Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

will sound improve with a sacd player?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 17, 2005 6:41:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I am really happy with my current system. It is basically a NAD Cd
player, Golden Theater pre-amp and amp and Triangle speakers and a APEX
dvd player wich I like because it plays everything and even converts
NTSC to PAL.
I am thinking of buying a universal SACD/DVD Audio but will like to
know if it is a worthwhile buy.

Questions:

1) If I was to buy some of the currente SACD/DVD Audio releases like
Pink Floyd´s Dark Side... or Norah Jones, etc., will I hear a real
difference? Will I say, wow! it justifies the bought, what an amazing
incredible "new" sound? Or not?

2) Will it improve the sound I get on my DTS/DD movies and concertos I
see on my regular DVD player?

Thank you!!
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 18, 2005 5:14:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

f...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I am really happy with my current system. It is basically a NAD Cd
> player, Golden Theater pre-amp and amp and Triangle speakers and a
APEX
> dvd player wich I like because it plays everything and even converts
> NTSC to PAL.
> I am thinking of buying a universal SACD/DVD Audio but will like to
> know if it is a worthwhile buy.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1) If I was to buy some of the currente SACD/DVD Audio releases like
> Pink Floyd´s Dark Side... or Norah Jones, etc., will I hear a real
> difference? Will I say, wow! it justifies the bought, what an amazing
> incredible "new" sound? Or not?

Very possibly, at least in some cases. A lot of the older recordings
have been remastered for re-release, many of them for the better.

> 2) Will it improve the sound I get on my DTS/DD movies and concertos
I
> see on my regular DVD player?

Unlikely.

One thing to recognize is that these new formats are not taking off,
and will probably never constitute more than a couple of percent of all
releases. On the other hand, universal players can be had for under
$200 these days (I think). If you don't mind paying that price for
hearing a little bit of music better, then it's worthwhile.

bob
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 18, 2005 5:17:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

faive@hotmail.com wrote:
> I am really happy with my current system. It is basically a NAD Cd
> player, Golden Theater pre-amp and amp and Triangle speakers and a APEX
> dvd player wich I like because it plays everything and even converts
> NTSC to PAL.
> I am thinking of buying a universal SACD/DVD Audio but will like to
> know if it is a worthwhile buy.

> Questions:

> 1) If I was to buy some of the currente SACD/DVD Audio releases like
> Pink Floyd?s Dark Side... or Norah Jones, etc., will I hear a real
> difference? Will I say, wow! it justifies the bought, what an amazing
> incredible "new" sound? Or not?

Since they are remastered, whihc implies new level and EQ choices and
possible a different source tape, it's likely you'd hear a difference in a
good A/B comparison. HOw much, if any of that difference is due to them
being SACD/DVD-A, is going ot be difficult if not impossible to determine,
unless you can eliminate the 'remastering' effects.

> 2) Will it improve the sound I get on my DTS/DD movies and concertos I
> see on my regular DVD player?

Again, the mastering and mixing, and not the format, will usually make the
biggest difference, though DTS and DD can introduce audible lossy
compression artifacts.

--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Related resources
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 18, 2005 5:22:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 17 May 2005 02:41:32 GMT, faive@hotmail.com wrote:

>I am really happy with my current system. It is basically a NAD Cd
>player, Golden Theater pre-amp and amp and Triangle speakers and a APEX
>dvd player wich I like because it plays everything and even converts
>NTSC to PAL.
>I am thinking of buying a universal SACD/DVD Audio but will like to
>know if it is a worthwhile buy.
>
>Questions:
>
>1) If I was to buy some of the currente SACD/DVD Audio releases like
>Pink Floyd´s Dark Side... or Norah Jones, etc., will I hear a real
>difference? Will I say, wow! it justifies the bought, what an amazing
>incredible "new" sound? Or not?

Probably - but that's because the new DSOTM is multi-channel, not
because SACD is 'better' in any other respect.

>2) Will it improve the sound I get on my DTS/DD movies and concertos I
>see on my regular DVD player?

Marginally, but you have to be listening very closely, especially with
DTS at high bitrates.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 19, 2005 3:58:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 17 May 2005 02:41:32 GMT, faive@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >I am really happy with my current system. It is basically a NAD Cd
> >player, Golden Theater pre-amp and amp and Triangle speakers and a
APEX
> >dvd player wich I like because it plays everything and even converts
> >NTSC to PAL.
> >I am thinking of buying a universal SACD/DVD Audio but will like to
> >know if it is a worthwhile buy.
> >
> >Questions:
> >
> >1) If I was to buy some of the currente SACD/DVD Audio releases like
> >Pink Floyd´s Dark Side... or Norah Jones, etc., will I hear a real
> >difference? Will I say, wow! it justifies the bought, what an
amazing
> >incredible "new" sound? Or not?
>
> Probably - but that's because the new DSOTM is multi-channel, not
> because SACD is 'better' in any other respect.
>
> >2) Will it improve the sound I get on my DTS/DD movies and concertos
I
> >see on my regular DVD player?
>
> Marginally, but you have to be listening very closely, especially
with
> DTS at high bitrates.

If I understand his question correctly, he's asking whether he'll get
better sound on movie soundtracks (and concert video DVDs) with a
universal player than with a standard DVD-V player. Why would a
universal player handle DD/DTS better?

bob
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 19, 2005 4:05:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

This brings up an important side issue. I own about 80 SACDs and
DVD-As, and most of them sound wonderful. However, fact of the matter
is, so do most of my remastered CDs (referring to CDs remastered in the
past five or ten years or so).

So, to expand on this guy's question, do you really think SACD and
DVD-A are audibly better because of their higher bit rates, or are they
better simply because they have been newly remastered? In the case of
my surround-sound titles, the analog multitracks were first transferred
to digital, then digitally mixed, then mastered. I figure anything
given that kinda treatment is likely to sound pretty good.

As a point of reference, I went back and listened to Hendrix's "Live at
Winterland" the other day, which was recorded in 1968. The eight-track
tapes were transferred to digital and mixed in 1987, and it was
something of a landmark release at the time (it was one of the earliest
"CD-only" releases and, as such, used the disk's full length). That
title still sounds wonderful on red-book CD, and I'm assuming all the
digital work was done at 16/44.1 or 16/48, nothing like what they can
do today.

Anyway, even though I support high-resolution digital (particularly
SACD), I'm not convinced it's making a substantial difference.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 20, 2005 4:24:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Long Rod Penetrator" <long_rod_penetrator@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D 6gl9601qq6@news3.newsguy.com...
> This brings up an important side issue. I own about 80 SACDs and
> DVD-As, and most of them sound wonderful. However, fact of the matter
> is, so do most of my remastered CDs (referring to CDs remastered in the
> past five or ten years or so).
>
> So, to expand on this guy's question, do you really think SACD and
> DVD-A are audibly better because of their higher bit rates, or are they
> better simply because they have been newly remastered? In the case of
> my surround-sound titles, the analog multitracks were first transferred
> to digital, then digitally mixed, then mastered. I figure anything
> given that kinda treatment is likely to sound pretty good.
>
> As a point of reference, I went back and listened to Hendrix's "Live at
> Winterland" the other day, which was recorded in 1968. The eight-track
> tapes were transferred to digital and mixed in 1987, and it was
> something of a landmark release at the time (it was one of the earliest
> "CD-only" releases and, as such, used the disk's full length). That
> title still sounds wonderful on red-book CD, and I'm assuming all the
> digital work was done at 16/44.1 or 16/48, nothing like what they can
> do today.
>
> Anyway, even though I support high-resolution digital (particularly
> SACD), I'm not convinced it's making a substantial difference.

Those are all good points. The best way I know to reach a judgment is to
try to get as equivalent a recording as possible and two equivalent
machines. Not very practical, but comparing the hybrid CD layer of say a
Sony ES SACD player vs. the two channel SACD layer on an identical player,
both fed into side by side analog inputs with average volumes matched,
should work. Assuming you use SACD's that have the remix on both, which as
I am sure you know, some do and some don't. Short of that we can only
guess.

I can say that when I first got my first SACD player (a Sony CS222ES) I
deliberately sought out SACD's which had simple, classical two channel mixes
that I already owned on LP, CD, pre-recorded tape, and sometimes two out of
the three. Listened both casually and critically and took careful notes
while in the latter mode.. Since my CD system using the SACD player and
phonograph system have virtually identical timbral balance, they formed a
good comparison. And the tape deck (an open reel Teac 4070) is flat from 35
to 20khz (measured) so it also sounded timbrally similar. Doing what
comparisons I could, the SACD's came out very well....sense of ease and
depth like LP's; better bass,dimensionality, and high-end smoothness than
CD; and greater transparency and less 2nd harmonic distortion than tape
(although the latter actually made taped voices sound a bit better).

At this point I've stopped worrying about it. I tremendously enjoy
classical and pop in multi-channel using both SACD and DVD-A, and the
reissue of many old jazz classics on SACD in much better sound has been a
tremendous blessing. Plus, the better sound has rekindled my flame to
purchase music, and I have resumed a habit I last had in my twenties of
buying more than I should every month. :-)
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 20, 2005 4:26:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 18 May 2005 23:58:55 GMT, nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 17 May 2005 02:41:32 GMT, faive@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >I am really happy with my current system. It is basically a NAD Cd
>> >player, Golden Theater pre-amp and amp and Triangle speakers and a APEX
>> >dvd player wich I like because it plays everything and even converts
>> >NTSC to PAL.
>> >I am thinking of buying a universal SACD/DVD Audio but will like to
>> >know if it is a worthwhile buy.
>> >
>> >Questions:
>> >
>> >1) If I was to buy some of the currente SACD/DVD Audio releases like
>> >Pink Floyd´s Dark Side... or Norah Jones, etc., will I hear a real
>> >difference? Will I say, wow! it justifies the bought, what an amazing
>> >incredible "new" sound? Or not?
>>
>> Probably - but that's because the new DSOTM is multi-channel, not
>> because SACD is 'better' in any other respect.
>>
>> >2) Will it improve the sound I get on my DTS/DD movies and concertos I
>> >see on my regular DVD player?
>>
>> Marginally, but you have to be listening very closely, especially with
>> DTS at high bitrates.
>
>If I understand his question correctly, he's asking whether he'll get
>better sound on movie soundtracks (and concert video DVDs) with a
>universal player than with a standard DVD-V player. Why would a
>universal player handle DD/DTS better?

I misinterpreted the question, I thought he was asking if
multi-channel SACD would sound better than DD/DTS. The only reason a
'universal' player *might* handle DD/DTS better than a straight DVD
player is that it will be a newer design, and it will have DACs
capable of handling 24/192.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 25, 2005 3:49:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I was listening today to the recently remastered Heiftez/Munch
performances of the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos on RCA
Hybrid SACD. ((P) 2004)

Comparing CD and SACD layers:

(1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. I'm not sure
how else to put it, except that there is a tactile quality to it --
listening through headphones. Especially on something like a timpani
roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this
apparent quality?

(2) I have an impression somehow that SACD conveys attacks better--the
starts of notes--they are better defined. Is there an objective basis
for this impression?

If SACD sounds better than CD (as I think it does), *why* does it
sound better? I understand that SACD has a higher effective sampling
rate (if I am right about that), but why does that make an audible
difference? Is it a question of the artifacts caused by digital
filters, as some have stated? (I am confused; I thought oversampling
fixed that.) I skimmed through Ken Pohlmann's book on digital audio
and I got some idea of why CD works well but didn't come away with a
very good idea of why SACD should be perceivably better (quite
possibly my fault, not his).

I realize the topic of CD vs. SACD has been broached on this group
before, but in my searches so far I've found more opinion than
explanation, so I'm grateful to anyone who can point me in the right
direction.

(And to answer the question that I know will inevitably arise, no, I
don't know if the CD layer on the Heifetz recording starts with an
identical master to that on the SACD.... And to put my impressions in
context,they are via Sennheiser HD-600, Sony DVP-NS500V DVD/SACD
player, Bryston preamp, and Benchmark DAC-1. To be sure ... it sounds
gorgeous either way.)

Thanks,

Mark
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 26, 2005 3:56:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mark DeBellis <mad1@columbia.edu> wrote:
> I was listening today to the recently remastered Heiftez/Munch
> performances of the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos on RCA
> Hybrid SACD. ((P) 2004)

> Comparing CD and SACD layers:

> (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. I'm not sure
> how else to put it, except that there is a tactile quality to it --
> listening through headphones. Especially on something like a timpani
> roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this
> apparent quality?

- different mastering on the two layers
- different playback levels/EQ/circuitry for the two layers

non-technological reason:

- 'sighted' bias

> (2) I have an impression somehow that SACD conveys attacks better--the >
starts of notes--they are better defined. Is there an objective basis >
for this impression?


> If SACD sounds better than CD (as I think it does), *why* does it >
sound better?

see above


> I understand that SACD has a higher effective sampling > rate (if I am
>right about that), but why does that make an audible > difference?

There's precious little evidence that it does, at least for playback.


> Is it a question of the artifacts caused by digital > filters, as some
have stated? (I am confused; I thought oversampling > fixed that.) I
skimmed through Ken Pohlmann's book on digital audio > and I got some idea
of why CD works well but didn't come away with a > very good idea of why
SACD should be perceivably better (quite > possibly my fault, not his).

It's not surprising that SACD should be *perceived* as better, given how
SACD has been marketed. However, the scientific evidence that they *are*
audibly better, is indeed, hard to find.

> I realize the topic of CD vs. SACD has been broached on this group >
before, but in my searches so far I've found more opinion than >
explanation, so I'm grateful to anyone who can point me in the right >
direction.

I would refer you also to Nika Aldrich's recent bookk, 'Understanding
Digital Audio', which does have some treatment of SACD.



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
May 26, 2005 3:57:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mark DeBellis wrote:

> I was listening today to the recently remastered Heiftez/Munch
> performances of the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos on RCA
> Hybrid SACD. ((P) 2004)
>
> Comparing CD and SACD layers:
>
> (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. I'm not sure
> how else to put it, except that there is a tactile quality to it --
> listening through headphones. Especially on something like a timpani
> roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this
> apparent quality?
>
> (2) I have an impression somehow that SACD conveys attacks better--the
> starts of notes--they are better defined. Is there an objective basis
> for this impression?
>
> If SACD sounds better than CD (as I think it does), *why* does it
> sound better? I understand that SACD has a higher effective sampling
> rate (if I am right about that), but why does that make an audible
> difference? Is it a question of the artifacts caused by digital
> filters, as some have stated? (I am confused; I thought oversampling
> fixed that.) I skimmed through Ken Pohlmann's book on digital audio
> and I got some idea of why CD works well but didn't come away with a
> very good idea of why SACD should be perceivably better (quite
> possibly my fault, not his).
>
> I realize the topic of CD vs. SACD has been broached on this group
> before, but in my searches so far I've found more opinion than
> explanation, so I'm grateful to anyone who can point me in the right
> direction.
>
> (And to answer the question that I know will inevitably arise, no, I
> don't know if the CD layer on the Heifetz recording starts with an
> identical master to that on the SACD.... And to put my impressions in
> context,they are via Sennheiser HD-600, Sony DVP-NS500V DVD/SACD
> player, Bryston preamp, and Benchmark DAC-1. To be sure ... it sounds
> gorgeous either way.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark

Probably you should do a simple test: let someone else change the player
so that you don't know whether it is playing the CD or the SACD layer.
Then you try to guess which layer is being played. If you are
consistently correct, then you may have a valid point that those two
layers sound different. The difference can still be caused by mastering,
of course.

So here are some technical differences between SACD and CD:

(a) CD is basically hard-limited to 20 KHz or so. If you can hear above
that, SACD can give me more information, asssuming of course there is
information in the master tape.

(b) Some SACD players actually have very large supersonic noise. That
could cause problems in certain amplifiers. If you are listening to a
preamp output through headphones, that probably should not be a problem.

(c) A lot of players have different output levels for CD and for SACD,
so level matching is very important in comparing the two layers.

BTW, how do you set the levels? It sounds like you are using the
external DAC to listen to CD and the Sony to listen to the SACD layer.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 26, 2005 4:16:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 24 May 2005 23:49:17 GMT, Mark DeBellis <mad1@columbia.edu> wrote:

>I was listening today to the recently remastered Heiftez/Munch
>performances of the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos on RCA
>Hybrid SACD. ((P) 2004)
>
>Comparing CD and SACD layers:
>
>(1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. I'm not sure
>how else to put it, except that there is a tactile quality to it --
>listening through headphones. Especially on something like a timpani
>roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this
>apparent quality?

Nothing, except that the mastering was almost certainly different on
the SACD version. Apples and oranges.

>(2) I have an impression somehow that SACD conveys attacks better--the
>starts of notes--they are better defined. Is there an objective basis
>for this impression?

