[bigshot]

A question about how you compared SACD to CD... Did you do direct A/B comparison between the CD and SACD layers?

To read how I arrived at my conclusions on 2 channel SACD, see these threads...

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=125923

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=126159

See ya
Steve

 

[Welly Wu]

The points made by Bigshot in posts #42 and #72 are based on sound scientific principles. He is absolutely correct about cables -- interconnects and power cords -- along with the fallacy that only obscenely expensive audio components can sound great. The truth is that you can do better to buy components with outstanding performance : dollar ratios that glue together and wind up with better sound quality. I even learned a thing or two from him about speakers. As hard as it is to admit, DVD-Audio and SA-CD do not offer far greater sound fidelity over Red Book CDs when one takes into consideration Bigshot's points and the sheer number of titles available in hi-rez compared to CD. Most of the time, I listen to CDs through my heavily modified universal source component because it sounds better and the music is much more compelling. Lastly, this doesn't get emphasized enough on Head-Fi: the source is not the source component, but the music recording, mixing, and engineering. If the musicians and the recording engineers don't feel the goosebumps, but would rather make a quick buck off of your and me, then it ain't going to exist in your Hi-Fi headphone / loudspeaker system no matter the cost.

It's good to see people like Bigshot around here.

Edit: I recently compared Hilary Hahn's Bach Concertos on Hybrid SA-CD and a separate Red Book CD. I then compared the Red Book CD layer of the Hybrid SA-CD to the regular Red Book CD disc itself. The Red Book CD per se sounds much more natural with less anomalies -- tonal, distortion, injection of added warmth -- and the presentation of the music became much more balanced and coherent. I have to try out Hahn's Elgar: Violin Concerto & Vaughan Williams: The Lark Ascending on both Hybrid SA-CD and Red Book CD.

 

[Nak Man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Fox I truly hope that we can hear sounds well below 100 hz coming out of our headphones, or I'll be pissed.

30-40hz tones very clearly heard on (almost) all phones, no worries.

How can so many people say 1. get the best phones you like then 2. spend all bucks on source - and equates themselves as 'team source first' ? If not mistaken, number one is always numero uno. One can't hear good music without good speaker / phones, regardless of source + amp. Good faithful transducers are simply prerequisite.

 

[CRESCENDOPOWER]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS I may be confused, but isn't there now an admission from the author of Post number 72 that his answer to the scientific puzzle that consumes at least half of that post may not be correct?

Thank you!

 

[cannedheat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot A question about how you compared SACD to CD... Did you do direct A/B comparison between the CD and SACD layers? To read how I arrived at my conclusions on 2 channel SACD, see these threads... http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=125923 http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=126159 See ya Steve

I used 2 Pioneer 563SAs (one set to read the CD layer and the other to read the 2 channel SACD layer), connected to a Denon 3803 receiver, and had 2 copies of Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms, 2 copies of Roxy Music's Avalon, and 2 copies of Lang Lang's Tchaicovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1 (I believe), and 2 copies of Pancho Sanchez' Conga Blue.

No multichannel was used - although I do prefer all of the above, with the exception of the DG Lang Lang disc, in multichannel.

To my ears, the SACD later sounded fuller, more precise, with better details and decaying notes could be heard more easily. The sound levels were comparable. It has been a few weeks since I compared these layers, but minor sound level changes were required, nothing significant. My brother switched the sources randomly and I stated my preference. My guess is 75% of the time I preferred the SACD layer above the redbook CD layer.

The differences were present, but were not significant IMHO. I still prefer the multichannel layer, especially with the Pancho Sanchez disc where each instrument occupies its own channel from time to time.

The larger difference, to my ears, is the difference between 16 bit redbook CDs and HDCD decoded 20 bit data. I cannot compare redbook to HDCD side-by-side, but I can certanly hear the difference between the HDCD and redbook layers using the same equipment (Onix XCD-88 with OPA627 Op amps). I used 2 copies of Mark Knopfler's Shangri-la (SACD's CD layer and the standard CD - that is HDCD encoded) and 2 copies of Dick Hyman's Plays Duke Ellington (redbook CD versus HDCD encoded CD). I could easily discern the difference and preferred the HDCD layer each time. I have many other HDCDs, where I have a comparable redbook CD, but I did not test these.

So...in my opinion, there is a slight, perceptible difference and preference for 2 channel SACDs over their redbook CD counterparts. Additionally, I strongly prefer HDCD over the redbook CD.

See ya
Gary

Edit - I had 2 copies of these discs due to various reasons including, overseas purchase and shipment, accidental purchase (thinking I did not own the disc in question), silly BMG Music Service sending me monthly updates of discs I had already purchased, and stumbling upon the Dick Hyman HDCD in a used store (this was a good find).

