SACD vs. CD - an illustration of differences

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

We often discuss here how difficult it is to compare SACD to CD, given the
lack of equivalent source material/mix/mastering for the two. Well, the
following comparison is not perfect, but the source and mix are identical,
and there is no *obvious* difference in the mastering...the CD layer is not
"normalized" louder, nor is it obviously compressed. It sounds identical to
the SACD two-channel mix except for the "character" of the medium, so far as
I can tell.

I've used the Sonoma 24 Channel, DSD-mastered "Master of Disaster" CD by
John Hiatt as the source. Playback machine is the Sony C222ES in bypass
mode, into a five channel full-range Thiel system, driven by a triplet of
Onkyo P301 remote-controlled preamps, feeding Outlaw monoblocks for the
front speakers (200w 8 ohms, 300w 4 ohm) and an Audionics CC-2 driving the
rear speakers (70wpc 8 ohms, 140w 4 ohms). The system is extremely
transparent, if subjectively slightly dull in the preamps' "bypass" mode.

This is an extremely well recorded, natural sounding disk. I'm especially
taken with track two, "Rollin' Down the Cumberland", which features the
snares rolling out a military cadence with only Hiatt's voice, the bass, and
occasional guitar chords and riffs (subtle) for accompaniment. However,
what I describe here can be heard on the remainder of the disk as
well...it's just easier to describe this particular song.

1) Snares. These immediately grab you. My dad was a drummer, and I owned a
professional snare drum as a kid. My son is a drummer. So I have a pretty
good feel for the sound. The snares on the disk are recorded fairly
naturally, no compression or gate-ing that I can hear. In SACD, they sound
real. The transient attack is absolutely natural, and you hear the "fat"
part of the strike in perfect proportion to the "tick" of the leading edge.
You can hear the "room sound" around the drums. On the CD, the "fat" part
is noticeably less "fat", and the "tick" becomes almost a "tang". The room
sound is almost gone.

2) Guitars. These are used very sparingly on the cut. They are so low-key
you hardly notice them. On SACD, the sound real. and well balanced. On the
CD, they also tend to unobtrusive, except for the highest notes. These take
on a "clangy" sound that make them stand out as different in character from
the lower notes.

3) Bass. On the SACD the bass is very natural sounding and tuneful...it
rolls along under the voice providing support for the song in an extremely
natural and self-effacing way. On the CD, same relative "position" in the
mix, but the bass sounds somehow flatter, less dynamic, and less tuneful.
It sounds more "hi-fi" and less real.

5) Voice. Hiatt's voice fundamental is reasonably low, but he has a
gravelly tenor fringe on top that gives it an edge when he sings. On the
SACD, the voice sounds "organic". It is of a piece, and so well recorded
(body, focus, presence) that it simply sounds like he is standing between
the speakers, singing. On CD, the bottom frequencies of his voice seem
somehow flattened and less natural sounding, while the upper tenor fringe
becomes edgier than it should be. At times, in comparison to the SACD
stereo, the CD stereo image becomes almost slightly bifurcated...upper and
lower just not sounding "all of a part". It is possible that some
compression was used but it doesn't really sound compressed as compression
is usually used in rock recordings....and I've heard that same "flatter and
less dynamic bass" difference crop up on Sony's Walter Beethoven 5th when
comparing the CD to the SACD, supposed done from the same master.

One can certainly listen to the Hiatt CD and enjoy the music. But the SACD
is more natural sounding and "organic" in its musical presentation. Short of
being in the car or ripping to disk, it is hard to rationalize why one would
want to listen to the CD layer.

One final caveat. When I switch my Sony from multichannel direct to 5-large
(which converts to PCM and uses built in DSP but otherwise outputs the
same), these differences diminish. When I play the SACD through my Pioneer
578 (which handles SACD in PCM) the SACD "benefits" also diminish. But in
both cases they can still be heard...just less so. I'd be very interested
if any readers here have this same disk (you should...it will almost
certainly be among the nominees for album of the year and for engineering)
and are willing to do the same comparison and report on it here. If you do,
please outline the equipment used for the comparison and note whether or not
the player does native DSD decoding, or converts to PCM. It would be fun to
correlate the results. Thanks.

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

On 25 Aug 2005 00:24:12 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>Unless we can be sure the compression and other processing was
>identical, no conclusions may be drawn.