Only the sighted bias that you *know* SACD has *potentially* wider
bandwidth. OTOH, consider the fact that the ubiquitous large-capsule
studio microphone rolls off at about 18kHz, so that its unlikely that
the *master* tape actually contains anything outside the range of CD.

>If SACD sounds better than CD (as I think it does), *why* does it
>sound better? I understand that SACD has a higher effective sampling
>rate (if I am right about that), but why does that make an audible
>difference?

SACD as a medium has wider bandwidth than CD, but the dynamic range at
high frequencies is poorer than CD, and there's a shedload of
ultrasonic noise for the amplifier to contend with. Some amps react
badly to this, producing lots of audible IM distortion.

> Is it a question of the artifacts caused by digital
>filters, as some have stated? (I am confused; I thought oversampling
>fixed that.)

Mostly, it did.

> I skimmed through Ken Pohlmann's book on digital audio
>and I got some idea of why CD works well but didn't come away with a
>very good idea of why SACD should be perceivably better (quite
>possibly my fault, not his).

No, you seem to have grasped the essentials! :-)

>I realize the topic of CD vs. SACD has been broached on this group
>before, but in my searches so far I've found more opinion than
>explanation, so I'm grateful to anyone who can point me in the right
>direction.
>
>(And to answer the question that I know will inevitably arise, no, I
>don't know if the CD layer on the Heifetz recording starts with an
>identical master to that on the SACD.... And to put my impressions in
>context,they are via Sennheiser HD-600, Sony DVP-NS500V DVD/SACD
>player, Bryston preamp, and Benchmark DAC-1. To be sure ... it sounds
>gorgeous either way.)

Well, that's the main thing! Note additionally that if it's an old
Heifetz recording, it's terminally unlikely that there's anything
above 20kHz on it anyway, so the *theoretical* advantage of SACD
disappears.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 27, 2005 3:46:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

A SACD is supposed to give you the same quality of sound as a LP. I
found difference between regular CD vs LP all in favor of the LP. I
compare a DVD-AUDIO with an Oracle Delphi and the Oracle still win
except the difference where not as dramatic as with CD vs the Oracle.
All the audio quality that was lost with CD is supposed to be there with
SACD. The difference in sound that you noticed with this SACD is
exactly what you will find if you compare a CD with a good (NOT
JAPANESE) Turntable (LIKE ORACLE, LINN, CLEARAUDIO, ProJect) and a clean
LP in good condition. The SACD is supposed to be finally the LP Killer
that the CD promised (but was a sound killer instead).
The CD If I am correct use PCM ( data is upsampled, recorded, and
noise-filtered and downsampled.
Again if I am correct SACD use DSD : Basically, it removed much of the
filtering and downsampling, leaving a purer digital signal to be
recorded. The encoding on the SACD is supposed to be lossless. So the
sound that is playback is closer to the analog sound.

Owners of Good turntable did'nt have any good reason (except
convenience) to change to the CD. With SACD they are supposed to NOW
have a good reason to switch. Personnaly I will have to try a SACD
Player before deciding if I will switch.

Bye

Chung a écrit :
> Mark DeBellis wrote:
>
>> I was listening today to the recently remastered Heiftez/Munch
>> performances of the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos on RCA
>> Hybrid SACD. ((P) 2004)
>>
>> Comparing CD and SACD layers:
>>
>> (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. I'm not sure
>> how else to put it, except that there is a tactile quality to it --
>> listening through headphones. Especially on something like a timpani
>> roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this
>> apparent quality?
>>
>> (2) I have an impression somehow that SACD conveys attacks better--the
>> starts of notes--they are better defined. Is there an objective basis
>> for this impression?
>>
>> If SACD sounds better than CD (as I think it does), *why* does it
>> sound better? I understand that SACD has a higher effective sampling
>> rate (if I am right about that), but why does that make an audible
>> difference? Is it a question of the artifacts caused by digital
>> filters, as some have stated? (I am confused; I thought oversampling
>> fixed that.) I skimmed through Ken Pohlmann's book on digital audio
>> and I got some idea of why CD works well but didn't come away with a
>> very good idea of why SACD should be perceivably better (quite
>> possibly my fault, not his).
>>
>> I realize the topic of CD vs. SACD has been broached on this group
>> before, but in my searches so far I've found more opinion than
>> explanation, so I'm grateful to anyone who can point me in the right
>> direction.
>>
>> (And to answer the question that I know will inevitably arise, no, I
>> don't know if the CD layer on the Heifetz recording starts with an
>> identical master to that on the SACD.... And to put my impressions in
>> context,they are via Sennheiser HD-600, Sony DVP-NS500V DVD/SACD
>> player, Bryston preamp, and Benchmark DAC-1. To be sure ... it sounds
>> gorgeous either way.)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mark
>
>
> Probably you should do a simple test: let someone else change the player
> so that you don't know whether it is playing the CD or the SACD layer.
> Then you try to guess which layer is being played. If you are
> consistently correct, then you may have a valid point that those two
> layers sound different. The difference can still be caused by mastering,
> of course.
>
> So here are some technical differences between SACD and CD:
>
> (a) CD is basically hard-limited to 20 KHz or so. If you can hear above
> that, SACD can give me more information, asssuming of course there is
> information in the master tape.
>
> (b) Some SACD players actually have very large supersonic noise. That
> could cause problems in certain amplifiers. If you are listening to a
> preamp output through headphones, that probably should not be a problem.
>
> (c) A lot of players have different output levels for CD and for SACD,
> so level matching is very important in comparing the two layers.
>
> BTW, how do you set the levels? It sounds like you are using the
> external DAC to listen to CD and the Sony to listen to the SACD layer.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 27, 2005 3:47:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Mark DeBellis" <mad1@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:D 70eht0dui@news3.newsguy.com...
> I was listening today to the recently remastered Heiftez/Munch
> performances of the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos on RCA
> Hybrid SACD. ((P) 2004)
>
> Comparing CD and SACD layers:
>
> (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. I'm not sure
> how else to put it, except that there is a tactile quality to it --
> listening through headphones. Especially on something like a timpani
> roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this
> apparent quality?
>
> (2) I have an impression somehow that SACD conveys attacks better--the
> starts of notes--they are better defined. Is there an objective basis
> for this impression?
>

That's not just an impression, it is now recognized as the truth. The SACD
is the only digital hi-rez system that accurately reproduces a 3ms transient
pulse. PCM "smears" the transient with pre-echo and ringing, and has a lot
of that post-impulse as well. Except for 192khz PCM, the "time-smear" lasts
longer than the known window of perception of human hearing, and so is
theoretically audible. Many of us feel it is indeed audible and that it
accounts for the slightly "artificial" quality of CD's when compared to SACD
or 192khz PCM (which unfortunately very few producing DVD-A recordings
actual include for reasons of space limitation). 96khz PCM falls somewhere
in between CD and 192khz transient performance.

Both SACD and DVD-A have a lower noise floor in the most audible section of
the frequency response range, from about 100hz up to about 8khz. This, in
combination with the superior transient response of SACD, is why the attack
of instruments, particularly percussion and percussive instruments like the
piano, xylophone, etc. sound very lifelike in SACD compared to CD and why
they seem to have more "body". As you mention, even though the CD may sound
identical on the surface after a very good remaster, if you listen carefully
in the areas you mention you can hear the difference. On a CD that has been
sloppily mastered (even if the mix is the same), the difference will be
easily obvious because the compression and limiting will distort transient
response even more.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 27, 2005 3:54:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 25 May 2005 23:56:22 GMT, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

>Mark DeBellis <mad1@columbia.edu> wrote:

>> (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. ...
>> Especially on something like a timpani
>> roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this
>> apparent quality?
>
>- different mastering on the two layers
>- different playback levels/EQ/circuitry for the two layers

Is there an example of a recording (pref. classical) where it is known
that the mastering is the same, that the EQ, mix, etc., are the same
(if this makes sense), i.e., where the variables have been eliminated
as much as possible, so that the comparison is between CD and SACD not
other factors?

Also ... can there be differences other than ones intrinsic to the
formats that might affect the quality of recordings? I mean something
like this--say: if the mastering is done a certain way it will result
in higher quality, but it is difficult or expensive to transfer such a
master to CD, whereas it is easier or cheaper to put on SACD. So it
would turn out that in general SACDs would be better recordings, even
though any particular master would sound the same on CD and SACD. In
other words, it's conceivable that there are technical reasons why
issuing on SACD could promote higher quality at other parts of the
chain. Is that possible, or is it the case that, in fact, the other
variables are independent (in terms of cost, convenience, etc.) of
whether the final product is CD or SACD?

Thanks

Mark
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 27, 2005 3:58:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 25 May 2005 23:57:28 GMT, Chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

>Probably you should do a simple test: let someone else change the player
>so that you don't know whether it is playing the CD or the SACD layer.
>Then you try to guess which layer is being played.
>
>BTW, how do you set the levels? It sounds like you are using the
>external DAC to listen to CD and the Sony to listen to the SACD layer.

Thanks to Chung and Stewart for your replies.

Yes, I use the DAC for the CD and listen to SACD via Sony->preamp
headphone output. Chung, I like your idea of doing a simple test. I
am going to try the following setup: I will rip CD to my computer,
which sends a digital signal to the DAC, which in turn outputs to the
preamp. I can then listen to either signal using the headphone jack
on the preamp, and switch using the input knob. I can adjust the
level either from the computer (I am using a Creative Audigy 2 NX
sound card; I am not exactly sure what adjusting the volume actually
does to a digital signal) or from the DAC. (Which is better? Does
the setup I describe sound plausible?) I will match the levels by ear
as best I can (is there any other practical way for me to do this?),
and then report back. (I will ask someone else to control the input
knob.)

As an aside ... the thing that gets me about audio is that it is very
hard to know what one is getting. I am annoyed at the hype and the
fact that an expensive CD player may sound no different from an
inexpensive one. My own personal preference would be for the
inexpensive and accurate player (until someone gives me good reason to
think that I ought to change my preferences). The catalog for one
internet/mail-order company is filled with many, many tweaks, green
pen type things, each of which purports to "improve soundstage," and
the like. I don't know how they think they can retain credibility, if
they care about that at all. I say they can't *all* be effective,
that at least in most cases any perceived change is the result of
expectation bias, and that the people who list them all in the catalog
and promise great results for every one do not have much of a critical
attitude to filter out the junk. And that is disappointing from a
retailer. What I would like to see in this hobby is a greater amount
of shared knowledge, and a realistic sense of what the actual,
perceptually relevant differences there are in equipment so people can
know what it is that they are choosing and why.

Speaker cables are another example where I think I have wasted money.

That is why I appreciate the efforts of many of you to replace hype
with knowledge.

Mark
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 27, 2005 4:02:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

p.s. I guess there is a simpler question related to what I have
already asked: why would a record company use different masters (EQ,
etc.) for the CD and stereo SACD layers? It sure looks deceptive,
because it will cause people to mistakenly attribute differences to
SACD vs. CD, but maybe there are other reasons why they would use
different masters?

Thanks.

Mark
May 28, 2005 1:00:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mark DeBellis wrote:
> On 25 May 2005 23:57:28 GMT, Chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>
>>Probably you should do a simple test: let someone else change the player
>>so that you don't know whether it is playing the CD or the SACD layer.
>>Then you try to guess which layer is being played.
>>
>>BTW, how do you set the levels? It sounds like you are using the
>>external DAC to listen to CD and the Sony to listen to the SACD layer.
>
> Thanks to Chung and Stewart for your replies.
>
> Yes, I use the DAC for the CD and listen to SACD via Sony->preamp
> headphone output. Chung, I like your idea of doing a simple test. I
> am going to try the following setup: I will rip CD to my computer,
> which sends a digital signal to the DAC, which in turn outputs to the
> preamp. I can then listen to either signal using the headphone jack
> on the preamp, and switch using the input knob. I can adjust the
> level either from the computer (I am using a Creative Audigy 2 NX
> sound card; I am not exactly sure what adjusting the volume actually
> does to a digital signal) or from the DAC.

If I understand you correctly, you are trying to adjust the volume by
applying digital gain adjustments to the wave file that eventually gets
streamed to the DAC. That does not work. Certainly not well. Any digital
gain adjsutment will affect (probably adversely) the signal-to-noise
ratio of the resulting output.

One way to check level balance is to use your Audigy 2 NX to record the
SACD and the CD layer outputs separately to your PC/laptop, then inspect
the wave files and compare peak levels (or average levels). That tells
you how different the two output levels are, and then you can match by
marking the volume control knob on your preamp so that the two layers
will play at the same level on your headphones.


> (Which is better? Does
> the setup I describe sound plausible?) I will match the levels by ear
> as best I can (is there any other practical way for me to do this?),
> and then report back. (I will ask someone else to control the input
> knob.)

Like I said above, you can match level by inspecting the statistics of
the .wav files.

>
> As an aside ... the thing that gets me about audio is that it is very
> hard to know what one is getting. I am annoyed at the hype and the
> fact that an expensive CD player may sound no different from an
> inexpensive one. My own personal preference would be for the
> inexpensive and accurate player (until someone gives me good reason to
> think that I ought to change my preferences). The catalog for one
> internet/mail-order company is filled with many, many tweaks, green
> pen type things, each of which purports to "improve soundstage," and
> the like. I don't know how they think they can retain credibility, if
> they care about that at all. I say they can't *all* be effective,
> that at least in most cases any perceived change is the result of
> expectation bias, and that the people who list them all in the catalog
> and promise great results for every one do not have much of a critical
> attitude to filter out the junk. And that is disappointing from a
> retailer. What I would like to see in this hobby is a greater amount
> of shared knowledge, and a realistic sense of what the actual,
> perceptually relevant differences there are in equipment so people can
> know what it is that they are choosing and why.
>
> Speaker cables are another example where I think I have wasted money.
>
> That is why I appreciate the efforts of many of you to replace hype
> with knowledge.
>
> Mark
May 28, 2005 1:06:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Jocelyn Major wrote:

> A SACD is supposed to give you the same quality of sound as a LP.

That would be terrible news! :)  You mean SACD has 60-70 dB dynamic
range, 15 KHz bandwidth on a good day, bass summed to mono, poor
separation, etc?
May 28, 2005 1:07:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo wrote:

> "Mark DeBellis" <mad1@columbia.edu> wrote in message
> news:D 70eht0dui@news3.newsguy.com...
>> I was listening today to the recently remastered Heiftez/Munch
>> performances of the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos on RCA
>> Hybrid SACD. ((P) 2004)
>>
>> Comparing CD and SACD layers:
>>
>> (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. I'm not sure
>> how else to put it, except that there is a tactile quality to it --
>> listening through headphones. Especially on something like a timpani
>> roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this
>> apparent quality?
>>
>> (2) I have an impression somehow that SACD conveys attacks better--the
>> starts of notes--they are better defined. Is there an objective basis
>> for this impression?
>>
>
> That's not just an impression, it is now recognized as the truth.

Please provide data that SACD conveys attacks better in an audible way.
You are confusing truth with impressions.

To do a fair comparison, make sure the same master/mix is used, levels
are matched, and that the CD layer is not intentionally degraded or
processed differently (like different peak levels, noticeable clipping,
etc.). Then do a a blind comparison.

> The SACD
> is the only digital hi-rez system that accurately reproduces a 3ms transient
> pulse.

And please tell us the significance of accurately reproducing a 3ms
transient pulse, in audio terms?

> PCM "smears" the transient with pre-echo and ringing, and has a lot
> of that post-impulse as well. Except for 192khz PCM, the "time-smear" lasts
> longer than the known window of perception of human hearing, and so is
> theoretically audible. Many of us feel it is indeed audible and that it
> accounts for the slightly "artificial" quality of CD's when compared to SACD
> or 192khz PCM (which unfortunately very few producing DVD-A recordings
> actual include for reasons of space limitation).

So it's just that many of you feel that way, not a "truth".


>96khz PCM falls somewhere
> in between CD and 192khz transient performance.
>
> Both SACD and DVD-A have a lower noise floor in the most audible section of
> the frequency response range, from about 100hz up to about 8khz. This, in
> combination with the superior transient response of SACD, is why the attack
> of instruments, particularly percussion and percussive instruments like the
> piano, xylophone, etc. sound very lifelike in SACD compared to CD and why
> they seem to have more "body". As you mention, even though the CD may sound
> identical on the surface after a very good remaster, if you listen carefully
> in the areas you mention you can hear the difference. On a CD that has been
> sloppily mastered (even if the mix is the same), the difference will be
> easily obvious because the compression and limiting will distort transient
> response even more.
>

The really amazing thing to me is the vinyl rigs produce a really poor
transient response, and yet some audiophiles wax poetic about how close
SACD is to vinyl.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 28, 2005 1:08:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Mark DeBellis" <mad1@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:D 75nio0c2t@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 25 May 2005 23:56:22 GMT, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >Mark DeBellis <mad1@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> >> (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. ...
> >> Especially on something like a timpani
> >> roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this
> >> apparent quality?
> >
> >- different mastering on the two layers
> >- different playback levels/EQ/circuitry for the two layers
>
> Is there an example of a recording (pref. classical) where it is known
> that the mastering is the same, that the EQ, mix, etc., are the same
> (if this makes sense), i.e., where the variables have been eliminated
> as much as possible, so that the comparison is between CD and SACD not
> other factors?
>

Many of the early Sony stereo, SACD-layer-only disks were direct lifts of
the final two-track master (not the LP master). The sound identical in
every detail and aspect because they are...other than to the intrinisic
processing required for SACD. If you listen to an origianal LP or
pre-recorded tape of these performances, you will hear the media differences
rather than the mix differences.