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welly Wu I recently compared Hilary Hahn's Bach Concertos on Hybrid SA-CD and a separate Red Book CD. I then compared the Red Book CD layer of the Hybrid SA-CD to the regular Red Book CD disc itself. The Red Book CD per se sounds much more natural with less anomalies -- tonal, distortion, injection of added warmth -- and the presentation of the music became much more balanced and coherent. I have to try out Hahn's Elgar: Violin Concerto & Vaughan Williams: The Lark Ascending on both Hybrid SA-CD and Red Book CD.

Do you attribute the differences to mastering? Do you think they were goosing a few juicy frequencies in the SACD to salt the pot?

See ya
Steve

 

[dano1122]

hey bigshot. i would really like to hear some useful advice from you on going about with equalizing to bring out better sound. do you have any principles you go by or do you just kind of fiddle around with the EQ?

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cannedheat So...in my opinion, there is a slight, perceptible difference and preference for 2 channel SACDs over their redbook CD counterparts. Additionally, I strongly prefer HDCD over the redbook CD.

I've got a few questions if you don't mind...

I'm not familiar with HDCDs... What's the theory and specs behind those?

Was the difference between the SACD and CD layer basically the same with every disk, or did it vary from disk to disk? Did you try reversing the players to see if the difference might be just slight coloration differences between the players themselves?

It's interesting that the Roxy Music and Dire Straits titles you selected most likely were originally recorded in 16/44.1. I had avoided those in my test because I was told by several people that CDs that were upsampled to SACD sounded bad compared to the originals. If they sounded good, I bet that they were remixed and remastered for the SACD release, because I can't see how a simple upsample would make any difference.

Did you detect any attempt to "hobble" the CD layer?

Did you compare to any of the pre-SACD releases of those albums? That's how you tell whether remixing has been done.

Thanks
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dano1122 hey bigshot. i would really like to hear some useful advice from you on going about with equalizing to bring out better sound. do you have any principles you go by or do you just kind of fiddle around with the EQ?

I'll start a new thread on that in a few days... My experiences with my friend's balanced system has convinced me that I need to upgrade my 15 band equalizer to a 31 band. I just got one on ebay, and I should have it next week. My friend has promised to come by with his signal generator and run a sweep through my speakers and see what he can find out.

Someone on the board PM'ed me asking for a recommendation for what kind of equalizer is useful... Here's what I told him...

--quote--
In order to get full control, you need a 1/3 octave 31 band dual... The inexpensive ones are made by DOD, Nady, Sampson, Beringer, etc. The better ones are made by Rane and DBX. I have a Sampson that I bought on ebay for $60 used. New, the inexpensive ones go for around $150. The better ones are in the $300 to $400 range.

You install it in the tape loop circut of your preamp, and as you listen, just adjust things by trial and error. Eventually after a week or so of twiddling, you'll arrive at a pretty good basic setting for your system and your taste. It's really useful just for learning what numbers correspond to what part of the sound too.
--end quote--

When I get a chance to work with my system, I'll post more detailed info than that second paragraph.

The fella I was PM'ing with mentioned that there are 31 band dual equalizers that are digital, rather than analogue. They might be a little cleaner, but I haven't noticed any problem with my current 15 band analogue equalizer adding noise. The only problem I had was a ground loop problem, and earthing the unit corrected that.

See ya
Steve

 

[Welly Wu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Do you attribute the differences to mastering? Do you think they were goosing a few juicy frequencies in the SACD to salt the pot? See ya Steve

I think that the Hybrid SA-CD 2 channel stereo layer is concocted in such a way as to play to the "stereotypical" strengths of the SA-CD format: warmth, liquidity, smoothness, and a quasi-analog + tubes body of sound circa the 1970s vintage gear that audiophiles will kill for. The midrange is highly colored with closer than zoom lenses miking and that + the previous "stereotypical SA-CD" is what jumps out at people: the 200Hz - 10kHz frequency domain is optimized with the theoretically infinite bandwidth. So! People, including myself, write WOW! It is like eating at one of the 9+ Emeril Lagase restaurants when you are on a strict low-fat cholesterol diet prescribed by your physician. However, the Red Book CD version sounds much more evenly balanced with no bottom or top roll off. It just sounds right to me and I play it more than the SA-CD version.

The funny thing is that I have Rachel Podger's Antonio Vivaldi: La Stravaganza 12 Violin Concertos on both Red Book CD and Hybrid SA-CD. The Red Book CD version sounds less, well, SAUCY in the midrange. The SA-CD distortions don't show up and I trust it as being more natural and closer to the source recording, mixing, and mastering.

SA-CD makes people think it sounds better because it sounds different from the Red Book CD version. It is heavily supported by Hi-Fi magazines and salons not only for its increased complexity and cost, but because it reproduces states of quixotic sonic euphoria -- the analog + tubes vintage sound -- that are so deeply revered by the older generation of audiophiles...but with the full convenience and expectation of digital.

Now, let's talk about DVD-AUDIO. It has the potential to deliver the goods that take it one notch above Red Book CD. No PCM -> DSD conversion. Proven track record to record faithfully and equitably at all frequency spectra. Digital and multi-channel ready along with video to boot. It could have, should have, and would have been the perfect replacement for Red Book CDs. Alas...