Perhaps. But if one medium has a wider dynamic range, surely it sould
be unfair to compress it to match that of the other medium.

Kal

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

We can determine that the above poster feels this particular music on
SACD sounds better to him than it does on this CD.

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

"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
newseloqv0lca@news1.newsguy.com...
> Harry Lavo <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:
>> We often discuss here how difficult it is to compare SACD to CD, given
>> the
>> lack of equivalent source material/mix/mastering for the two. Well, the
>> following comparison is not perfect, but the source and mix are
>> identical,
>> and there is no *obvious* difference in the mastering...the CD layer is
>> not
>> "normalized" louder, nor is it obviously compressed. It sounds identical
>> to
>> the SACD two-channel mix except for the "character" of the medium, so far
>> as
>> I can tell.
>
> Why don't you try digitizing the SACD layer and ripping the CD layer, and
> examining their RMS levels, peak, and frequency profile characteristics
> to make sure they aren't significantly different?
>
> Until you do, you're just making unfounded assumptions based on sighted
> comparisons, which are of course inherently subject to inaccuracy.

Because I do not have the time or equipment to do so right now. I've opened
the subject for discussion, and pointed out an example that I *suspect* has
not been altered. If you have the time and equipment, why don't you do the
measurements and contribute something positive to the discussion/thread.
I've already said the comparison may not be perfect; I don't have to be told
that one variable *may* have been doctored. On the other hand, I've also
said I don't believe it has been, based on some familiarity with the
recording process. So why don't you as an objectivist investigate and see
if I'm right, or wrong. And why don't you listen for yourself.

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

On 26 Aug 2005 00:55:09 GMT, "Bret Ludwig" <bretldwig@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> We can determine that the above poster feels this particular music on
>SACD sounds better to him than it does on this CD.

I wonder if he'd feel the same if someone told him he was listening to
SACD, but had 'accidentally' engaged the CD layer? :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

On 27 Aug 2005 00:21:54 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>newseo0bk0j3r@news1.newsguy.com...
>> On 26 Aug 2005 00:55:09 GMT, "Bret Ludwig" <bretldwig@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We can determine that the above poster feels this particular music on
>>>SACD sounds better to him than it does on this CD.
>>
>> I wonder if he'd feel the same if someone told him he was listening to
>> SACD, but had 'accidentally' engaged the CD layer? :-)
>>
>When are you and others here going to face up to the fact that their is a
>big difference between "expectation bias" as might be evident in evaluating
>two pieces of gear honestly, and in a situation where you are lied to,
>either deliberately or accidentally, and have no reason *not* to initially
>believe the proctor.

Nope, there's no difference at all, as in each case there is equal
expectation of difference. In the situation above, it is *guaranteed*
that there is no actual difference, which is why it is such a powerful
argfument against sighted listening.

The only real 'difference' is in the reaction of people like you to
the situation. You conveniently ignore anything which points out how
wrong you are in believing that any kind of sighted listening has
merit.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

<hlavo@hotmail.com> wrote in message newsesjc50c2q@news3.newsguy.com...
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 27 Aug 2005 00:21:54 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:

>> The only real 'difference' is in the reaction of people like you to
>> the situation. You conveniently ignore anything which points out how
>> wrong you are in believing that any kind of sighted listening has
>> merit.
>>
>
> Sorry, Stewart. Simply not true. In one case, one is trying as
> objectively as possible to discern whether or not differences exist,
> and if so, what they might be. If one is mislead by "expectation
> effect", it is by subconscious factors such as appearance, reputation,
> etc. In the other case, one is *told* differences exist and must come
> to the conscious conclusion that they are being lied to to determine
> otherwise.

What you're suggesting here, Harry, is that being lied to will affect what
one reports hearing. Clearly, you must then admit that telling the truth
will also affect what one says he hears. IOW, what the subject is told has
more effect than what he hears in forming his opinions of sound quality. I
think we're all in agreement here.

Norm Strong

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

On 26 Aug 2005 00:36:30 GMT, in article <delo6e0kr8@news1.newsguy.com>, Kalman
Rubinson stated:
>
>On 25 Aug 2005 00:24:12 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Unless we can be sure the compression and other processing was
>>identical, no conclusions may be drawn.
>
>Perhaps. But if one medium has a wider dynamic range, surely it sould
>be unfair to compress it to match that of the other medium.
>
>Kal
>


I disagree that no conclusions may be drawn. You can draw the conclusion that
the differences are so subtle and small that they can be obscured by relatively
minor differences in the mastering.