Most of the straight-DSD classical recordings of the last three years also
mix to the same two channel mix for the hybrid CD layer and for the stereo
SACD layer. They usually use a Meitner converter and can take a DSD or
high-rez PCM out of the convertor. Of course the CD layer has to be down
converted. Some would argue that they are subject to further manipulation,
but the ones I have from Phillips seem to have identical dynamic range on
both CD and SACD layer.

Specific examples of the former on Columbia are the Szell/Rossini Overtures,
the Ormandy/Verdi Requiem, and the Walter Beethoven Fifth. Specific
examples of the latter are the Phillip's Fischer/Dvorak Symphonies 8 & 9 and
the Fischer/Dvorak Slavonic Dances.

> Also ... can there be differences other than ones intrinsic to the
> formats that might affect the quality of recordings? I mean something
> like this--say: if the mastering is done a certain way it will result
> in higher quality, but it is difficult or expensive to transfer such a
> master to CD, whereas it is easier or cheaper to put on SACD. So it
> would turn out that in general SACDs would be better recordings, even
> though any particular master would sound the same on CD and SACD. In
> other words, it's conceivable that there are technical reasons why
> issuing on SACD could promote higher quality at other parts of the
> chain. Is that possible, or is it the case that, in fact, the other
> variables are independent (in terms of cost, convenience, etc.) of
> whether the final product is CD or SACD?
>

Well, since much of the reason for being for SACD is better sound, in
general the remix engineers and producers try to do a careful job. Usually
this means going back to the origianl master tape (stereo or multitrack,
rather than to the production masters as do many conventional reissues).
Doing this and using modern technology often results in improved sound. And
when it comes to new recordings, both DSD and 192/24 PCM recording beat
anything that has gone before hands down for sound quality. You will hear
this on CD as well, but not to the same extent as you will on SACD or DVD-A.


> Thanks
>
> Mark
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 28, 2005 1:09:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Mark DeBellis" <mad1@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:D 75nri0caf@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 25 May 2005 23:57:28 GMT, Chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>
> >Probably you should do a simple test: let someone else change the player
> >so that you don't know whether it is playing the CD or the SACD layer.
> >Then you try to guess which layer is being played.
> >
> >BTW, how do you set the levels? It sounds like you are using the
> >external DAC to listen to CD and the Sony to listen to the SACD layer.
>
> Thanks to Chung and Stewart for your replies.
>
> Yes, I use the DAC for the CD and listen to SACD via Sony->preamp
> headphone output. Chung, I like your idea of doing a simple test. I
> am going to try the following setup: I will rip CD to my computer,
> which sends a digital signal to the DAC, which in turn outputs to the
> preamp. I can then listen to either signal using the headphone jack
> on the preamp, and switch using the input knob. I can adjust the
> level either from the computer (I am using a Creative Audigy 2 NX
> sound card; I am not exactly sure what adjusting the volume actually
> does to a digital signal) or from the DAC. (Which is better? Does
> the setup I describe sound plausible?) I will match the levels by ear
> as best I can (is there any other practical way for me to do this?),
> and then report back. (I will ask someone else to control the input
> knob.)
>

If you are going to do this, pick several sections of music that your prior
listening suggests reveal the difference, and listen to that section for
each, at least 3-4 minutes. Don't worry about "comparing", just listen to
what you hear. Then after you've switched a few times A to B, B to A...make
your selection. The only thing that should change is what your friend
starts with...keep the ABBA order the same (the reason is sometimes the
change is more evident in one direction than the other). Wait a minute and
a half between switches...this is very important as current research suggest
s quicker switching does not allow the brain/emotions to adjust to clearly
differentiate between samples using your whole brain. If you do this, each
"test" will take about 20 minutes. Then take a ten-minut break between
tests.

You'll have to do 15 to 20 tests to have a good chance at statistical
reliability, so you'll probably have to do this over several days. Then
you'll have to supply statistics...how many tests done, how many correct in
order to find out whether the results support a difference, or not (a
"null").

If anybody here tries to convince you to test another way, do it if you
want. But the reason I am stressing the above is because this kind of
testing has been shown to differentiate, and most importantly, the testing
(preliminarily, not yet confirmed) seems to reveal that the tratditional
quick-switch testing is too rapid to allow the brain to adjust, and actually
obscures results, rather than promoting true identification of differences.

>snip<
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 28, 2005 1:09:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Mark DeBellis" <mad1@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:D 75o1s0cgt@news3.newsguy.com...
> p.s. I guess there is a simpler question related to what I have
> already asked: why would a record company use different masters (EQ,
> etc.) for the CD and stereo SACD layers? It sure looks deceptive,
> because it will cause people to mistakenly attribute differences to
> SACD vs. CD, but maybe there are other reasons why they would use
> different masters?
>

They generally don't...it is cited as a strawman here by many who don't like
the idea of SACD, but in reality you'll find the layers very similar,
*unless* the company decides to take an older CD master and put it on the CD
layer. This is usually done with pop and rock (presumably in the belief
that buyers want to own the "original" as well as the high-rez), and is
hardily ever done for classical or jazz.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 28, 2005 1:10:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 25 May 2005 23:57:28 GMT, Chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:


>Probably you should do a simple test: let someone else change the player
>so that you don't know whether it is playing the CD or the SACD layer.
>Then you try to guess which layer is being played. If you are
>consistently correct, then you may have a valid point that those two
>layers sound different. The difference can still be caused by mastering,
>of course.
>

First of all: when I set things up I was suprised that the sounds were
so close. I was expecting there to be more of a difference.

The material was about a minute's worth of the first mvt. of the
Beethoven (about 3:00-4:00), prominently featuring solo violin
(Heifetz recording of the concerto).

This is how I ran the test: We started with a neutral position on the
input knob with no sound. Then my wife randomly selected either CD or
SACD. I listened for a few seconds, then asked her to switch to the
other one. I asked her to switch back and forth (the number of times
varied). Eventually I attempted to say which source I was currently
hearing. (Hence, my choice is what determined which source was the
last one to play, and which I labelled.) She immediately told me if
my guess was right or wrong. Each of those things constituted a
trial, and we ran 11 trials (before she couldn't take it any more).

There was no way to tell by clicks on the input knob which one was
selected. I matched levels by ear prior to the test as best I could.
Earlier today I spent some time (20 mins.) trying to "learn" what each
sounded like, and I did a little of that right before the test.

Here's the raw data, showing the source that was playing when I
applied the label, the label I applied, and whether I was right or
not:

TRIAL SOURCE GUESS SUCCESS

1. SACD CD no
2. SACD CD no
3. SACD SACD yes
4. SACD SACD yes
5. SACD CD no
6. CD SACD no
7. CD CD yes
8. SACD CD no
9. SACD CD no
10. SACD CD no
11. SACD CD no

The data speaks for itself, but I find the following interesting: 7
out of 11 times, I thought I was hearing the CD but actually was
hearing the SACD. One possible explanation: there is a difference
between the two, and on my equipment the CD sounds better, but I
expected the SACD to sound better so I labelled the better-sounding
one as SACD? (I was not consciously thinking of either as "better,"
though, just trying to label them correctly.)

Does the outcome suggest something other than chance, anyway (even
though it obviously indicates that I can't label the sources
reliably)?

Here is what I now believe: I am not prepared to abandon immediately
the idea that SACD sounds better. But clearly skepticism is in order,
because based on how things seemed to me beforehand, I thought that it
would be easy to get 100% (right) on this test. I had the impression
of a clear perceptual difference over which I had as much control as,
say, the colors of oranges vs. bananas. But if there is a difference,
it is much subtler than it appeared it would be.

Now I am going to go back to my stereo and listen for pleasure. To
SACD, of course :-)

Thank you again, Chung, for suggesting this; it was interesting and I
am sure there is much I can learn from it.

Mark
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 28, 2005 1:12:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mark DeBellis <mad1@columbia.edu> wrote:
> On 25 May 2005 23:56:22 GMT, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

> >Mark DeBellis <mad1@columbia.edu> wrote:

> >> (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. ...
> >> Especially on something like a timpani
> >> roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this
> >> apparent quality?
> >
> >- different mastering on the two layers
> >- different playback levels/EQ/circuitry for the two layers

> Is there an example of a recording (pref. classical) where it is known
> that the mastering is the same, that the EQ, mix, etc., are the same
> (if this makes sense), i.e., where the variables have been eliminated
> as much as possible, so that the comparison is between CD and SACD not
> other factors?


Even if you could be sure of equal recording chains-- and the record here
from layers that have been compared objecively is spotty -- you're still
left with the second possibility -- that you CD/SACD player(s) don't
output CD and SACD with the same bass management, EQ, output level.

Isn't it odd, though, that the developers of SACD and DVD-A have never
published any such trials...surely difference must be 'obvious' and the
marketing value would have been great?


> Also ... can there be differences other than ones intrinsic to the >
formats that might affect the quality of recordings? I mean something >
like this--say: if the mastering is done a certain way it will result > in
higher quality, but it is difficult or expensive to transfer such a >
master to CD, whereas it is easier or cheaper to put on SACD. So it >
would turn out that in general SACDs would be better recordings, even >
though any particular master would sound the same on CD and SACD. In >
other words, it's conceivable that there are technical reasons why >
issuing on SACD could promote higher quality at other parts of the >
chain. Is that possible, or is it the case that, in fact, the other >
variables are independent (in terms of cost, convenience, etc.) of >
whether the final product is CD or SACD?


Your scenario doesn't sound plausible to me, but how about this one: SACDs
are hyped as sounding better than CDs, so record companies make sure that
SACD remasters use the right source tapes, and are mastered carefully on
good equipment.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 28, 2005 1:12:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mark DeBellis <mad1@columbia.edu> wrote:
> p.s. I guess there is a simpler question related to what I have
> already asked: why would a record company use different masters (EQ,
> etc.) for the CD and stereo SACD layers? It sure looks deceptive,
> because it will cause people to mistakenly attribute differences to
> SACD vs. CD, but maybe there are other reasons why they would use
> different masters?


One tendency is to use more compression and other loudness-enhancing
tricks on the CD layer, perhaps on the assumption that these will be
played in cars. One example of this is Pink Floyd's 'Dark Side of the
Moon' -- but even Telarc has admitted to the practice.


I've always been intrigued by what could happen in a real DBT with such a
comparison using layers that are different in this way...because the human
tendency is to find the louder of two presentations to sound 'better'.


Audiophile magazanes, AFAIK, have *never* reviewed SACD vs CD layers in
blind fashion...the reviewer *always* knows which format he's hearing.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 28, 2005 1:18:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

> I would refer you also to Nika Aldrich's recent bookk, 'Understanding
> Digital Audio', which does have some treatment of SACD.


Correction -- the book is titled 'Digital Audio Explained'


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 28, 2005 1:21:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 26 May 2005 23:46:21 GMT, Jocelyn Major <majorj@videotron.ca>
wrote:

>A SACD is supposed to give you the same quality of sound as a LP.

I certainly hope not!!

>I found difference between regular CD vs LP all in favor of the LP. I
>compare a DVD-AUDIO with an Oracle Delphi and the Oracle still win
>except the difference where not as dramatic as with CD vs the Oracle.

That's simply a matter of personal preference, rather than any kind of
'quality' indicator.

>All the audio quality that was lost with CD is supposed to be there with
> SACD. The difference in sound that you noticed with this SACD is
>exactly what you will find if you compare a CD with a good (NOT
>JAPANESE) Turntable (LIKE ORACLE, LINN, CLEARAUDIO, ProJect) and a clean
>LP in good condition.

Denon and Technics both made turntables as good as any you name, and
significantly better than the overhyped Linn - which was generally
used with Japanese arms and Japanese cartridges, and none the worse
for that.

Furthermore, differences between SACD and CD are extremely subtle,
quite unlike the gross difference between either of those and vinyl.
Don't believe everything you read in the hi-fi press!

>The SACD is supposed to be finally the LP Killer
>that the CD promised (but was a sound killer instead).
>The CD If I am correct use PCM ( data is upsampled, recorded, and
>noise-filtered and downsampled.

That's not a description of PCM. PCM samples sound at a rate slightly
more than twice the highest frequency of interest (22kHz for CD),
stores the samples, and then reads them back via a DAC which has at
its output a reconstruction filter. This filter is a match for the
anti-aliasing filter at the input to the ADC, and simply ensures that
nothing above 22kHz appears in the output signal. Noise shaping is
only required in oversampled systems, where audio band dynamic range
is traded for ultrasonic noise.

DSD is simply an extreme example of oversampling, and uses a 1-bit
system sampled at a couple of megaHertz and noise-shaped to achieve
similar audio band dynamic range to a 16-bit system sampling at
44.1kHz. Sony have been using high-oversampling DACs in their CD
players for many years, eventually clocking them at 45 MHz!

>Again if I am correct SACD use DSD : Basically, it removed much of the
>filtering and downsampling, leaving a purer digital signal to be
>recorded. The encoding on the SACD is supposed to be lossless. So the
>sound that is playback is closer to the analog sound.

Utter garbage, and there's no reason whatever to suppose that DSD is
'purer' than PCM. Besides which, Sony were forced to drop DSD for
recording, due to a fatal flaw in the 1-bit process, and now use what
they call DSD Wide, which is simply another name for oversampled
hybrid PCM, the same system that you'll find in most modern 24/192
DACs.

>Owners of Good turntable did'nt have any good reason (except
>convenience) to change to the CD.

Sure they did - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much better bass
response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion - essentially,
the sound of the original master tape.

Those aren't matters of convenience.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
May 28, 2005 3:47:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mark DeBellis wrote:

> On 25 May 2005 23:57:28 GMT, Chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Probably you should do a simple test: let someone else change the player
>>so that you don't know whether it is playing the CD or the SACD layer.
>>Then you try to guess which layer is being played. If you are
>>consistently correct, then you may have a valid point that those two
>>layers sound different. The difference can still be caused by mastering,
>>of course.
>>
>
> First of all: when I set things up I was suprised that the sounds were
> so close. I was expecting there to be more of a difference.
>
> The material was about a minute's worth of the first mvt. of the
> Beethoven (about 3:00-4:00), prominently featuring solo violin
> (Heifetz recording of the concerto).
>
> This is how I ran the test: We started with a neutral position on the
> input knob with no sound. Then my wife randomly selected either CD or
> SACD. I listened for a few seconds, then asked her to switch to the
> other one. I asked her to switch back and forth (the number of times
> varied). Eventually I attempted to say which source I was currently
> hearing. (Hence, my choice is what determined which source was the
> last one to play, and which I labelled.) She immediately told me if
> my guess was right or wrong. Each of those things constituted a
> trial, and we ran 11 trials (before she couldn't take it any more).
>
> There was no way to tell by clicks on the input knob which one was
> selected. I matched levels by ear prior to the test as best I could.
> Earlier today I spent some time (20 mins.) trying to "learn" what each
> sounded like, and I did a little of that right before the test.
>
> Here's the raw data, showing the source that was playing when I
> applied the label, the label I applied, and whether I was right or
> not:
>
> TRIAL SOURCE GUESS SUCCESS
>
> 1. SACD CD no
> 2. SACD CD no
> 3. SACD SACD yes
> 4. SACD SACD yes
> 5. SACD CD no
> 6. CD SACD no
> 7. CD CD yes
> 8. SACD CD no
> 9. SACD CD no
> 10. SACD CD no
> 11. SACD CD no
>
> The data speaks for itself, but I find the following interesting: 7
> out of 11 times, I thought I was hearing the CD but actually was
> hearing the SACD. One possible explanation: there is a difference
> between the two, and on my equipment the CD sounds better, but I
> expected the SACD to sound better so I labelled the better-sounding
> one as SACD? (I was not consciously thinking of either as "better,"
> though, just trying to label them correctly.)
>
> Does the outcome suggest something other than chance, anyway (even
> though it obviously indicates that I can't label the sources
> reliably)?
>
> Here is what I now believe: I am not prepared to abandon immediately
> the idea that SACD sounds better. But clearly skepticism is in order,
> because based on how things seemed to me beforehand, I thought that it
> would be easy to get 100% (right) on this test. I had the impression
> of a clear perceptual difference over which I had as much control as,
> say, the colors of oranges vs. bananas. But if there is a difference,
> it is much subtler than it appeared it would be.
>
> Now I am going to go back to my stereo and listen for pleasure. To
> SACD, of course :-)
>
> Thank you again, Chung, for suggesting this; it was interesting and I
> am sure there is much I can learn from it.
>
> Mark

I can give me my anecdote, so take it with a grain of salt. I am
familiar with the Muuray Perahia's excellent digital recording of Bach's
Goldberg Varations. I bought the CD version first, and I have become
quite familiar with it. I then bought a SACD player and one of the first
discs I got was the same recording on SACD (not hybrid). The first time
I listened to the SACD, I thought it sounded smoother (for lack of a
better word). Then I listened to both again, paying attention to match
levels as best I could. I found that the differences cannot be reliably
detected at all. The two versions sounded surprisingly (at that time)
similar. If someone were to randomly select the CD or SACD for me
without my knowledge, I cannot tell which is being played.

