[Davesrose]

Hmmm... - people trying to convince me and others who claim that RBCD or Nyquist or whatever/whoever is not enough have ONE COMMON quality - there is ALWAYS some intentional manipulation of the signal involved. I am stating this WITHOUT any loudness processing, without any EQ, without any compressing, without - ANYTHING. Only the different sampling rates - and less important, bit depths. If you are fine with RBCD, fine - you will save quite a bit of money. If you have accesss to the real thing, it is next to impossible to ignore the benefits of higher sampling rate recordings.

You know I think it's great that on here there's still debates about CD vs SACD/hi-res formats ...while your typical person is now listening to mp3s on a bluetooth device that can't even reveal a difference with aptX/AAC. I'm agnostic when it comes to source format: I have many CDs that are the pinnacle of that recording and I will always favor them (also driven by how I like the performance). I also found certain classic rock from the 70s sounds really good on vinyl (the height of when they were engineered for the medium, and then were apparently compressed for CD remasters). I do have quite a few SACDs that are original older tape masters trying to be the most hi-fidelity: I still enjoy them because of the lower noise floor. One of my main genres I've delved into is classical guitar: I have some RCA SACD recordings of Julian Bream that will just innately sound better then the original vinyl pressing as there's no noticeable distortion. I do have a few natively recorded DSD SACDs, and they do seem to have a quality of more open soundstage. But again, the final basis for me is the music itself. I have an SACD of Hnoncourt's Mozart's Requiem which I can identify as being technically superior to my favorite interepretation of Neville Marriner's CDs. But I'll still always want to default to listening to Marriner for the music. At this point in time, the main high-res lossless audio I'm collecting is Blu-ray concerts.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

You know I think it's great that on here there's still debates about CD vs SACD/hi-res formats ...while your typical person is now listening to mp3s on a bluetooth device that can't even reveal a difference with aptX/AAC. I'm agnostic when it comes to source format: I have many CDs that are the pinnacle of that recording and I will always favor them (also driven by how I like the performance). I also found certain classic rock from the 70s sounds really good on vinyl (the height of when they were engineered for the medium, and then were apparently compressed for CD remasters). I do have quite a few SACDs that are original older tape masters trying to be the most hi-fidelity: I still enjoy them because of the lower noise floor. One of my main genres I've delved into is classical guitar: I have some RCA SACD recordings of Julian Bream that will just innately sound better then the original vinyl pressing as there's no noticeable distortion. I do have a few natively recorded DSD SACDs, and they do seem to have a quality of more open soundstage. But again, the final basis for me is the music itself. I have an SACD of Hnoncourt's Mozart's Requiem which I can identify as being technically superior to my favorite interepretation of Neville Marriner's CDs. But I'll still always want to default to listening to Marriner for the music. At this point in time, the main high-res lossless audio I'm collecting is Blu-ray concerts.

"then were apparently compressed for CD remasters)"

You just proved my point, and something the obvious audiophiles on outright refuse to admit: The MASTERING makes a THOUSAND-fold difference between formats than the formats themselves.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

"then were apparently compressed for CD remasters)"

You just proved my point, and something the obvious audiophiles on outright refuse to admit: The MASTERING makes a THOUSAND-fold difference between formats than the formats themselves.

I don't think that's the guy you were debating with...

 

[Davesrose]

"then were apparently compressed for CD remasters)"

You just proved my point, and something the obvious audiophiles on outright refuse to admit: The MASTERING makes a THOUSAND-fold difference between formats than the formats themselves.

Indeed...that's one immediate thing I found with demoing vinyl vs CD masterings of the 80s. Many early CDs were audibly compressed to eliminate any tape hiss and just sound awful now. Digital processing has greatly improved so that dynamics sound great in within CD standards. My ultimate preference with my speaker system in BD has to do with surround and LFE. The best in high res music I have in BD isn't just about accurately modeling high frequencies...but they have a great use of subwoofer and dynamics. We are in an interesting time where we have fringe elements wanting to revive vinyl, are high res digital purists, and the majority who are listening to whatever compressed formats on given bluetooth formats.

 

[Davesrose]

I don't think that's the guy you were debating with...

Oh, I just thought he was looking for someone for confirmation!

 

[old tech]

Indeed...that's one immediate thing I found with demoing vinyl vs CD masterings of the 80s. Many early CDs were audibly compressed to eliminate any tape hiss and just sound awful now. Digital processing has greatly improved so that dynamics sound great in within CD standards. My ultimate preference with my speaker system in BD has to do with surround and LFE. The best in high res music I have in BD isn't just about accurately modeling high frequencies...but they have a great use of subwoofer and dynamics. We are in an interesting time where we have fringe elements wanting to revive vinyl, are high res digital purists, and the majority who are listening to whatever compressed formats on given bluetooth formats.