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

On 1 Sep 2005 15:03:53 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>If the signal processing was identical (taking into account the
>structural differences between SACD and CD), and the source was of
>higher resolution than either product, we can then compare the
>capabilities of the two disc systems. Otherwise, no.
>
>If we used a 30 ips analogue master tape with Dolby A noise reduction,
>for instance, we have something that both systems can sink their teeth
>into. We can compare the three versions directly to each other.

What makes you think that such a tape has superior resolution? I have
about thirty of the superbly made JVC XRCDs, which are *all* made from
analogue master tapes, and I can clearly hear tape hiss in quiet
passages. This is not true of many other CDs made from the ubiquitous
24/96 digital masters.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newsf758p02alb@news2.newsguy.com...
> If the signal processing was identical (taking into
> account the
> structural differences between SACD and CD), and the
> source was of
> higher resolution than either product, we can then compare
> the
> capabilities of the two disc systems. Otherwise, no.
>
> If we used a 30 ips analogue master tape with Dolby A
> noise reduction,
> for instance, we have something that both systems can sink
> their teeth
> into. We can compare the three versions directly to each
> other.
>

For such a comparison, analogue tape at 30 ips is
not the answer. You will find that although the HF
response, and SNR is improved, the LF around 350
- 400Hz has a lift which gives an un-natural
quality to strings and also to concert grand piano.

In addition, the playing time of a 10.5 inch reel is
reduced from 30mins to 15mins. Not a practical
solution in the real world.

A much better method would be to use analogue
tape with Dolby SR. Tape speed 30 ips (76 cm/sec)
is not required - 15 ips (38cm/sec) will suffice for
a SNR of 95dB - a considerable improvement over Dolby A.
This will give you noise performance equal to 16bit
digital with the analogue sound.

In practical terms, a SNR of 80dB for most
recordings is plenty. One can then lower the
peak recording level to tape, and thereby
greatly improve the distortion levels.

My preferred method of working is to record
analogue (either multitrack or straight stereo)
and then edit and master in the
digital domain. I like to get the best of both
worlds.

It is interesting that discerning clients often ask
for an analogue pass during the CD
mastering process on recordings that have
been made digitally at all stages.

Iain

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

"Buster Mudd" <mr_furious@mail.com> wrote in message
newsf9pu0029s3@news3.newsguy.com...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> So why don't you as an objectivist investigate and see
>> if I'm right, or wrong. And why don't you listen for yourself.
>
> Um...because John Hiatt's music is boring?
>

Well, apples and oranges, I guess. I find "Master of Disaster" has more
songs to my taste than any one original album of the last two decades. A
mixture of pop, rock, and country heavily tinged with blues. He's a
tunesmith, who doesn't compose simply around a guitar, a practice that makes
so many modern singer-songwriters sound the same.

Hey, when it comes to music I've got no argument with different points of
view.

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

On 3 Sep 2005 14:48:35 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 1 Sep 2005 15:03:53 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >If the signal processing was identical (taking into account the
>> >structural differences between SACD and CD), and the source was of
>> >higher resolution than either product, we can then compare the
>> >capabilities of the two disc systems. Otherwise, no.
>> >
>> >If we used a 30 ips analogue master tape with Dolby A noise reduction,
>> >for instance, we have something that both systems can sink their teeth
>> >into. We can compare the three versions directly to each other.
>>
>> What makes you think that such a tape has superior resolution?
>
>Not being digital at all, it allows a completely objective comparison
>of the capabilities of the two systems. Using a 30 ips analogue master
>avoids any digital-digital conversions. 30 ips Dolby-A tapes are
>superb, and of sufficient resolution and dynamic range to allow a fair
>comparison. I remember listening to Joan Baez LP albums recorded with
>Dolby NR cack in the early 70's, and the quality was stunning. When
>heavy metal and pop producers started dominating the scene, the quality
>of recording went down appreciably.
>
>If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings, you're in for a
>shock.