But I have also seen quite a bit of evidence that the layers can be
substantially different, like what that Stereophile article described.
Therefore, I believe that the average audiophile simply does not have
the ability/tools/prerequisites to tell the performance of the two media
apart. They can pick a preference, but that preference is not
necessarily based on the accuracy of the technologies at all.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 28, 2005 7:14:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:D 7826702e1v@news2.newsguy.com...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>
> > "Mark DeBellis" <mad1@columbia.edu> wrote in message
> > news:D 70eht0dui@news3.newsguy.com...
> >> I was listening today to the recently remastered Heiftez/Munch
> >> performances of the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos on RCA
> >> Hybrid SACD. ((P) 2004)
> >>
> >> Comparing CD and SACD layers:
> >>
> >> (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. I'm not sure
> >> how else to put it, except that there is a tactile quality to it --
> >> listening through headphones. Especially on something like a timpani
> >> roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this
> >> apparent quality?
> >>
> >> (2) I have an impression somehow that SACD conveys attacks better--the
> >> starts of notes--they are better defined. Is there an objective basis
> >> for this impression?
> >>
> >
> > That's not just an impression, it is now recognized as the truth.
>
> Please provide data that SACD conveys attacks better in an audible way.
> You are confusing truth with impressions.
>

This is a well understood engineering phenomenon, Chung. It is not an
extraordinary claim at all. And I just recently pointed out that pictures
showing the comparison of the various media and media sampling rates were
handed out at the ISOmic suite at HE2005.

> To do a fair comparison, make sure the same master/mix is used, levels
> are matched, and that the CD layer is not intentionally degraded or
> processed differently (like different peak levels, noticeable clipping,
> etc.). Then do a a blind comparison.

The ISOmic work was done with exactly the same 4ms pulse, so the response
differences were obvious.

I just recently ran across a commentary by Jean Jarre (but can't remember
where and can't lay my hands on it). He will only record at 192/24. He
said they did level-matched bypass tests in the studio using white noise.
Said 192/24 had barely perceptible difference, 96/24 was perceptibly
different but not bad. 44.1/16 was atrocious and sounded nothing like the
bypass signal With white noise, the only effect you would hear is the pulse
effect I descibed. He discribed also listening to the "tails" of cymbal
fade using the three media, and while the higher rates sounded like cymbals,
the CD fades with a tsk-tsk-tsk-tsk sound. Said henceforth he will not
release anything but DVD's and DVD-A.

BTW in my experience, the sound of cymbals is probably the most consistent
give-away of CD sound versu either SACD or DVD-A.

> > The SACD
> > is the only digital hi-rez system that accurately reproduces a 3ms
transient
> > pulse.
>
> And please tell us the significance of accurately reproducing a 3ms
> transient pulse, in audio terms?

The "naturalness" of attack on all kinds of sounds.

>
> > PCM "smears" the transient with pre-echo and ringing, and has a lot
> > of that post-impulse as well. Except for 192khz PCM, the "time-smear"
lasts
> > longer than the known window of perception of human hearing, and so is
> > theoretically audible. Many of us feel it is indeed audible and that it
> > accounts for the slightly "artificial" quality of CD's when compared to
SACD
> > or 192khz PCM (which unfortunately very few producing DVD-A recordings
> > actual include for reasons of space limitation).
>
> So it's just that many of you feel that way, not a "truth".

It's a physical truth. Whether it bothers you audibly probably varies
person to person. To me, it has always been an annoying feature of
so-called "CD sound".


>
>
> >96khz PCM falls somewhere
> > in between CD and 192khz transient performance.
> >
> > Both SACD and DVD-A have a lower noise floor in the most audible section
of
> > the frequency response range, from about 100hz up to about 8khz. This,
in
> > combination with the superior transient response of SACD, is why the
attack
> > of instruments, particularly percussion and percussive instruments like
the
> > piano, xylophone, etc. sound very lifelike in SACD compared to CD and
why
> > they seem to have more "body". As you mention, even though the CD may
sound
> > identical on the surface after a very good remaster, if you listen
carefully
> > in the areas you mention you can hear the difference. On a CD that has
been
> > sloppily mastered (even if the mix is the same), the difference will be
> > easily obvious because the compression and limiting will distort
transient
> > response even more.
> >
>
> The really amazing thing to me is the vinyl rigs produce a really poor
> transient response, and yet some audiophiles wax poetic about how close
> SACD is to vinyl.

I think it is more that they don't screw up the transients the way
low-sample-rate digital does, which bears no resemblance to anything in the
natural world. There is no "pre-echo" in the natural world.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 28, 2005 7:19:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 7831g02evg@news2.newsguy.com...
> On 26 May 2005 23:46:21 GMT, Jocelyn Major <majorj@videotron.ca>
> wrote:
>snip<

> Utter garbage, and there's no reason whatever to suppose that DSD is
> 'purer' than PCM. Besides which, Sony were forced to drop DSD for
> recording, due to a fatal flaw in the 1-bit process, and now use what
> they call DSD Wide, which is simply another name for oversampled
> hybrid PCM, the same system that you'll find in most modern 24/192
> DACs.

How many times you going to repeat this canard? Sony's commercial recording
always used the "wide" version...from the very beginning they claim. The
single-bit claim is a consumer, decoding claim. Moreover, the critics who
made the claim have subsequently retracted the criticism.

Listen to the Phillips Fischer recordings done pure DSD in 1998 and
1999....do they sound "flawed" to you. They are generally acknowledged to
be among the better-sounding recordings out on SACD.


> >Owners of Good turntable did'nt have any good reason (except
> >convenience) to change to the CD.
>
> Sure they did - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much better bass
> response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion - essentially,
> the sound of the original master tape.
>
> Those aren't matters of convenience.

Most will acknowledge they welcomed fewer clicks and pops. But the better
bass response and freedom from wow and flutter are very marginal
improvements, as the deficiencies in practice were not that great. BTW, to
the latter point I again pulled out a random solo piano disk
today....Rubenstein's "My Favorite Chopin". Listened critically a few times
for Chung's ever-present "wow and flutter"....and heard none. Greatly
enjoyed the recording.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 28, 2005 7:20:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 27 May 2005 21:09:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:


>If you are going to do this, pick several sections of music that your prior
>listening suggests reveal the difference, and listen to that section for
>each, at least 3-4 minutes. ...

Thank you for the suggestion. I will try to do as you suggest. The
main challenge will be finding someone to cooperate.

I have already posted results on (what I regard as) a quick-switch
test where I usually misidentified the source. I tried again today,
using speakers and much longer excerpts (ca. 5-10 minutes), without
switching back and forth, and I seem to be improving:

SOURCE GUESS SUCCESS
1. SACD SACD yes
2. CD CD yes
3. SACD SACD yes
4. CD SACD no
5. CD CD yes
6. CD CD yes
7. CD SACD no

(By CD, I really mean my computer outputting 16/44.1.)

Subjectively it seemed to me that trial 4 was harder than the previous
three. Anyway, two things occur to me: fatigue can be a factor in
this, and toward the end, my memory for what SACD sounds like may not
have been so good since there was a string of 4 CDs in a row. Is it
better to refresh with a sighted exposure to both stimuli before each
trial?

Mark
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 28, 2005 7:25:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 27 May 2005 21:09:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:

>If you are going to do this, pick several sections of music that your prior
>listening suggests reveal the difference, and listen to that section for
>each, at least 3-4 minutes. Don't worry about "comparing", just listen to
>what you hear. Then after you've switched a few times A to B, B to A...make
>your selection.

By "make your selection," do you mean say which one is which ... ?

Because ... I realize this issue of testing has been discussed at
great length, so thank you for your patience as I work my way up the
learning curve ... so the following is probably a naive question, but
anyway:

why is it a requirement that one be able to reliably *identify* the
things in question? If we're trying to disprove the hypothesis that
the stimuli are sonically identical (so that any perceived difference
is due to expectation bias), wouldn't it be sufficient to demonstrate
that the subject exhibits a different response to one than to the
other? That would be a weaker requirement than identification. So
for example, suppose I set up my stereo to play either the SACD or the
CD (at the same level), and on each trial I listen to the whole
movement and I say how beautiful I thought the sound was on a scale
from 1 to 10. If the average rating I give on the SACD trials is,
over a large number of trials, different from the average on the CD
trials, doesn't that show I am responding differently to the two, and
that there is some difference I am reacting to? (If there is no
difference, then wouldn't any disparity in the scores average out in
the long run?)

I wonder whether the protocol of listening to short snippets and
trying to identify which source they are coming from might be
comparable to the following: suppose I think that an original painting
is more beautiful than a very good reproduction. You say, there is no
difference; it's all expectation bias. To prove it, let's have me
compare any given one-inch square of the original canvas with the
corresponding square of the reproduction, on a quick-switch test.
Sure enough ... I'll look at a given square and I won't be able to say
reliably whether it comes from the original or the reproduction.
Clearly, this is testing for the wrong thing. What has to be compared
is the Gestalt of looking at the whole painting (vs. the
reproduction), because what I am responding to as beautiful is the
whole thing, not individual squares.

The thing is that an identification test makes sense in the case of
pictures, because if I look at the original, then immediately after
that the reproduction, and then "X", if I can't tell which one X is
then there probably is no difference. But in the case of music the
relevant stimulus is something that takes up a length of time, because
the aesthetic reaction is to a long stretch of music, not to
individual notes, and it is impossible to hold a long stretch in
memory in order to make a direct comparison.

Any reaction to that, or note of obvious errors, is appreciated ...


Mark
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 28, 2005 7:26:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mark DeBellis <mad1@columbia.edu> wrote:
> On 25 May 2005 23:57:28 GMT, Chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:


> >Probably you should do a simple test: let someone else change the player
> >so that you don't know whether it is playing the CD or the SACD layer.
> >Then you try to guess which layer is being played. If you are
> >consistently correct, then you may have a valid point that those two
> >layers sound different. The difference can still be caused by mastering,
> >of course.
> >

> First of all: when I set things up I was suprised that the sounds were
> so close. I was expecting there to be more of a difference.

Here's what I got when I fed the 2-channel analog output of my DV-45a
(with bass management off, output level set to 'fixed', delay settings the
same for all channels) to an M-audio 2496 soundcard, capturing the audio
to digital with Audition at 32 bits, with the SACD/CD layer versions of
'Street Fighting Man' (from Beggars's Banquet) by the Rolling Stones as
source. Recording levels were chosen to avoid any chance of clipping, but
were kept the same for SACD and CD.


peak dB SACD -10.1 (left) -10.5 (right)
peak dB CD -8.9 -9.0
avg dB SACD -25.2 -26.4
avg dB CD -23.7 -25.0



Dynamic range (dB):
avg-peak SACD 15.1 15.9
avg-peak CD 14.8 16.0


So, from this, either the mastering is different, or my player outputs the
two formats differently.




When the files are normalized to peak = 0 dB , the
differences become much smaller:


peak CDrip 0.0 -0.1*
peak SACD 0.0 -0.4
peak CD 0.0 -0.1
avg dB SACD -15.1 -16.3
avg dB CD -14.8 -16.1
avg dB CDrip -14.6 -16.0
DR SACD 15.1 15.9
DR CD 14.8 16.0
DR CDrip 14.6 15.9



*digital rip of CD version; not normalized since peak of rip = 0 dB for
both channels
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 28, 2005 7:27:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 27 May 2005 21:09:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:

>If you are going to do this, pick several sections of music that your prior
>listening suggests reveal the difference, and listen to that section for
>each, at least 3-4 minutes. Don't worry about "comparing", just listen to
>what you hear. Then after you've switched a few times A to B, B to A...make
>your selection. The only thing that should change is what your friend
>starts with...keep the ABBA order the same (the reason is sometimes the
>change is more evident in one direction than the other). Wait a minute and
>a half between switches...this is very important as current research suggest
>s quicker switching does not allow the brain/emotions to adjust to clearly
>differentiate between samples using your whole brain. If you do this, each
>"test" will take about 20 minutes. Then take a ten-minut break between
>tests.

Let's get this in proportion, Harry. *One* researcher, Oohashi, has
come up with this theory, it has *not* been verified by other research
teams, so it is, for the moment, speculation. It also flies in the
face of decades of research which indicates that quick-switched tests
are the most sensitive, so don't go making claims just yet. OTOH,
threre's good reason to test this way, just to see if it *does* make a
difference. Of course, he should *also* do some quick-switched
'snippet' testing to see if there's any meat on the bones of Oohashi's
claims.

>You'll have to do 15 to 20 tests to have a good chance at statistical
>reliability, so you'll probably have to do this over several days. Then
>you'll have to supply statistics...how many tests done, how many correct in
>order to find out whether the results support a difference, or not (a
>"null").

Yup, getting to the truth is a tedious business, but hobbyists are
notoriously obsessive.

>If anybody here tries to convince you to test another way, do it if you
>want. But the reason I am stressing the above is because this kind of
>testing has been shown to differentiate, and most importantly, the testing
>(preliminarily, not yet confirmed) seems to reveal that the tratditional
>quick-switch testing is too rapid to allow the brain to adjust, and actually
>obscures results, rather than promoting true identification of differences.

Maybe so, maybe no. You need to try *both* methoids to find out which
is more sensitive. I know where I'll place *my* bet.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 29, 2005 12:00:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mark DeBellis wrote:
>
> why is it a requirement that one be able to reliably *identify* the
> things in question? If we're trying to disprove the hypothesis that
> the stimuli are sonically identical (so that any perceived difference
> is due to expectation bias), wouldn't it be sufficient to demonstrate
> that the subject exhibits a different response to one than to the
> other? That would be a weaker requirement than identification. So
> for example, suppose I set up my stereo to play either the SACD or the
> CD (at the same level), and on each trial I listen to the whole
> movement and I say how beautiful I thought the sound was on a scale
> from 1 to 10. If the average rating I give on the SACD trials is,
> over a large number of trials, different from the average on the CD
> trials, doesn't that show I am responding differently to the two, and
> that there is some difference I am reacting to? (If there is no
> difference, then wouldn't any disparity in the scores average out in
> the long run?)

You could do it that way. Psychoacoustics researchers generally don't
do it that way, because they've found other methods that are both more
efficient and more sensitive. There is an ill-informed anti-empiricist
strain of audiophilia that rejects this, however.
>
> I wonder whether the protocol of listening to short snippets and
> trying to identify which source they are coming from might be
> comparable to the following: suppose I think that an original painting
> is more beautiful than a very good reproduction.
> You say, there is no
> difference; it's all expectation bias.

No one would ever say this. Warning: visual analogies never work here.
Ever.

> To prove it, let's have me
> compare any given one-inch square of the original canvas with the
> corresponding square of the reproduction, on a quick-switch test.

No one would ever claim that looking at a one-inch square bit of a
painting is an effective way of judging its beauty. You're proposal
here is nonsensical.

> Sure enough ... I'll look at a given square and I won't be able to say
> reliably whether it comes from the original or the reproduction.
> Clearly, this is testing for the wrong thing. What has to be compared
> is the Gestalt of looking at the whole painting (vs. the
> reproduction), because what I am responding to as beautiful is the
> whole thing, not individual squares.
>
> The thing is that an identification test makes sense in the case of
> pictures, because if I look at the original, then immediately after
> that the reproduction, and then "X", if I can't tell which one X is
> then there probably is no difference. But in the case of music the
> relevant stimulus is something that takes up a length of time,

Depends on what you're listening for. If you're trying to judge the
overall quality of a musical composition/performance, then of course
you need to listen to the whole thing. But if you're trying to compare
two audio reproduction systems, it can be much more effective to listen
to and immediately compare much shorter snippets of sounds,
particularly sounds that are notoriously challenging to reproduce. This
isn't speculation. It's settled science among those who study human
perception for a living. It's only rejected by the anti-empiricist
fringe in the audiophile world.