 

[Welly Wu]

My digital audio formats of choice in descending order:

1. Red Book CD (for catalog depth & breadth)
2. JVC XRCD or HDCD (for higher quality recording, mixing, and mastering + 20bit headroom)
3. DVD-AUDIO (for uber-maximum resolution)
4. SA-CD (for romantic sound)
5. DVD-Video (for music DVDs @ 48kHz/24bit LPCM and good catalog depth/breadth)

 

[bigshot]

You'll have to bear with me... I have a lot of trouble with descriptive audiophile terminology. I usually have to get help to translate it into something I understand. I know how to achieve various effects in the studio, so that's how I tend to describe these sorts of things.

I hate to break your post down, and please don't think I'm tearing what you say apart... If any of my translations are wrong, feel free to correct me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welly Wu I think that the Hybrid SA-CD 2 channel stereo layer is concocted in such a way as to play to the "stereotypical" strengths of the SA-CD format: warmth, liquidity, smoothness, and a quasi-analog + tubes body of sound circa the 1970s vintage gear that audiophiles will kill for.

"Warmth, liquidity and smoothness" all seems to indicate a very even frequency response through the low mids. Digital reverberation will also tend to smooth sound out, especially when it replaces old fashioned wire reverbs like they did with the Rolling Stones remasters. In fact, a very slight digital reverb across the whole track will smooth it considerably without even being apparent as a reverb if a low level noise gate is applied to damp the ring out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welly Wu The midrange is highly colored with closer than zoom lenses miking

OK... obviously when they're remastering, they can't change the placement of the mikes, so it isn't a matter of mike placement. However, applying compression to bring up low level sound, rather than peak limiting on the vocals will pop the mids like that, and a slight boost to the upper mids/low highs will add sparkle to the jangle of acoustic guitars and the clarity of consonants in vocals and the sharpness of attack in instruments, making it appear to be closer to the mike.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welly Wu However, the Red Book CD version sounds much more evenly balanced with no bottom or top roll off. It just sounds right to me and I play it more than the SA-CD version.

OK... there may be a couple of things at play here... For one thing, I'm sure that they use some sort of digital dynamic noise suppressor to push the tape hiss or room tone down in the quiet passages. All of the legacy titles I auditioned had little or no sustained tape hiss through quiet passages. There's a psycho-acoustic principle that states that a barely perceptable bed of hiss will make the sound appear to be brighter and less filtered on top, and stone dead silences tend to make music sound a bit blunt in the gaps between notes. That would address the midrange punch and brighter highs.

I really don't think they would apply a low end roll off. The bandwidth of both 16/44.1 and SACD are able to contain all the bass they need. The only time low end bass would be rolled off is for radio broadcast or cutting to LP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welly Wu The funny thing is that I have Rachel Podger's Antonio Vivaldi: La Stravaganza 12 Violin Concertos on both Red Book CD and Hybrid SA-CD. The Red Book CD version sounds less, well, SAUCY in the midrange. The SA-CD distortions don't show up and I trust it as being more natural and closer to the source recording, mixing, and mastering.

OK, here is a theory on that one... That particular recording was made in an old Polish church. A review I found of the CD version online mentioned that the details tended to get a little lost into the bloom of the bass reverberating in the church. Could they have read the reviews and pulled back a little bit on the mikes covering the room reverberation in their remaster for SACD? If it was done subtly, you wouldn't notice it that much, but it would sharpen up the midrange, expecially violin sheen, which is the first thing to get swallowed up by reverberation.

I haven't heard the particular recordings you're referring to, so my comments are just speculation. Do you think that any of this could be possible?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welly Wu SA-CD makes people think it sounds better because it sounds different from the Red Book CD version.

I think you're right, and I think the difference has more to do with subtle mastering tweaks, than it does differences in format.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welly Wu Now, let's talk about DVD-AUDIO. It has the potential to deliver the goods that take it one notch above Red Book CD. No PCM -> DSD conversion. Proven track record to record faithfully and equitably at all frequency spectra. Digital and multi-channel ready along with video to boot. It could have, should have, and would have been the perfect replacement for Red Book CDs. Alas...

It seems to me that the consumer and media companies seem to be in agreement that new formats should contain more information of the same old resolution, rather than the same amount of information in higher resolution. That whole scam with chopping HiDef TV broadcast frequencies into 4 separate standard broadcast channels is typical.

I have a 30 inch Apple Cinema Display in my office, and I have to admit that standard DVDs look absolutely fantastic on it. HiDef looks better, but not to a degree that it would matter to most people. Assuming that there is a perceptable difference between SACD and CD, (which I'm not convinced of yet...) I suspect the public is greeting the improvement with a yawn.

See ya
Steve

 

[chcokr]

Is the discussion finally over now???? .......LOL