Many early CDs also sound outstanding, some of the original or early CD releases are the best available, sound quality wise. Many of the better oop early CDs command high prices on the used market for that reason.

The early CDs are a mixed bag. I don't believe most of them were compressed, but rather they were a flat transfer from the source tape. In the rush to get CD titles to the market, labels used whatever tape was available. Sometimes the tapes were poor, eg many generations down or dub masters used for vinyl or cassette production, other times the quality of the tapes were great and they were the early CDs that are sought after. For example, take the early David Bowie RCA CD catalogue which still today are considered by many to be the best digital versions, better than the later hi res SACDs or PCM downloads even though the tapes used were hardly stellar. To my ears, Hunky Dory and Ziggy Stardust RCAs sound better than the RCA vinyl releases due to the higher resolution of CDs. The very early Sony mastered Dark Side of the Moon CD is another example of a generally preferred digital version. This was a flat transfer of the 15ips tape used to make the highly regarded 1978 Japan Pro Use LP. There are numerous other examples like the early Dire Straits and Roxy Music CDs. Many of the early Japan and German target CDs (called so because of the circle around the edge of the CD) or the "swirl" CDs are very high quality (though still variable) and sought after by audiophiles.

No doubt digital production has advanced since the early 80s, but properly implemented at the studio they were still superior to the analog stuff of the day. Later productions may have benefitted from advances in digital production but too often that advantage is cancelled out by the loudness wars.

 

[Davesrose]

The early CDs are a mixed bag. I don't believe most of them were compressed, but rather they were a flat transfer from the source tape. In the rush to get CD titles to the market, labels used whatever tape was available. Sometimes the tapes were poor, eg many generations down or dub masters used for vinyl or cassette production, other times the quality of the tapes were great and they were the early CDs that are sought after. For example, take the early David Bowie RCA CD catalogue which still today are considered by many to be the best digital versions, better than the later hi res SACDs or PCM downloads even though the tapes used were hardly stellar. To my ears, Hunky Dory and Ziggy Stardust RCAs sound better than the RCA vinyl releases due to the higher resolution of CDs. The very early Sony mastered Dark Side of the Moon CD is another example of a generally preferred digital version. This was a flat transfer of the 15ips tape used to make the highly regarded 1978 Japan Pro Use LP. There are numerous other examples like the early Dire Straits and Roxy Music CDs. Many of the early Japan and German target CDs (called so because of the circle around the edge of the CD) or the "swirl" CDs are very high quality (though still variable) and sought after by audiophiles.

This also highlights how there is different markets for different genres. When I invested in SACD, all reviews I read about rock masters pretty much said the only possible advantage for some was a mixed surround. Many impressions of rock SACDs were that they were no different from previous CD releases. I invested in SACD for classical and jazz.. The main native rock SACD I have is Beck's Sea Change. I do have Dark Side of the Moon on SACD: I'm not such a Pink Floyd devote to want to collect every version and compare. I do know this in itself is debated ad infinitum. I've only compared with my friends vinyl versions, and there just seems to be less distortion with the SACD in my setup. When it comes to audio quality of CDs in the 80s, I'm also sure there'd be a huge difference between the earliest masters in the early 80s vs the later 80s (just as the earliest DVDs had pretty bad compression and were not anamorphic).

 

[old tech]

This also highlights how there is different markets for different genres. When I invested in SACD, all reviews I read about rock masters pretty much said the only possible advantage for some was a mixed surround. Many impressions of rock SACDs were that they were no different from previous CD releases. I invested in SACD for classical and jazz.. The main native rock SACD I have is Beck's Sea Change. I do have Dark Side of the Moon on SACD: I'm not such a Pink Floyd devote to want to collect every version and compare. I do know this in itself is debated ad infinitum. I've only compared with my friends vinyl versions, and there just seems to be less distortion with the SACD in my setup. When it comes to audio quality of CDs in the 80s, I'm also sure there'd be a huge difference between the earliest masters in the early 80s vs the later 80s (just as the earliest DVDs had pretty bad compression and were not anamorphic).

Nope, there is no difference generally between the early 80s CDs and the later 80s. It wasn't until the early 90s that digital mixing consoles were widely used and music production became more processed (there were limits on how far one could push analog processing).

I still don't quite understand what you mean by the early CDs being compressed. I presume you are referring to audio compression rather than data compression because both CD and SACD are uncompressed formats. Even so, if you did mean audio compression then it is far more likely that SACDs would be more compressed due to modern mastering trends. It would be rare to find an 80s CD that is compressed as most of them were transfers from the source tape.

 

[old tech]

"I have just checked with a friend who gave me
the record to transfer it to CD - it was not his and
he can not get it back for another, better transfer
to HR digital."

I can guarantee you will not hear a difference between a needle-drop of that vinyl to CD and a needle-drop to High-Res format, assuing same playback and ADC equipment and a flat transfer.