> because
> the aesthetic reaction is to a long stretch of music, not to
> individual notes, and it is impossible to hold a long stretch in
> memory in order to make a direct comparison.

Your final clause gets it right. It is indeed impossible to remember
partial loudness differences for more than a brief moment, which
renders long-term comparisons hopeless.

bob
____________

"Further carefully-conducted blind tests will be necessary
if these conclusions are felt to be in error."
--Stanley P. Lipshitz
May 29, 2005 12:05:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mark DeBellis wrote:

> On 27 May 2005 21:09:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>If you are going to do this, pick several sections of music that your prior
>>listening suggests reveal the difference, and listen to that section for
>>each, at least 3-4 minutes. ...
>
> Thank you for the suggestion. I will try to do as you suggest. The
> main challenge will be finding someone to cooperate.
>
> I have already posted results on (what I regard as) a quick-switch
> test where I usually misidentified the source. I tried again today,
> using speakers and much longer excerpts (ca. 5-10 minutes), without
> switching back and forth, and I seem to be improving:
>
> SOURCE GUESS SUCCESS
> 1. SACD SACD yes
> 2. CD CD yes
> 3. SACD SACD yes
> 4. CD SACD no
> 5. CD CD yes
> 6. CD CD yes
> 7. CD SACD no
>
> (By CD, I really mean my computer outputting 16/44.1.)
>
> Subjectively it seemed to me that trial 4 was harder than the previous
> three. Anyway, two things occur to me: fatigue can be a factor in
> this, and toward the end, my memory for what SACD sounds like may not
> have been so good since there was a string of 4 CDs in a row. Is it
> better to refresh with a sighted exposure to both stimuli before each
> trial?
>
> Mark
>

So Mark, do you still find the two layers sounding quite different when
you don't know which one is playing, and after some level matching?
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 29, 2005 12:14:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Sorry but for me the only way to have click an pop on a LP is to leave
the dust collect on them. I you don't take care of your LP it is sure
that you will get noise from a LP. I personnaly have close to 3000 LP
and 1000 CD and I do not have any LP that produce anything else but
Music (Yes NO SURFACE NOISE, NO CLICK, NO POP). You want to know why?
Because I CLEAN my LP. It simply take 15 sec. that all.If you don't know
how to clean a LP that's your problem, but if you said that you prefect
CD because the LP give you Click and Pop Plus surface Noise may I
propose that you try to find someone that own High Quality Turntables
and listen carefully to a LP in good condition. I bet that you won't
find any surface noise or click and pop. True If you put on any
turntable a LP that is scratch and dusty, the sound will be horrible.
And when you said that Denon and Technics make good quality turntable
sorry but yes Denon do make not so bad turntable (I still have a DP-47f
in my basement) but Technics?? sorry the only good thing about those
"turntable" is the motor with is high torque. The Technics are only good
for DJ not at all for music. Personnaly I own a Oracle Delphi mk V
turntable and when I compare it with the Denon (with the same cartridge
-Grado Gold-) and yes there is a difference. If you cannot find to the
difference between a High-End turntable and a Ordinary turntable that is
not because there is no difference, Is it possible that you honestly
never listen to a Linn or a Oracle or a Clearaudio turntable?

I have several friend that always said that they prefered the sound of
their CD players over their Technics (one of them own a sl-1200) and
Pioneer turntable. Could you explain to me how come after they listen to
my gears all but one of those 6 guys(even the one who own the SL-1200)
bought a Project Turntable? It was the first time they had the chance to
listen to the sound of a Good LP Gear. I doubt that you never have that
chance.

One day my brother came to my home with is 5 years old son
(Jean-Nicolas). We put the same piece of music (it was a nocturne from
Chopin)recorded on a CD and a LP. After we listen to both piece we ask
the little boy what sound he prefered and immediatly he said the black
disc. When asked why he reply because there was more sound on the black
disk I can ear someone reading a book (It was the helper turning the
pages of the partition) and on the other disk it is not there. Could you
explain how come a 5 years old kid can see that difference while some
adult cannot (or is it that they do not) see it.

Have you ever thought that if someone tell you that the sound of a LP is
more natural than the sound of CD it may be simply because they truly
had the chance to really do a real comparison between both media. A
thing that sadly maybe you did'nt. I honestly hope that one day you will
have that chance.

And by the way I do not care what is writen in the hi-fi press. They can
write anything they want I do not read them anyway.

And by telling this : - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much
better bass response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion -
essentially, the sound of the original master tape.
You proved me that you never really listen to a High-End Turntable gear.
Yes with a cheap turntable with a cheap cartridge you will get Wow and
Flutter, limited bass (because the cartridge cannot read the bass
information), surface noise and more distortion.

Concerning Bass response did you know that the lowest frequency on a LP
is 7 Hz. Most High-end Cartridge can go as low as 10hz (My Grado Gold do
it). The main problem a Lp have with extremely low frequency is the
duration on play (the lower the frequence the larger the groove). Do you
really need something that go lower that 7HZ?
I have a sub with dual 15inch in Isabaric configuration (18Hz -3dB) and
on a recording from Saint-Saens (organ symphony) on EMI and I can tell
you that the LP does'nt lack bass at all--- I cannot ear it anymore but
it really shake everything in the room-- So does the CD have any better
bass than a LP : NO WAY.

Wow and Flutter is a problem only with low end turntable. Period.

The text below was taken from the DJSource web page

A word about comparing DATs and CDs to a record; digital levels do not
bear any relationship to analog levels. We’re talking apples and oranges
here. The analog output level of a CD player or DAT deck can be anything
the manufacturer wants it to be, but it is generally higher than a phono
preamp output. There are two reasons for this. First the digital
equipment manufacturers want CDs and DATs to sound better (translate
Louder) than records. If the DAT or CD is fairly wide dynamic range, a
record can be as loud. HOWEVER, there has been a trend in the last few
years to compress digital tapes almost to the point of the level display
not moving from the beginning to the end of the song (second reason).
This started with rap, filtered through to dance and club mixes, and
finally to most new commercial pop releases. The result is that what
used to be the peak level is now the average level and we’re talking 6
to 8 dB louder than is physically possible to put on a phonograph record
(or analog tape). Remember that the groove can only move so far before
the playback stylus mistracks or skips, and magnetic tape can only be
driven so hard before it saturates. At any level, a digital recorder is
only printing ones and zeroes. There is no analog counterpart. The
bottom line is that a really compressed CD or DAT is going to be 6 to 8
dB louder than your record. This is not a defect, it’s a FACT OF LIFE. I
prefer to think of the digital compression as a defect and a scourge to
anyone who appreciates dynamic range.

I have yet not find ANY digital media that is really better than my
Oracle Delphi. If one day I do find something better you can be certain
that i will switch. Presently the ONE and ONLY reason to switch is not
sound at all it is just convenience, Period.

Bye



Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :
> On 26 May 2005 23:46:21 GMT, Jocelyn Major <majorj@videotron.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>>A SACD is supposed to give you the same quality of sound as a LP.
>
>
> I certainly hope not!!
>
>
>>I found difference between regular CD vs LP all in favor of the LP. I
>>compare a DVD-AUDIO with an Oracle Delphi and the Oracle still win
>>except the difference where not as dramatic as with CD vs the Oracle.
>
>
> That's simply a matter of personal preference, rather than any kind of
> 'quality' indicator.
>
>
>>All the audio quality that was lost with CD is supposed to be there with
>> SACD. The difference in sound that you noticed with this SACD is
>>exactly what you will find if you compare a CD with a good (NOT
>>JAPANESE) Turntable (LIKE ORACLE, LINN, CLEARAUDIO, ProJect) and a clean
>>LP in good condition.
>
>
> Denon and Technics both made turntables as good as any you name, and
> significantly better than the overhyped Linn - which was generally
> used with Japanese arms and Japanese cartridges, and none the worse
> for that.
>
> Furthermore, differences between SACD and CD are extremely subtle,
> quite unlike the gross difference between either of those and vinyl.
> Don't believe everything you read in the hi-fi press!
>
>
>>The SACD is supposed to be finally the LP Killer
>>that the CD promised (but was a sound killer instead).
>>The CD If I am correct use PCM ( data is upsampled, recorded, and
>>noise-filtered and downsampled.
>
>
> That's not a description of PCM. PCM samples sound at a rate slightly
> more than twice the highest frequency of interest (22kHz for CD),
> stores the samples, and then reads them back via a DAC which has at
> its output a reconstruction filter. This filter is a match for the
> anti-aliasing filter at the input to the ADC, and simply ensures that
> nothing above 22kHz appears in the output signal. Noise shaping is
> only required in oversampled systems, where audio band dynamic range
> is traded for ultrasonic noise.
>
> DSD is simply an extreme example of oversampling, and uses a 1-bit
> system sampled at a couple of megaHertz and noise-shaped to achieve
> similar audio band dynamic range to a 16-bit system sampling at
> 44.1kHz. Sony have been using high-oversampling DACs in their CD
> players for many years, eventually clocking them at 45 MHz!
>
>
>>Again if I am correct SACD use DSD : Basically, it removed much of the
>>filtering and downsampling, leaving a purer digital signal to be
>>recorded. The encoding on the SACD is supposed to be lossless. So the
>>sound that is playback is closer to the analog sound.
>
>
> Utter garbage, and there's no reason whatever to suppose that DSD is
> 'purer' than PCM. Besides which, Sony were forced to drop DSD for
> recording, due to a fatal flaw in the 1-bit process, and now use what
> they call DSD Wide, which is simply another name for oversampled
> hybrid PCM, the same system that you'll find in most modern 24/192
> DACs.
>
>
>>Owners of Good turntable did'nt have any good reason (except
>>convenience) to change to the CD.
>
>
> Sure they did - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much better bass
> response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion - essentially,
> the sound of the original master tape.
>
> Those aren't matters of convenience.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 29, 2005 6:52:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 28 May 2005 20:05:15 GMT, Chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

>
>So Mark, do you still find the two layers sounding quite different when
>you don't know which one is playing, and after some level matching?

Hi Chung, I tried your level matching procedure but I think I messed
it up. No matter; eventually I think I did match the levels
adequately. And as I've indicated already, the two layers do not
sound anywhere near as different as I thought they did. It is very
difficult to distinguish them by direct comparison.

I do not infer from this that the two sound identical (in the sense of
creating identical sonic events) or are equally satisfying musically.
I think it is possible that there are subtle differences between the
two that work differently on me as I am listening. I don't think that
a subtle difference of that kind is *necessarily* reflected in an
ability to label or reidentify the stimulus. However, a test like
this gives useful information; it gives some sense of the magnitude of
the difference (which is much less than one's initial impression leads
one to think it to be). If I still want to spend extra money on
SACDs, well, I'm a grownup, and I do so fully in the knowledge that I
am betting that the difference is significant despite the fact that it
is not big. But it is good to know that.

There is this question: how is it *possible* that a difference between
SACD and CD is significant, that it makes a difference to my musical
enjoyment, if it is so subtle that I cannot reliably distinguish the
two? Intuitively it would seem that if the difference is so slight,
it can't be significant. I conclude from this, however, not that
there can't be a significant difference, but that I just don't fully
understand the matter and I need to learn and think more about it.

Thanks again for your thoughts about this!

Mark
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 29, 2005 6:59:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 28 May 2005 15:14:54 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:

>BTW in my experience, the sound of cymbals is probably the most consistent
>give-away of CD sound versu either SACD or DVD-A.

I don't find big differences there, but I certainly agree that cymbals
are a great way of showing up the deficiencies of LP!

BTW, I think Jarre is talking utter nonsense about decay tails. On my
system, they certainly do *not* have anything like a periodic tsk tsk
tsk sound as he claims.

>I think it is more that they don't screw up the transients the way
>low-sample-rate digital does, which bears no resemblance to anything in the
>natural world.

Agreed - vinyl screws up transients *much* worse than CD does!

> There is no "pre-echo" in the natural world.

Nor is there pre-echo in a CD player which uses Bessel or spline
filters. This is not a feature of 44/16 per se, only of conventional
'brick-wall' reconstruction filters.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 29, 2005 6:59:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 28 May 2005 15:19:15 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:D 7831g02evg@news2.newsguy.com...
>> On 26 May 2005 23:46:21 GMT, Jocelyn Major <majorj@videotron.ca>
>> wrote:
>>snip<
>
>> Utter garbage, and there's no reason whatever to suppose that DSD is
>> 'purer' than PCM. Besides which, Sony were forced to drop DSD for
>> recording, due to a fatal flaw in the 1-bit process, and now use what
>> they call DSD Wide, which is simply another name for oversampled
>> hybrid PCM, the same system that you'll find in most modern 24/192
>> DACs.
>
>How many times you going to repeat this canard?

As often as you attempt to claim that DSD is somehow 'purer' than PCM.
That would be untrue, because *real* Sony 'DSD Wide' *is* PCM.

> Sony's commercial recording
>always used the "wide" version...from the very beginning they claim. The
>single-bit claim is a consumer, decoding claim. Moreover, the critics who
>made the claim have subsequently retracted the criticism.
>
>Listen to the Phillips Fischer recordings done pure DSD in 1998 and
>1999....do they sound "flawed" to you. They are generally acknowledged to
>be among the better-sounding recordings out on SACD.

So Sony *did* at one time use DSD for recording? Make your mind up.

>> >Owners of Good turntable did'nt have any good reason (except
>> >convenience) to change to the CD.
>>
>> Sure they did - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much better bass
>> response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion - essentially,
>> the sound of the original master tape.
>>
>> Those aren't matters of convenience.
>
>Most will acknowledge they welcomed fewer clicks and pops. But the better
>bass response and freedom from wow and flutter are very marginal
>improvements, as the deficiencies in practice were not that great.

Maybe on your system, but the bass from CD is *way* better on mine -
and on that of anyone else who has a FR extending to the low 20s.

> BTW, to
>the latter point I again pulled out a random solo piano disk
>today....Rubenstein's "My Favorite Chopin". Listened critically a few times
>for Chung's ever-present "wow and flutter"....and heard none. Greatly
>enjoyed the recording.

It's certainly possible to listen *past* pops, clicks, surface noise,
wow and flutter to enjoy the music, but it's so much more relaxing
when they're just not there at all........................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 29, 2005 7:02:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 28 May 2005 20:14:32 GMT, Jocelyn Major <majorj@videotron.ca>
wrote:

>Sorry but for me the only way to have click an pop on a LP is to leave
>the dust collect on them. I you don't take care of your LP it is sure
>that you will get noise from a LP. I personnaly have close to 3000 LP
>and 1000 CD and I do not have any LP that produce anything else but
>Music (Yes NO SURFACE NOISE, NO CLICK, NO POP). You want to know why?
>Because I CLEAN my LP. It simply take 15 sec. that all.If you don't know
>how to clean a LP that's your problem, but if you said that you prefect
>CD because the LP give you Click and Pop Plus surface Noise may I
>propose that you try to find someone that own High Quality Turntables
>and listen carefully to a LP in good condition. I bet that you won't
>find any surface noise or click and pop.

I am such a person, and I bet that you will...............

> True If you put on any
>turntable a LP that is scratch and dusty, the sound will be horrible.
>And when you said that Denon and Technics make good quality turntable
>sorry but yes Denon do make not so bad turntable (I still have a DP-47f
>in my basement) but Technics?? sorry the only good thing about those
>"turntable" is the motor with is high torque. The Technics are only good
>for DJ not at all for music.

Clearly, you have never heard an SP-10, one of the all-time classics.
As for Denon, I wasn't thinking of the 'mid-fi' DP-47F with its
intergral and very average arm, but of the high-end table-only units
(Q10? - it was a long time ago).

> Personnaly I own a Oracle Delphi mk V
>turntable and when I compare it with the Denon (with the same cartridge
>-Grado Gold-) and yes there is a difference. If you cannot find to the
>difference between a High-End turntable and a Ordinary turntable that is
>not because there is no difference, Is it possible that you honestly
>never listen to a Linn or a Oracle or a Clearaudio turntable?

I own a Michell GyroDec, and the Oracle Delphi is indeed a very fine
table in the same basic style. The Linn LP12 however, has always been
greatly overhyped and was never IMO in the same class as Michell or of
course SME. I have also listened to the legendary Rockport Sirius III,
fitted with a Clearaudio Insider cartridge and set up by Andy Payor
himself. It was perhaps the best sound I've ever heard from vinyl, but
it still had surface noise, splashy treble, and inner-groove
distortion - because it was still playing *vinyl*, and those are
*inherent* problems of the medium.

>I have several friend that always said that they prefered the sound of
>their CD players over their Technics (one of them own a sl-1200) and
>Pioneer turntable. Could you explain to me how come after they listen to
>my gears all but one of those 6 guys(even the one who own the SL-1200)
>bought a Project Turntable? It was the first time they had the chance to
>listen to the sound of a Good LP Gear. I doubt that you never have that
>chance.

I have that chance every day - and I prefer CD.

