greatest.

See ya
Steve

 

[bf2008]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Wazowski /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is ABX? I honestly don't know.

And also, sorry if I sound I'm giving you too much advice or something, but take it as a suggestion, why don't you consider buying a headphone amplifier instead of a sacd player first if you're on a budget? You may get a much higher improvement in sound quality, for a fraction of the price, and without the need to buy a second copy of your music, and also later when you decide to finally go for a better source, they may have better sacd players around, like one like the Marantz sa8001 but which is also capable of outputting 5.1 at high resolution. What do you think?

 

[bf2008]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif k2hd is the newest incarnation and uses 24/196 mastering. At the end, you'll end up with a much better sounding cd! xrcd or k2hd cd's i have compared to the same cd's are in every espect superieur to the cd. K2hd especially goes deepr then any ordinairy cd; the bass is so tight and deep. I made 1x speed kodak gold copy of the original k2hd cd and i found out that the middle and top segment sounded the same but the deep bass was not equalled on the copy! But i also agree that the mastering of the sound engeneer is also very, very important. I agree that most older cd's are much, much better then the ear bursting new recordings. They use a technique that is called hot pressing. it sounds distorted and bloated. especially on good gear you can hear the unbalance of the cd. One of the reasons i stick to k2hd or xrcd's only.

Hi guys. What are you talking about in here? Can you give a more concise explanation? Are you talking about sacd or cd, and also, why this thing about burning cds? I don't understand, sorry. Are you suggesting a cdr cd doesn't sound identical to the original? This would be the ultimate thing I've heard!!!

 

[bf2008]

Ok. I found out about k2HD. Fair enough, it's the latest and also probably the best mastering process for standard CDs. But what? Does anyone here thing we should re-buy our cd collection each time they release a better mastering process? I don't think so. I may do it for my favourite album, but the probability that they re-release it is probably 0.

Also then, why would copying a cd matter for a k2HD mastered cd and not for any other one? Are you guys sure it doesn't come with some copy protection system that doesn't let you copy the full of it, but still lets you copy it to an audio file? (This thing I'm saying doesn't make sense but it is the only reason I could find).
Are you guys sure it's not a psicological effect that you think the copy is worse than the original? Please do an ABX test and if you can actually tell them apart I eat my soul!!!! LOL.

ps. Can you post a list, or a link to real albums released in k2hd? I mean proper music, not cds to publicise the mastering process.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bf2008 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Exactly!!! And that's more or less the point of this discussion. For example, when comparing mp3/lossless, if you did an ABX test with a better cd player, comparing tracks burnt from those formats, would you obtain better success rates? Like between the Marantz sa8001 and an entry level Marantz cd player. Would people obtain higher success rates in an ABX test as I did? That would show one source has "better resolution" than the other. And what about ABX tests between different headphones? What would be the success rate? I guess this is difficult to do given that different headphones usually feel different just by wearing them. But what about ABX tests between different speakers? I think this issue is very interesting indeed.

Perhaps. But I suspect you got the results you did because The Beatles material on Love has been remastered. Pretty dramatically, from what I understand.

Tim

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The purpose of this hobby isn't to obsessively spend thousands of dollars dotting every i and crossing every t. See ya Steve

Are you sure?

Tim

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bf2008 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi guys. What are you talking about in here? Can you give a more concise explanation? Are you talking about sacd or cd, and also, why this thing about burning cds? I don't understand, sorry. Are you suggesting a cdr cd doesn't sound identical to the original? This would be the ultimate thing I've heard!!!

Tourmaline is talking about a High Fidelity variant of standard redbook CD with a different technology for production and mastering, the end result is however still a 16/44.1 CD as I understand it.

Tourmaline is suggesting that a copy of a k2hd CD will be different from the original CD, I am a touch skeptical about this and would like to test this assertion myself.

I have heard this copied CD is <> original CD argument in many variations (better/worse/less jitter/etc) and have tested it myself several times, to date I have never found any substantial differences between original CDs and copied CDs and certainly none that show differences in spectral analyses, but I keep an open mind and I am open to trying this myself.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bf2008 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are you guys sure it doesn't come with some copy protection system that doesn't let you copy the full of it, but still lets you copy it to an audio file? (This thing I'm saying doesn't make sense but it is the only reason I could find).

Well, HDCD is nominally a 16 bit format with 4 embedded bits and playable in normal CD players, but in an HDCD player you get the "benefit" of the extra 4 bits (1 bit is used for DR expansion) , you can rip the audio but you only get the standard 16 bits. My understanding is that k2hd is not like that and does not have a copy protection that would selectively mangle audio extraction

 

[bf2008]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif I keep an open mind and I am open to trying this myself.

Agree with you. I'm open to new things too, but if they are supported by some kind of justification.

 

[bf2008]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif Perhaps. But I suspect you got the results you did because The Beatles material on Love has been remastered. Pretty dramatically, from what I understand. Tim

Yes, maybe. But then I could say that I prefer the Love version and that would have some justification and won't be the result of my imagination, as it seems to be the case with some claims in this thread.