Yes, believing that is like believing pouring 1 litre of water into a 3 litre jug will yield more water than pouring it into a 2 litre jug.

 

[old tech]

Spoken like a true audiophile! Believe what you want to believe.

You mean audiophool?

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Indeed...that's one immediate thing I found with demoing vinyl vs CD masterings of the 80s. Many early CDs were audibly compressed to eliminate any tape hiss and just sound awful now. Digital processing has greatly improved so that dynamics sound great in within CD standards. My ultimate preference with my speaker system in BD has to do with surround and LFE. The best in high res music I have in BD isn't just about accurately modeling high frequencies...but they have a great use of subwoofer and dynamics. We are in an interesting time where we have fringe elements wanting to revive vinyl, are high res digital purists, and the majority who are listening to whatever compressed formats on given bluetooth formats.

Actually you have that backwards. The masters were compressed for *some* early CDs(hence all the DR12 values I'm getting on the MAAT DR meter), but I believe the guy I quoted(Davesrose) was referring to the later 'remaster' editions(late 1990s reissues of Thriller for example) which were compressed and limited for loudness.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Nope, there is no difference generally between the early 80s CDs and the later 80s. It wasn't until the early 90s that digital mixing consoles were widely used and music production became more processed (there were limits on how far one could push analog processing).

I still don't quite understand what you mean by the early CDs being compressed. I presume you are referring to audio compression rather than data compression because both CD and SACD are uncompressed formats. Even so, if you did mean audio compression then it is far more likely that SACDs would be more compressed due to modern mastering trends. It would be rare to find an 80s CD that is compressed as most of them were transfers from the source tape.

Correct. We are talking dynamic compression here, not data compression. Some people still believe that lossy formats(mp3) compress the dynamics, and that's why they got a bad rap - mp3 gained traction with the mobile public just as the latest loudness war(late 1990s to present) was beginning. Consumers naturally confused one form of compression with the other, lol!

 

[TheSonicTruth]

I don't think that's the guy you were debating with...

What do you mean by that? I'm confused. I quoted Davesrose and replied to him.

 

[analogsurviver]

You know I think it's great that on here there's still debates about CD vs SACD/hi-res formats ...while your typical person is now listening to mp3s on a bluetooth device that can't even reveal a difference with aptX/AAC. I'm agnostic when it comes to source format: I have many CDs that are the pinnacle of that recording and I will always favor them (also driven by how I like the performance). I also found certain classic rock from the 70s sounds really good on vinyl (the height of when they were engineered for the medium, and then were apparently compressed for CD remasters). I do have quite a few SACDs that are original older tape masters trying to be the most hi-fidelity: I still enjoy them because of the lower noise floor. One of my main genres I've delved into is classical guitar: I have some RCA SACD recordings of Julian Bream that will just innately sound better then the original vinyl pressing as there's no noticeable distortion. I do have a few natively recorded DSD SACDs, and they do seem to have a quality of more open soundstage. But again, the final basis for me is the music itself. I have an SACD of Hnoncourt's Mozart's Requiem which I can identify as being technically superior to my favorite interepretation of Neville Marriner's CDs. But I'll still always want to default to listening to Marriner for the music. At this point in time, the main high-res lossless audio I'm collecting is Blu-ray concerts.

This is the kind of answer I like the most - congrats, Sir !

Currently, I am working on vinyl - how to best preserve it on digital. The recordings vary in quality - widly so, spanning more than 60 years of music and audio history . And, ultimately there is , finally, for the moment only one - LP available made from the DSD256 master as the best possible reference - to compare it to the turntable output .

Stylus shapes, vinyl quality ( from new, unplayed - to would replace the copy in a heartbeat IF available >>), vinyl cleaning methods, cartridges, arms, turntables, phono stages, - and "digititis" that can best approach the sound of the vinyl played "live". It is going to be quite a journey ...

 

[Davesrose]

Nope, there is no difference generally between the early 80s CDs and the later 80s. It wasn't until the early 90s that digital mixing consoles were widely used and music production became more processed (there were limits on how far one could push analog processing).

I still don't quite understand what you mean by the early CDs being compressed. I presume you are referring to audio compression rather than data compression because both CD and SACD are uncompressed formats. Even so, if you did mean audio compression then it is far more likely that SACDs would be more compressed due to modern mastering trends. It would be rare to find an 80s CD that is compressed as most of them were transfers from the source tape.

Sorry, but CDs aren't all mastered the same. I also work with computers and know what data compression is: I obviously wasn't referring to compression as that. My use of the word was referring to audio, but probably wasn't the best word (as I didn't mean dynamic range so much as primarily reducing frequency range around tape hiss). Since my post did reference tape hiss, I'm not sure how you got to data compression. Music is also mastered after transferring original source tape. Also SACDs can have a MP4 lossless data compression known as DST.