<snip anecdotes>

>And by telling this : - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much
>better bass response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion -
>essentially, the sound of the original master tape.
>You proved me that you never really listen to a High-End Turntable gear.

A typically snide vinylphile response - and completely untrue.

>Yes with a cheap turntable with a cheap cartridge you will get Wow and
>Flutter, limited bass (because the cartridge cannot read the bass
>information), surface noise and more distortion.

Utter rubbish. You get the same bass response as on a high-end table
if you choose the correct arm/cartridge combination, and on most
modern tables, audible wow and flutter comes from eccentricity of the
record, which is the same on a Rockport as on a Technics SL-1200.

>Concerning Bass response did you know that the lowest frequency on a LP
>is 7 Hz. Most High-end Cartridge can go as low as 10hz (My Grado Gold do
>it). The main problem a Lp have with extremely low frequency is the
>duration on play (the lower the frequence the larger the groove). Do you
>really need something that go lower that 7HZ?

You are talking utter garbage, and clearly do not know the basics of
vinyl technology. In order to avoid 'warp wow', the arm/cartridge
fundamental resonance is always recommended to be set in the 10-15Hz
range. This means *by definition* that there's no response below that
resonance frequency, as the complete arm/cartridge assembly follows
the groove, with no stylus/cartridge difference to generate an signal.

The *reality* of the situation is that the f3 of vinyl is around 20Hz
in a well set up system, and the most important reality is in the
vinyl itself. Bass is summed to mono below 80-100Hz, in order to
prevent antiphase modulation reducing groove depth to zero, and the
response is rolled off below 40Hz in order to achieve reasonable side
length. Did it never occur to you that there's a *reason* why the
classic wideband Sheffield 'Drum' and 'Track' records are only 7
minutes a side?

>I have a sub with dual 15inch in Isabaric configuration (18Hz -3dB) and
>on a recording from Saint-Saens (organ symphony) on EMI and I can tell
>you that the LP does'nt lack bass at all--- I cannot ear it anymore but
>it really shake everything in the room-- So does the CD have any better
>bass than a LP : NO WAY.

Utter nonsense. As noted above, vinyl will *never* reach below 20Hz
for good physical reasons, and rarely reaches below 30Hz on commercial
records, but CD is ruler-flat to less than 10Hz. Fans of organ music
are all too well aware of this difference.

>Wow and Flutter is a problem only with low end turntable. Period.

More nonsense - eccentric records abound, and turntable quality makes
no difference to this problem.

<snip technically innacurate cut/paste from DJsource>

>I have yet not find ANY digital media that is really better than my
>Oracle Delphi. If one day I do find something better you can be certain
>that i will switch. Presently the ONE and ONLY reason to switch is not
>sound at all it is just convenience, Period.

That's your personal opinion, mine is quite the reverse.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
May 29, 2005 7:08:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:D 7826702e1v@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Harry Lavo wrote:
>>
>> > "Mark DeBellis" <mad1@columbia.edu> wrote in message
>> > news:D 70eht0dui@news3.newsguy.com...
>> >> I was listening today to the recently remastered Heiftez/Munch
>> >> performances of the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos on RCA
>> >> Hybrid SACD. ((P) 2004)
>> >>
>> >> Comparing CD and SACD layers:
>> >>
>> >> (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. I'm not sure
>> >> how else to put it, except that there is a tactile quality to it --
>> >> listening through headphones. Especially on something like a timpani
>> >> roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this
>> >> apparent quality?
>> >>
>> >> (2) I have an impression somehow that SACD conveys attacks better--the
>> >> starts of notes--they are better defined. Is there an objective basis
>> >> for this impression?
>> >>
>> >
>> > That's not just an impression, it is now recognized as the truth.
>>
>> Please provide data that SACD conveys attacks better in an audible way.
>> You are confusing truth with impressions.
>>

Perhaps you did not catch what I was asking. How does SACD convey
attacks better in an *audible* way?

That means, please answer by not looking at pictures, but via listening
tests.

>
> This is a well understood engineering phenomenon, Chung. It is not an
> extraordinary claim at all. And I just recently pointed out that pictures
> showing the comparison of the various media and media sampling rates were
> handed out at the ISOmic suite at HE2005.
>
>> To do a fair comparison, make sure the same master/mix is used, levels
>> are matched, and that the CD layer is not intentionally degraded or
>> processed differently (like different peak levels, noticeable clipping,
>> etc.). Then do a a blind comparison.
>
> The ISOmic work was done with exactly the same 4ms pulse, so the response
> differences were obvious.

How does that difference in the output pulses translate to a difference
in sound?

I can have two waveforms that look entirely different, yet sound the
same. All I need to do is to add some supersonic signal to one, and it
will look nothing like the other.

As another example, I can change the phase of one of the signals, and
the waveform will look drastically different in the time domain. Yet you
cannot tell them apart by *listening*. Or I can filter a square wave so
that the waveforms looks nothing like a square wave, but it will sound
the *SAME* as another waveform without filtering applied.

>
> I just recently ran across a commentary by Jean Jarre (but can't remember
> where and can't lay my hands on it). He will only record at 192/24.

Recording and playback have different requirements. It will be silly to
record today at 44.1/16. You need the headroom provided by the hi-rez
standards.

> He
> said they did level-matched bypass tests in the studio using white noise.
> Said 192/24 had barely perceptible difference, 96/24 was perceptibly
> different but not bad. 44.1/16 was atrocious and sounded nothing like the
> bypass signal With white noise, the only effect you would hear is the pulse
> effect I descibed.

Harry, with white noise you *CANNOT* have any pulse effects. It seems
like you don't really understand what you are talking about.

You can take white noise, pass it through a filter with an arbitrary
phase response. As long as the amplitude response is flat, the output of
the filter is still white noise. This is a property of noise.

> He discribed also listening to the "tails" of cymbal
> fade using the three media, and while the higher rates sounded like cymbals,
> the CD fades with a tsk-tsk-tsk-tsk sound. Said henceforth he will not
> release anything but DVD's and DVD-A.

I have never heard a cymbal fade with that sound. It appears there is
something wrong in his signal chain.

>
> BTW in my experience, the sound of cymbals is probably the most consistent
> give-away of CD sound versu either SACD or DVD-A.

To repeat, you have to better control your test:

You have to (a) make sure it is the same mix/master, (b)
control for level differences, and (c) blind the identities.

Have you done even one of these?

>
>> > The SACD
>> > is the only digital hi-rez system that accurately reproduces a 3ms
> transient
>> > pulse.
>>
>> And please tell us the significance of accurately reproducing a 3ms
>> transient pulse, in audio terms?
>
> The "naturalness" of attack on all kinds of sounds.

Have you done any of the three things I suggested?

>
>>
>> > PCM "smears" the transient with pre-echo and ringing, and has a lot
>> > of that post-impulse as well. Except for 192khz PCM, the "time-smear"
> lasts
>> > longer than the known window of perception of human hearing, and so is
>> > theoretically audible. Many of us feel it is indeed audible and that it
>> > accounts for the slightly "artificial" quality of CD's when compared to
> SACD
>> > or 192khz PCM (which unfortunately very few producing DVD-A recordings
>> > actual include for reasons of space limitation).
>>
>> So it's just that many of you feel that way, not a "truth".

>
> It's a physical truth.

How can it be a physical truth when you were simply saying that
"many of us feel it is indeed audible"? If it's indeed audible, then a
listening test will reveal that. You don't have to resort to feelings.

> Whether it bothers you audibly probably varies
> person to person. To me, it has always been an annoying feature of
> so-called "CD sound".
>

So now you can pinpoint the cause of your annoyance to that time-smear?
I'm very impressed :) . You know others have said it was jitter, limited
bandwidth, filter ripple, insufficient bits, non-infinite resolution and
a host of other things wrong with the CD standard.

Any techncally responsible person will try to prove that those
time-smearing effects are indeed audible by doing a level-controlled
blind test with and without the digital filter. Where are the results?

On the other hand, there are DBT's that show redbook recording to be
transparent, like the Lipshitz test.

>>
>>
>> >96khz PCM falls somewhere
>> > in between CD and 192khz transient performance.
>> >
>> > Both SACD and DVD-A have a lower noise floor in the most audible section
> of
>> > the frequency response range, from about 100hz up to about 8khz. This,
> in
>> > combination with the superior transient response of SACD, is why the
> attack
>> > of instruments, particularly percussion and percussive instruments like
> the
>> > piano, xylophone, etc. sound very lifelike in SACD compared to CD and
> why
>> > they seem to have more "body". As you mention, even though the CD may
> sound
>> > identical on the surface after a very good remaster, if you listen
> carefully
>> > in the areas you mention you can hear the difference. On a CD that has
> been
>> > sloppily mastered (even if the mix is the same), the difference will be
>> > easily obvious because the compression and limiting will distort
> transient
>> > response even more.
>> >
>>
>> The really amazing thing to me is the vinyl rigs produce a really poor
>> transient response, and yet some audiophiles wax poetic about how close
>> SACD is to vinyl.
>
> I think it is more that they don't screw up the transients the way
> low-sample-rate digital does, which bears no resemblance to anything in the
> natural world. There is no "pre-echo" in the natural world.
>

Harry, the distortions introduced by vinyl bears no resemblance to
anything in the real world. Does the real world have wow-and-flutter,
surface noise, distortion that varies over the disc, bass summed to
mono, and the pre-emphasis/de-emphasis errors that result in screwed up
transient responses?

The question that has not been answered is whether the so-called
pre-echo from the digital filters can be audible heard in music. No one
has provided an answer. Clue: Testing with white noise is not the way to
test effects of pre-shoot ringing.

Have you heard the leak-through from adjacent grooves on LP's? That's a
much, much more severe and audible form of pre-echo!
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 30, 2005 1:16:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 7cldf08jj@news2.newsguy.com...
> On 28 May 2005 15:19:15 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:

>> BTW, to
>>the latter point I again pulled out a random solo piano disk
>>today....Rubenstein's "My Favorite Chopin". Listened critically a few
>>times
>>for Chung's ever-present "wow and flutter"....and heard none. Greatly
>>enjoyed the recording.
>
> It's certainly possible to listen *past* pops, clicks, surface noise,
> wow and flutter to enjoy the music, but it's so much more relaxing
> when they're just not there at all........................

I'm acutely sensitive to wow and flutter. The first CD I bought was of
Prokofiev's Piano Sonata No.6. It was a revelation. I had never heard a
recording with absolutely no w & f. Even the "test" LP that I used to check
turntables for this characteristic could not compete with the CD. From that
day forward, I've purchased no LPs.

Norm Strong
May 30, 2005 1:17:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> I don't find big differences there, but I certainly agree that cymbals
> are a great way of showing up the deficiencies of LP!

Interesting. I have heard MANY LPs that get cymbal sound just right.
I'm listening to one now, as a matter of fact: LSO/Gamba doing Rossini
overtures on Decca.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 30, 2005 1:18:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 28 May 2005 20:14:32 GMT, Jocelyn Major <majorj@videotron.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Sorry but for me the only way to have click an pop on a LP is to leave
> >the dust collect on them. I you don't take care of your LP it is sure
> >that you will get noise from a LP. I personnaly have close to 3000 LP
> >and 1000 CD and I do not have any LP that produce anything else but
> >Music (Yes NO SURFACE NOISE, NO CLICK, NO POP). You want to know why?
> >Because I CLEAN my LP. It simply take 15 sec. that all.If you don't know
> >how to clean a LP that's your problem, but if you said that you prefect
> >CD because the LP give you Click and Pop Plus surface Noise may I
> >propose that you try to find someone that own High Quality Turntables
> >and listen carefully to a LP in good condition. I bet that you won't
> >find any surface noise or click and pop.
>
> I am such a person, and I bet that you will...............



You don't have any records that are free from pops and clicks? How are
you cleaning them? Maybe you are damaging them with improper cleaning
methods.




>
> > True If you put on any
> >turntable a LP that is scratch and dusty, the sound will be horrible.
> >And when you said that Denon and Technics make good quality turntable
> >sorry but yes Denon do make not so bad turntable (I still have a DP-47f
> >in my basement) but Technics?? sorry the only good thing about those
> >"turntable" is the motor with is high torque. The Technics are only good
> >for DJ not at all for music.
>
> Clearly, you have never heard an SP-10, one of the all-time classics.





I have heard it several several times and compared it to a few real
high end tables. It is not a good sounding atble at all!





> As for Denon, I wasn't thinking of the 'mid-fi' DP-47F with its
> intergral and very average arm, but of the high-end table-only units
> (Q10? - it was a long time ago).
>
> > Personnaly I own a Oracle Delphi mk V
> >turntable and when I compare it with the Denon (with the same cartridge
> >-Grado Gold-) and yes there is a difference. If you cannot find to the
> >difference between a High-End turntable and a Ordinary turntable that is
> >not because there is no difference, Is it possible that you honestly
> >never listen to a Linn or a Oracle or a Clearaudio turntable?
>
> I own a Michell GyroDec, and the Oracle Delphi is indeed a very fine
> table in the same basic style. The Linn LP12 however, has always been
> greatly overhyped and was never IMO in the same class as Michell or of
> course SME. I have also listened to the legendary Rockport Sirius III,
> fitted with a Clearaudio Insider cartridge and set up by Andy Payor
> himself. It was perhaps the best sound I've ever heard from vinyl, but
> it still had surface noise, splashy treble, and inner-groove
> distortion - because it was still playing *vinyl*, and those are
> *inherent* problems of the medium.





Splashy treble is not an inherent problem with vinyl. Surface noise is
hardly audible with the right gear and right records. OTOH one is hard
pressed to find CDs that don't have harsh treble.





>
> >I have several friend that always said that they prefered the sound of
> >their CD players over their Technics (one of them own a sl-1200) and
> >Pioneer turntable. Could you explain to me how come after they listen to
> >my gears all but one of those 6 guys(even the one who own the SL-1200)
> >bought a Project Turntable? It was the first time they had the chance to
> >listen to the sound of a Good LP Gear. I doubt that you never have that
> >chance.
>
> I have that chance every day - and I prefer CD.



Nobody is claiming that everyone will prefer vinyl even on high end
gear.





>
> <snip anecdotes>
>
> >And by telling this : - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much
> >better bass response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion -
> >essentially, the sound of the original master tape.
> >You proved me that you never really listen to a High-End Turntable gear.
>
> A typically snide vinylphile response - and completely untrue.
>
> >Yes with a cheap turntable with a cheap cartridge you will get Wow and
> >Flutter, limited bass (because the cartridge cannot read the bass
> >information), surface noise and more distortion.
>
> Utter rubbish.


Wrong it is an absolutely true claim. Cheap tables tend to have much
more severe problems with wow and flutter, surface noise and weak bass.




You get the same bass response as on a high-end table
> if you choose the correct arm/cartridge combination,


That is irrelevant since such a choice would preclude a cheap rig.





and on most
> modern tables, audible wow and flutter comes from eccentricity of the
> record, which is the same on a Rockport as on a Technics SL-1200.



Gosh, a damaged CD will have it's own audible problems too. So what?
You could always try listening to records that aren't cut off center
for a change.





>
> >Concerning Bass response did you know that the lowest frequency on a LP
> >is 7 Hz. Most High-end Cartridge can go as low as 10hz (My Grado Gold do
> >it). The main problem a Lp have with extremely low frequency is the
> >duration on play (the lower the frequence the larger the groove). Do you
> >really need something that go lower that 7HZ?
>
> You are talking utter garbage, and clearly do not know the basics of
> vinyl technology. In order to avoid 'warp wow', the arm/cartridge
> fundamental resonance is always recommended to be set in the 10-15Hz
> range. This means *by definition* that there's no response below that
> resonance frequency, as the complete arm/cartridge assembly follows
> the groove, with no stylus/cartridge difference to generate an signal.
>
> The *reality* of the situation is that the f3 of vinyl is around 20Hz
> in a well set up system, and the most important reality is in the
> vinyl itself. Bass is summed to mono below 80-100Hz, in order to
> prevent antiphase modulation reducing groove depth to zero, and the
> response is rolled off below 40Hz in order to achieve reasonable side
> length. Did it never occur to you that there's a *reason* why the
> classic wideband Sheffield 'Drum' and 'Track' records are only 7
> minutes a side?
>
> >I have a sub with dual 15inch in Isabaric configuration (18Hz -3dB) and
> >on a recording from Saint-Saens (organ symphony) on EMI and I can tell
> >you that the LP does'nt lack bass at all--- I cannot ear it anymore but
> >it really shake everything in the room-- So does the CD have any better
> >bass than a LP : NO WAY.
>
> Utter nonsense. As noted above, vinyl will *never* reach below 20Hz
> for good physical reasons,


ah, 20hz, the threshold of audibility. Did it ever occure to you that
20hz can shake a room?



and rarely reaches below 30Hz on commercial
> records,


Or CDs.



but CD is ruler-flat to less than 10Hz. Fans of organ music
> are all too well aware of this difference.






How would you know that? Your speakers don't go that low.





>
> >Wow and Flutter is a problem only with low end turntable. Period.
>
> More nonsense - eccentric records abound, and turntable quality makes
> no difference to this problem.
>
> <snip technically innacurate cut/paste from DJsource>
>
> >I have yet not find ANY digital media that is really better than my
> >Oracle Delphi. If one day I do find something better you can be certain
> >that i will switch. Presently the ONE and ONLY reason to switch is not
> >sound at all it is just convenience, Period.
>
> That's your personal opinion, mine is quite the reverse.




It varies from title to title.





Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 30, 2005 7:29:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 29 May 2005 21:18:47 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 28 May 2005 20:14:32 GMT, Jocelyn Major <majorj@videotron.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Sorry but for me the only way to have click an pop on a LP is to leave
>> >the dust collect on them. I you don't take care of your LP it is sure
>> >that you will get noise from a LP. I personnaly have close to 3000 LP
>> >and 1000 CD and I do not have any LP that produce anything else but
>> >Music (Yes NO SURFACE NOISE, NO CLICK, NO POP). You want to know why?
>> >Because I CLEAN my LP. It simply take 15 sec. that all.If you don't know
>> >how to clean a LP that's your problem, but if you said that you prefect
>> >CD because the LP give you Click and Pop Plus surface Noise may I
>> >propose that you try to find someone that own High Quality Turntables
>> >and listen carefully to a LP in good condition. I bet that you won't
>> >find any surface noise or click and pop.
>>
>> I am such a person, and I bet that you will...............
>
>You don't have any records that are free from pops and clicks? How are
>you cleaning them? Maybe you are damaging them with improper cleaning
>methods.

Doubtful, since I've been an audiophile since the mid '60s, and I've
used every known cleaning method. And no, I don't have *any* vinyl
which is totally free from pops and clicks.

>> > True If you put on any
>> >turntable a LP that is scratch and dusty, the sound will be horrible.
>> >And when you said that Denon and Technics make good quality turntable
>> >sorry but yes Denon do make not so bad turntable (I still have a DP-47f
>> >in my basement) but Technics?? sorry the only good thing about those
>> >"turntable" is the motor with is high torque. The Technics are only good
>> >for DJ not at all for music.
>>
>> Clearly, you have never heard an SP-10, one of the all-time classics.

>I have heard it several several times and compared it to a few real
>high end tables. It is not a good sounding atble at all!

Opinions are good. Like other anatomical items, everyone has one. What
would you consider to be a 'real' high end table, if the SP-10 is not?

>> As for Denon, I wasn't thinking of the 'mid-fi' DP-47F with its
>> intergral and very average arm, but of the high-end table-only units
>> (Q10? - it was a long time ago).
>>
>> > Personnaly I own a Oracle Delphi mk V
>> >turntable and when I compare it with the Denon (with the same cartridge
>> >-Grado Gold-) and yes there is a difference. If you cannot find to the
>> >difference between a High-End turntable and a Ordinary turntable that is
>> >not because there is no difference, Is it possible that you honestly
>> >never listen to a Linn or a Oracle or a Clearaudio turntable?
>>
>> I own a Michell GyroDec, and the Oracle Delphi is indeed a very fine
>> table in the same basic style. The Linn LP12 however, has always been
>> greatly overhyped and was never IMO in the same class as Michell or of
>> course SME. I have also listened to the legendary Rockport Sirius III,
>> fitted with a Clearaudio Insider cartridge and set up by Andy Payor
>> himself. It was perhaps the best sound I've ever heard from vinyl, but
>> it still had surface noise, splashy treble, and inner-groove
>> distortion - because it was still playing *vinyl*, and those are
>> *inherent* problems of the medium.

>Splashy treble is not an inherent problem with vinyl.

Yes, it is.

> Surface noise is
>hardly audible with the right gear and right records.

But still, it *is* audible. This is rec.audio.*high-end*, after all.

> OTOH one is hard
>pressed to find CDs that don't have harsh treble.

Not really, I must have more than a hundred. Maybe you need better
speakers? :-)

>> >I have several friend that always said that they prefered the sound of
>> >their CD players over their Technics (one of them own a sl-1200) and
>> >Pioneer turntable. Could you explain to me how come after they listen to
>> >my gears all but one of those 6 guys(even the one who own the SL-1200)
>> >bought a Project Turntable? It was the first time they had the chance to
>> >listen to the sound of a Good LP Gear. I doubt that you never have that
>> >chance.
>>
>> I have that chance every day - and I prefer CD.

>Nobody is claiming that everyone will prefer vinyl even on high end
>gear.

But some do seem tempted to claim that vinyl is 'better' without
qualification.....................

>> <snip anecdotes>
>>
>> >And by telling this : - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much
>> >better bass response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion -
>> >essentially, the sound of the original master tape.
>> >You proved me that you never really listen to a High-End Turntable gear.
>>
>> A typically snide vinylphile response - and completely untrue.
>>
>> >Yes with a cheap turntable with a cheap cartridge you will get Wow and
>> >Flutter, limited bass (because the cartridge cannot read the bass
>> >information), surface noise and more distortion.
>>
>> Utter rubbish.
>
>Wrong it is an absolutely true claim. Cheap tables tend to have much
>more severe problems with wow and flutter, surface noise and weak bass.

No, they don't. *Slightly* more severe, certainly, but the limit is
set by the *vinyl*, and the law of diminishing returns hits pretty
quickly. I regard any spend above say $3,000 to be well into the tail
of the curve.

> You get the same bass response as on a high-end table
>> if you choose the correct arm/cartridge combination,
>
>That is irrelevant since such a choice would preclude a cheap rig.

No, it wouldn't, assuming you include a Planar 3 with a $100 cartride
as still 'cheap' in vinyl terms. If you're not so prepared, then you
are being totally unreasonable, given that vinyl requires precise
mechanical engineering by its very nature.

> and on most
>> modern tables, audible wow and flutter comes from eccentricity of the
>> record, which is the same on a Rockport as on a Technics SL-1200.

>Gosh, a damaged CD will have it's own audible problems too. So what?
>You could always try listening to records that aren't cut off center
>for a change.

I'd love to................................................

>> >Concerning Bass response did you know that the lowest frequency on a LP
>> >is 7 Hz. Most High-end Cartridge can go as low as 10hz (My Grado Gold do
>> >it). The main problem a Lp have with extremely low frequency is the
>> >duration on play (the lower the frequence the larger the groove). Do you
>> >really need something that go lower that 7HZ?
>>
>> You are talking utter garbage, and clearly do not know the basics of
>> vinyl technology. In order to avoid 'warp wow', the arm/cartridge
>> fundamental resonance is always recommended to be set in the 10-15Hz
>> range. This means *by definition* that there's no response below that
>> resonance frequency, as the complete arm/cartridge assembly follows
>> the groove, with no stylus/cartridge difference to generate an signal.
>>
>> The *reality* of the situation is that the f3 of vinyl is around 20Hz
>> in a well set up system, and the most important reality is in the
>> vinyl itself. Bass is summed to mono below 80-100Hz, in order to
>> prevent antiphase modulation reducing groove depth to zero, and the
>> response is rolled off below 40Hz in order to achieve reasonable side
>> length. Did it never occur to you that there's a *reason* why the
>> classic wideband Sheffield 'Drum' and 'Track' records are only 7
>> minutes a side?
>>
>> >I have a sub with dual 15inch in Isabaric configuration (18Hz -3dB) and
>> >on a recording from Saint-Saens (organ symphony) on EMI and I can tell
>> >you that the LP does'nt lack bass at all--- I cannot ear it anymore but
>> >it really shake everything in the room-- So does the CD have any better
>> >bass than a LP : NO WAY.
>>
>> Utter nonsense. As noted above, vinyl will *never* reach below 20Hz
>> for good physical reasons,
>
>ah, 20hz, the threshold of audibility. Did it ever occure to you that
>20hz can shake a room?

Nice that you totally ignored the rest of the argument above, since it
totally destroyed Jocelyn's credinbility, but you'd much rather skate
over that fact...................

> and rarely reaches below 30Hz on commercial
>> records,
>
>Or CDs.

No, CDs have no problem reproducing a totally antiphase full-output
signal at 20Hz, so all the fakery so essential to vinyl mastering
simply isn't an issue with CD.

> but CD is ruler-flat to less than 10Hz. Fans of organ music
>> are all too well aware of this difference.
>
>How would you know that? Your speakers don't go that low.

But they *do* go to 20Hz, which vinyl doesn't in the real world.

>> >Wow and Flutter is a problem only with low end turntable. Period.
>>
>> More nonsense - eccentric records abound, and turntable quality makes
>> no difference to this problem.
>>
>> <snip technically innacurate cut/paste from DJsource>
>>
>> >I have yet not find ANY digital media that is really better than my
>> >Oracle Delphi. If one day I do find something better you can be certain
>> >that i will switch. Presently the ONE and ONLY reason to switch is not
>> >sound at all it is just convenience, Period.
>>
>> That's your personal opinion, mine is quite the reverse.

>It varies from title to title.

I have some CDs which are worse than some of my LPs, of course, but
that doesn't alter the main thrust of the argument.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 30, 2005 9:16:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart I respect your opinion but I do have to correct some words that
you write.

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :
> On 29 May 2005 21:18:47 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>>On 28 May 2005 20:14:32 GMT, Jocelyn Major <majorj@videotron.ca>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sorry but for me the only way to have click an pop on a LP is to leave
>>>>the dust collect on them. I you don't take care of your LP it is sure
>>>>that you will get noise from a LP. I personnaly have close to 3000 LP
>>>>and 1000 CD and I do not have any LP that produce anything else but
>>>>Music (Yes NO SURFACE NOISE, NO CLICK, NO POP). You want to know why?
>>>>Because I CLEAN my LP. It simply take 15 sec. that all.If you don't know
>>>>how to clean a LP that's your problem, but if you said that you prefect
>>>>CD because the LP give you Click and Pop Plus surface Noise may I
>>>>propose that you try to find someone that own High Quality Turntables
>>>>and listen carefully to a LP in good condition. I bet that you won't
>>>>find any surface noise or click and pop.
>>>
>>>I am such a person, and I bet that you will...............
>>
>>You don't have any records that are free from pops and clicks? How are
>>you cleaning them? Maybe you are damaging them with improper cleaning
>>methods.
>
>
> Doubtful, since I've been an audiophile since the mid '60s, and I've
> used every known cleaning method. And no, I don't have *any* vinyl
> which is totally free from pops and clicks.
I am sorry to know that you don't have any vinyl that are totally free
from pops and clicks.
Personnally I am lucky enough to have none. I have always take great
care of my LP (I have a nitty gritty record cleaner, so it possibly one
reason I do not have any click and pop on my LP)

I have to correct one thing I wrote. When I said that I never have any
LP that has click and pop, I did once have for a few week about 800 LP
that where full of click and pop: In 1978 we suffer a flood and the
bottom row of my lp where in the dirty water. For me it was a total
disaster because in that row I keep rare LP that where either print in
limited quantities or that where not available anymore (several 78 plus
a few 16). So it was a great loss.

>
>
>>>>True If you put on any
>>>>turntable a LP that is scratch and dusty, the sound will be horrible.
>>>>And when you said that Denon and Technics make good quality turntable
>>>>sorry but yes Denon do make not so bad turntable (I still have a DP-47f
>>>>in my basement) but Technics?? sorry the only good thing about those
>>>>"turntable" is the motor with is high torque. The Technics are only good
>>>>for DJ not at all for music.
>>>
>>>Clearly, you have never heard an SP-10, one of the all-time classics.

I did listen to the SP-10 and I personnally found that it was far from
being a real HI-FI turntable. A friend who use to own a club in Montreal
bring is SP-10 with is SME tone-arm (I use to have the same tonearm and
cartrige) so we could compare it with my Oracle and another friend who
own a Linn (who also have the same arm and cartridge). And the SP-10 was
totally outclass by the other two. It was like comparing a Chevette with
a BMW and a Mercedes. So no the SP-10 is far from being a HIGH End.
>>I have heard it several several times and compared it to a few real
>>high end tables. It is not a good sounding atble at all!
>
>
>
>>Splashy treble is not an inherent problem with vinyl.
>
>
> Yes, it is.
Sorry but no it is not.
>
>>Surface noise is
>>hardly audible with the right gear and right records.
>
>
> But still, it *is* audible. This is rec.audio.*high-end*, after all.
On a high quality LP play on a high quality LP Gear it is NOT AUDIBLE.
>
>
>>OTOH one is hard
>>pressed to find CDs that don't have harsh treble.
>
>
> Not really, I must have more than a hundred. Maybe you need better
> speakers? :-)
You are a lucky guy to have more than a hundred that does'nt have harsh
treble.
I have a pair of Martin Logan and for me the treble of the cd I play are
always harsh. So maybe my speaker are not good enough ;-)

>
>>>>I have several friend that always said that they prefered the sound of
>>>>their CD players over their Technics (one of them own a sl-1200) and
>>>>Pioneer turntable. Could you explain to me how come after they listen to
>>>>my gears all but one of those 6 guys(even the one who own the SL-1200)
>>>>bought a Project Turntable? It was the first time they had the chance to
>>>>listen to the sound of a Good LP Gear. I doubt that you never have that
>>>>chance.
>>>
>>>I have that chance every day - and I prefer CD.
You perfer CD and that's ok for me. It is your ears after all.
>
>>Nobody is claiming that everyone will prefer vinyl even on high end
>>gear.

>>>A typically snide vinylphile response - and completely untrue.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes with a cheap turntable with a cheap cartridge you will get Wow and
>>>>Flutter, limited bass (because the cartridge cannot read the bass
>>>>information), surface noise and more distortion.
>>>
>>>Utter rubbish.
>>
>>Wrong it is an absolutely true claim. Cheap tables tend to have much
>>more severe problems with wow and flutter, surface noise and weak bass.
>
>
> No, they don't. *Slightly* more severe, certainly, but the limit is
> set by the *vinyl*, and the law of diminishing returns hits pretty
> quickly. I regard any spend above say $3,000 to be well into the tail
> of the curve.
>
>
>>You get the same bass response as on a high-end table
>>
>>>if you choose the correct arm/cartridge combination,
>>
>>That is irrelevant since such a choice would preclude a cheap rig.
>
>
> No, it wouldn't, assuming you include a Planar 3 with a $100 cartride
> as still 'cheap' in vinyl terms. If you're not so prepared, then you
> are being totally unreasonable, given that vinyl requires precise
> mechanical engineering by its very nature.
>
>
>>and on most
>>
>>>modern tables, audible wow and flutter comes from eccentricity of the
>>>record, which is the same on a Rockport as on a Technics SL-1200.
>
>
>>Gosh, a damaged CD will have it's own audible problems too. So what?
>>You could always try listening to records that aren't cut off center
>>for a change.
>
>
> I'd love to................................................
>
>
>>>>Concerning Bass response did you know that the lowest frequency on a LP
>>>>is 7 Hz. Most High-end Cartridge can go as low as 10hz (My Grado Gold do
>>>>it). The main problem a Lp have with extremely low frequency is the
>>>>duration on play (the lower the frequence the larger the groove). Do you
>>>>really need something that go lower that 7HZ?
>>>
>>>You are talking utter garbage, and clearly do not know the basics of
>>>vinyl technology. In order to avoid 'warp wow', the arm/cartridge
>>>fundamental resonance is always recommended to be set in the 10-15Hz
>>>range. This means *by definition* that there's no response below that
>>>resonance frequency, as the complete arm/cartridge assembly follows
>>>the groove, with no stylus/cartridge difference to generate an signal.
>>>
>>>The *reality* of the situation is that the f3 of vinyl is around 20Hz
>>>in a well set up system, and the most important reality is in the
>>>vinyl itself. Bass is summed to mono below 80-100Hz, in order to
>>>prevent antiphase modulation reducing groove depth to zero, and the
>>>response is rolled off below 40Hz in order to achieve reasonable side
>>>length. Did it never occur to you that there's a *reason* why the
>>>classic wideband Sheffield 'Drum' and 'Track' records are only 7
>>>minutes a side?
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have a sub with dual 15inch in Isabaric configuration (18Hz -3dB) and
>>>>on a recording from Saint-Saens (organ symphony) on EMI and I can tell
>>>>you that the LP does'nt lack bass at all--- I cannot ear it anymore but
>>>>it really shake everything in the room-- So does the CD have any better
>>>>bass than a LP : NO WAY.
>>>
>>>Utter nonsense. As noted above, vinyl will *never* reach below 20Hz
>>>for good physical reasons,
>>
>>ah, 20hz, the threshold of audibility. Did it ever occure to you that
>>20hz can shake a room?
>
>
> Nice that you totally ignored the rest of the argument above, since it
> totally destroyed Jocelyn's credinbility, but you'd much rather skate
> over that fact...................
Please Steward let me the judge concerning "my credibility"


>>I have a sub with dual 15inch in Isabaric configuration (18Hz -3dB) and
>>on a recording from Saint-Saens (organ symphony) on EMI and I can tell
>>you that the LP does'nt lack bass at all--- I cannot ear it anymore but
>>it really shake everything in the room-- So does the CD have any better
>>bass than a LP : NO WAY.
>
>
>Utter nonsense. As noted above, vinyl will *never* reach below 20Hz
>for good physical reasons, and rarely reaches below 30Hz on commercial
>records, but CD is ruler-flat to less than 10Hz. Fans of organ music
>are all too well aware of this difference.

Stewart, could you be so kind to explain to me why when I am using "The
vinyl
essential test record" on track 6 (it goes from 16hz down to 6hz (funny
"since" vinyl never reach below 20hz)) as soon as the track begin
everything start to shake in the room?

And to let you know: I have all the organ works by J.S.Bach, Camille
Saint-Saens, Yanachek plus several LP of organ Music. So this should
tell that I am a fan or organ music. And I prefer listening to organ
music on LP because contrary to the CD the LP transport me right in the
cathedral the recording was made.
>
>>and rarely reaches below 30Hz on commercial
>>
>>>records,
But it does reach below 30HZ on high Quality LP of Organ Works
>>Or CDs.
And on CD too. Both can go below the limit of human hearing.
>
> No, CDs have no problem reproducing a totally antiphase full-output
> signal at 20Hz, so all the fakery so essential to vinyl mastering
> simply isn't an issue with CD.
>
>
>>but CD is ruler-flat to less than 10Hz. Fans of organ music
>>
>>>are all too well aware of this difference.
>>
>>How would you know that? Your speakers don't go that low.
Read a few line above and I am lucky to have speaker that do go that low:-)
>
> But they *do* go to 20Hz, which vinyl doesn't in the real world.
>
>
>>>>Wow and Flutter is a problem only with low end turntable. Period.
>>>
>>>More nonsense - eccentric records abound, and turntable quality makes
>>>no difference to this problem.
>>>
>>><snip technically innacurate cut/paste from DJsource>
>>>
>>>>I have yet not find ANY digital media that is really better than my
>>>>Oracle Delphi. If one day I do find something better you can be certain
>>>>that i will switch. Presently the ONE and ONLY reason to switch is not
>>>>sound at all it is just convenience, Period.
>>>
>>>That's your personal opinion, mine is quite the reverse.
As you say it is a personal opinion.
You prefer CD I respect that. I prefer LP and I hope that you too will
respect that.
>
>
>>It varies from title to title.
>
>
> I have some CDs which are worse than some of my LPs, of course, but
> that doesn't alter the main thrust of the argument.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 30, 2005 11:52:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 29 May 2005 21:18:47 GMT, Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> On 28 May 2005 20:14:32 GMT, Jocelyn Major <majorj@videotron.ca>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Sorry but for me the only way to have click an pop on a LP is to leave
> >> >the dust collect on them. I you don't take care of your LP it is sure
> >> >that you will get noise from a LP. I personnaly have close to 3000 LP
> >> >and 1000 CD and I do not have any LP that produce anything else but
> >> >Music (Yes NO SURFACE NOISE, NO CLICK, NO POP). You want to know why?
> >> >Because I CLEAN my LP. It simply take 15 sec. that all.If you don't know
> >> >how to clean a LP that's your problem, but if you said that you prefect
> >> >CD because the LP give you Click and Pop Plus surface Noise may I
> >> >propose that you try to find someone that own High Quality Turntables
> >> >and listen carefully to a LP in good condition. I bet that you won't
> >> >find any surface noise or click and pop.
> >>
> >> I am such a person, and I bet that you will...............
> >
> >You don't have any records that are free from pops and clicks? How are
> >you cleaning them? Maybe you are damaging them with improper cleaning
> >methods.
>
> Doubtful, since I've been an audiophile since the mid '60s, and I've
> used every known cleaning method.


If that is true then you most certainly have damaged some of them since
some "known" methods of cleaning records will damage records.




And no, I don't have *any* vinyl
> which is totally free from pops and clicks.



I do.





>
> >> > True If you put on any
> >> >turntable a LP that is scratch and dusty, the sound will be horrible.
> >> >And when you said that Denon and Technics make good quality turntable
> >> >sorry but yes Denon do make not so bad turntable (I still have a DP-47f
> >> >in my basement) but Technics?? sorry the only good thing about those
> >> >"turntable" is the motor with is high torque. The Technics are only good
> >> >for DJ not at all for music.
> >>
> >> Clearly, you have never heard an SP-10, one of the all-time classics.
>
> >I have heard it several several times and compared it to a few real
> >high end tables. It is not a good sounding atble at all!
>
> Opinions are good. Like other anatomical items, everyone has one. What
> would you consider to be a 'real' high end table, if the SP-10 is not?




Would you like a list? There are many just based on personal
experience.




>
> >> As for Denon, I wasn't thinking of the 'mid-fi' DP-47F with its
> >> intergral and very average arm, but of the high-end table-only units
> >> (Q10? - it was a long time ago).
> >>
> >> > Personnaly I own a Oracle Delphi mk V
> >> >turntable and when I compare it with the Denon (with the same cartridge
> >> >-Grado Gold-) and yes there is a difference. If you cannot find to the
> >> >difference between a High-End turntable and a Ordinary turntable that is
> >> >not because there is no difference, Is it possible that you honestly
> >> >never listen to a Linn or a Oracle or a Clearaudio turntable?
> >>
> >> I own a Michell GyroDec, and the Oracle Delphi is indeed a very fine
> >> table in the same basic style. The Linn LP12 however, has always been
> >> greatly overhyped and was never IMO in the same class as Michell or of
> >> course SME. I have also listened to the legendary Rockport Sirius III,
> >> fitted with a Clearaudio Insider cartridge and set up by Andy Payor
> >> himself. It was perhaps the best sound I've ever heard from vinyl, but
> >> it still had surface noise, splashy treble, and inner-groove
> >> distortion - because it was still playing *vinyl*, and those are
> >> *inherent* problems of the medium.
>
> >Splashy treble is not an inherent problem with vinyl.
>
> Yes, it is.


No it's not. It can't be since I have any number of records without any
splashy treble, an yes, those records do have treble content. Quite
life like treble in fact.




>
> > Surface noise is
> >hardly audible with the right gear and right records.
>
> But still, it *is* audible. This is rec.audio.*high-end*, after all.


Yes and there is nothing in the guidelines that claims any and all
sources must have zero noise content to be high end. so what is your
point?




>
> > OTOH one is hard
> >pressed to find CDs that don't have harsh treble.
>
> Not really,


No really. It has been a big problem for me.




I must have more than a hundred. Maybe you need better
> speakers? :-)



Better than the Sound Lab A3s?




>
> >> >I have several friend that always said that they prefered the sound of
> >> >their CD players over their Technics (one of them own a sl-1200) and
> >> >Pioneer turntable. Could you explain to me how come after they listen to
> >> >my gears all but one of those 6 guys(even the one who own the SL-1200)
> >> >bought a Project Turntable? It was the first time they had the chance to
> >> >listen to the sound of a Good LP Gear. I doubt that you never have that
> >> >chance.
> >>
> >> I have that chance every day - and I prefer CD.
>
> >Nobody is claiming that everyone will prefer vinyl even on high end
> >gear.
>
> But some do seem tempted to claim that vinyl is 'better' without
> qualification.....................



Qualification of opinions can be tedious. you don't seem to qualify
your opinions.Here's an example. "Vinyl is certainly capable of
portraying the
(somewhat artificial) depth effects you mention, but the solidity of
the sound, the low-level detail, and the general 'realism' of the
recording is *much* superior on CD," Pure opinion with no such
qualification as such. If you want others to qualify their opinions as
opinions maybe you should start the trend yourslf.




>
> >> <snip anecdotes>
> >>
> >> >And by telling this : - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much
> >> >better bass response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion -
> >> >essentially, the sound of the original master tape.
> >> >You proved me that you never really listen to a High-End Turntable gear.
> >>
> >> A typically snide vinylphile response - and completely untrue.
> >>
> >> >Yes with a cheap turntable with a cheap cartridge you will get Wow and
> >> >Flutter, limited bass (because the cartridge cannot read the bass
> >> >information), surface noise and more distortion.
> >>
> >> Utter rubbish.
> >
> >Wrong it is an absolutely true claim. Cheap tables tend to have much
> >more severe problems with wow and flutter, surface noise and weak bass.
>
> No, they don't.


Yes they do.



*Slightly* more severe, certainly,


Who is doing the semantic nitpicking now?




but the limit is
> set by the *vinyl*,


The limit is set by the medium but the degree of affect of surface
noise wow and flutter and the like are audible by at least an order of
magnitude on cheap rigs. I lived with that for years in my youth. That
was why I embrassed CDs with wreckless enthusiasm when they came out.
It was the extreme reduction of those colorations along with the
superior attributes that were not found on CD playback that lead me to
embrace high end vinyl playback as superior to CD playback.



and the law of diminishing returns hits pretty
> quickly.


IYO. My opinion is quite different. And I have every bit as much
experience with high end vinyl playback as you.



I regard any spend above say $3,000 to be well into the tail
> of the curve.



I don't. Opinions abound.



>
> > You get the same bass response as on a high-end table
> >> if you choose the correct arm/cartridge combination,
> >
> >That is irrelevant since such a choice would preclude a cheap rig.
>
> No, it wouldn't, assuming you include a Planar 3 with a $100 cartride
> as still 'cheap' in vinyl terms.


I found it listing for 750.00
http://www.audioreview.com/PRD_121356_1597crx.aspx
No I would not call that cheap. I don't know how it measures but I
don't think it is the equal at all to my Forsell in bass performance.



If you're not so prepared, then you
> are being totally unreasonable, given that vinyl requires precise
> mechanical engineering by its very nature.


What on earth are you trying to say here? If *I* am not prepared for
what?



>
> > and on most
> >> modern tables, audible wow and flutter comes from eccentricity of the
> >> record, which is the same on a Rockport as on a Technics SL-1200.
>
> >Gosh, a damaged CD will have it's own audible problems too. So what?
> >You could always try listening to records that aren't cut off center
> >for a change.
>
> I'd love to................................................



I don't get that impression. You can find many of them available from
Acoustic Sounds if you really would love to........... I have a hunch
you wont be making any orders though.





>
> >> >Concerning Bass response did you know that the lowest frequency on a LP
> >> >is 7 Hz. Most High-end Cartridge can go as low as 10hz (My Grado Gold do
> >> >it). The main problem a Lp have with extremely low frequency is the
> >> >duration on play (the lower the frequence the larger the groove). Do you
> >> >really need something that go lower that 7HZ?
> >>
> >> You are talking utter garbage, and clearly do not know the basics of
> >> vinyl technology. In order to avoid 'warp wow', the arm/cartridge
> >> fundamental resonance is always recommended to be set in the 10-15Hz
> >> range. This means *by definition* that there's no response below that
> >> resonance frequency, as the complete arm/cartridge assembly follows
> >> the groove, with no stylus/cartridge difference to generate an signal.
> >>
> >> The *reality* of the situation is that the f3 of vinyl is around 20Hz
> >> in a well set up system, and the most important reality is in the
> >> vinyl itself. Bass is summed to mono below 80-100Hz, in order to
> >> prevent antiphase modulation reducing groove depth to zero, and the
> >> response is rolled off below 40Hz in order to achieve reasonable side
> >> length. Did it never occur to you that there's a *reason* why the
> >> classic wideband Sheffield 'Drum' and 'Track' records are only 7
> >> minutes a side?
> >>
> >> >I have a sub with dual 15inch in Isabaric configuration (18Hz -3dB) and
> >> >on a recording from Saint-Saens (organ symphony) on EMI and I can tell
> >> >you that the LP does'nt lack bass at all--- I cannot ear it anymore but
> >> >it really shake everything in the room-- So does the CD have any better
> >> >bass than a LP : NO WAY.
> >>
> >> Utter nonsense. As noted above, vinyl will *never* reach below 20Hz
> >> for good physical reasons,
> >
> >ah, 20hz, the threshold of audibility. Did it ever occure to you that
> >20hz can shake a room?
>
> Nice that you totally ignored the rest of the argument above,

Of course I did. It had nothing to do with the original pposter's claim
a particular record not lacking bass.



since it
> totally destroyed Jocelyn's credinbility, but you'd much rather skate
> over that fact...................



Why are you attacking her credibity? shouldn't you do a better job of
preserving your own?




>
> > and rarely reaches below 30Hz on commercial
> >> records,
> >
> >Or CDs.
>
> No,


Yes, commercial CDs that go below 30Hz are the exception not the norm.



CDs have no problem reproducing a totally antiphase full-output
> signal at 20Hz,


Irrelevant to my claim that they rarely reach below 30Hz just as LPs
rarely reach below 30Hz.



so all the fakery so essential to vinyl mastering
> simply isn't an issue with CD.


Fakery? What are you talking about?




>
> > but CD is ruler-flat to less than 10Hz. Fans of organ music
> >> are all too well aware of this difference.
> >
> >How would you know that? Your speakers don't go that low.
>
> But they *do* go to 20Hz, which vinyl doesn't in the real world.


Yes it does. one need look no further than the HiFi News and Record
Review Test Record for it.



>
> >> >Wow and Flutter is a problem only with low end turntable. Period.
> >>
> >> More nonsense - eccentric records abound, and turntable quality makes
> >> no difference to this problem.
> >>
> >> <snip technically innacurate cut/paste from DJsource>
> >>
> >> >I have yet not find ANY digital media that is really better than my
> >> >Oracle Delphi. If one day I do find something better you can be certain
> >> >that i will switch. Presently the ONE and ONLY reason to switch is not
> >> >sound at all it is just convenience, Period.
> >>
> >> That's your personal opinion, mine is quite the reverse.
>
> >It varies from title to title.
>
> I have some CDs which are worse than some of my LPs, of course, but
> that doesn't alter the main thrust of the argument.


Nor does it alter the main thrust of my argument on the subject. I just
like to point out that it is not an all or nothing issue.



Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 30, 2005 11:58:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

If no difference can be shown to be recognised then the hypothesis that
all sounds alike is not falsefied. A reference, as in "does that sound
like x" makes this possible. Another approach is to say that switching is
occuring when it is not and if differences are reported then the
hypothesis is also not tossed. If someone claims to know a given bit of
gear by long experience or grasp of "gestalt" created, then spotting it
when switched active should be no problem. It makes no difference what
the nature of the claimed difference in descriptive terms, it need only be
shown that a difference, any difference can be spotted and a failure to do
same retains the hypothesis. Length of listening is up to the listener to
grasp "gestalt" or any other factor thought to better enhance hearing a
difference retained.
>why is it a requirement that one be able to reliably *identify* the
>things in question? If we're trying to disprove the hypothesis that
>the stimuli are sonically identical (so that any perceived difference
>is due to expectation bias), wouldn't it be sufficient to demonstrate
>that the subject exhibits a different response to one than to the
>other? That would be a weaker requirement than identification. So
>for example, suppose I set up my stereo to play either the SACD or the
>CD (at the same level), and on each trial I listen to the whole
>movement and I say how beautiful I thought the sound was on a scale
>from 1 to 10. If the average rating I give on the SACD trials is,
>over a large number of trials, different from the average on the CD
>trials, doesn't that show I am responding differently to the two, and
>that there is some difference I am reacting to? (If there is no
>difference, then wouldn't any disparity in the scores average out in
>the long run?)
>
>I wonder whether the protocol of listening to short snippets and
>trying to identify which source they are coming from might be
>comparable to the following: suppose I think that an original painting
>is more beautiful than a very good reproduction. You say, there is no
>difference; it's all expectation bias. To prove it, let's have me
>compare any given one-inch square of the original canvas with the
>corresponding square of the reproduction, on a quick-switch test.
>Sure enough ... I'll look at a given square and I won't be able to say
>reliably whether it comes from the original or the reproduction.
>Clearly, this is testing for the wrong thing. What has to be compared
>is the Gestalt of looking at the whole painting (vs. the
>reproduction), because what I am responding to as beautiful is the
>whole thing, not individual squares.
>
>The thing is that an identification test makes sense in the case of
>pictures, because if I look at the original, then immediately after
>that the reproduction, and then "X", if I can't tell which one X is
>then there probably is no difference. But in the case of music the
>relevant stimulus is something that takes up a length of time, because
>the aesthetic reaction is to a long stretch of music, not to
>individual notes, and it is impossible to hold a long stretch in
>memory in order to make a direct comparison.
>
>Any reaction to that, or note of obvious errors, is appreciated ...
>
>
>Mark
!