Please note that professional recording engineers on this newsgroup
completely disagree with you on this point.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> On 3 Sep 2005 14:48:35 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>>On 1 Sep 2005 15:03:53 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If the signal processing was identical (taking into account the
>>>>structural differences between SACD and CD), and the source was of
>>>>higher resolution than either product, we can then compare the
>>>>capabilities of the two disc systems. Otherwise, no.
>>>>
>>>>If we used a 30 ips analogue master tape with Dolby A noise reduction,
>>>>for instance, we have something that both systems can sink their teeth
>>>>into. We can compare the three versions directly to each other.
>>>
>>>What makes you think that such a tape has superior resolution?
>>
>>Not being digital at all, it allows a completely objective comparison
>>of the capabilities of the two systems. Using a 30 ips analogue master
>>avoids any digital-digital conversions. 30 ips Dolby-A tapes are
>>superb, and of sufficient resolution and dynamic range to allow a fair
>>comparison. I remember listening to Joan Baez LP albums recorded with
>>Dolby NR cack in the early 70's, and the quality was stunning. When
>>heavy metal and pop producers started dominating the scene, the quality
>>of recording went down appreciably.
>>
>>If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings, you're in for a
>>shock.



It is my understanding that Dolby S offers even better resolution (ie,
S/N). I don't know how prevalent Dolby S is, these days, if at all.


mp

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

"michael" <mpresley@earthlink.net> wrote in message
newsfipl10rve@news4.newsguy.com...
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> On 3 Sep 2005 14:48:35 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 1 Sep 2005 15:03:53 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If the signal processing was identical (taking into
>>>>>account the
>>>>>structural differences between SACD and CD), and the
>>>>>source was of
>>>>>higher resolution than either product, we can then
>>>>>compare the
>>>>>capabilities of the two disc systems. Otherwise, no.
>>>>>
>>>>>If we used a 30 ips analogue master tape with Dolby A
>>>>>noise reduction,
>>>>>for instance, we have something that both systems can
>>>>>sink their teeth
>>>>>into. We can compare the three versions directly to
>>>>>each other.
>>>>
>>>>What makes you think that such a tape has superior
>>>>resolution?
>>>
>>>Not being digital at all, it allows a completely
>>>objective comparison
>>>of the capabilities of the two systems. Using a 30 ips
>>>analogue master
>>>avoids any digital-digital conversions. 30 ips Dolby-A
>>>tapes are
>>>superb, and of sufficient resolution and dynamic range to
>>>allow a fair
>>>comparison. I remember listening to Joan Baez LP albums
>>>recorded with
>>>Dolby NR cack in the early 70's, and the quality was
>>>stunning. When
>>>heavy metal and pop producers started dominating the
>>>scene, the quality
>>>of recording went down appreciably.
>>>
>>>If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings, you're
>>>in for a
>>>shock.
>
>
>
> It is my understanding that Dolby S offers even better
> resolution (ie, S/N). I don't know how prevalent Dolby S
> is, these days, if at all.

Analogue multitrack machines are still in production, the
Studer 827
for example. Most new machines are fitted with SR.
Second-hand
machines such as the Studer A80 and A800 sell for very high
prices
- there is still a demand. Most of these are fitted with
Dolby A.

Iain
>
>
> mp
>

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

Harry Lavo wrote:

>
> First, who are they? I don't know too many that post on RAHE. They have
> RAP for that, and most use it.
>
> Secondly, disagree with what? The use of 30ips Dolby A mastertapes as a
> vehicle to be translated into PCM/CD or DSD/SACD? What is wrong with
> that...its the highest quality non-digital source available.*

That was my point. If we start with a digital signal, we have already
got problems in interpolation to CD or SACD. Going with a 30ips tape
means both disc systems will have the same high-quality source to
compare against. Throw away the Dolby if you think it compromises the
sound, I don't care.

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

michael <mpresley@earthlink.net> writes:

> It is my understanding that Dolby S offers even better resolution (ie,
> S/N). I don't know how prevalent Dolby S is, these days, if at all.

No analog noise reduction system can improve the _resolution_ of the
underlying media - all they do is to move the noise floor around dynamically,
to lower the noise when the signal level is low.

If you have harmonically simple signals with lots of dynamics, recorded
on tape using any NR system, you should be able to hear the tape noise
being modulated by the signal.

For a steady-state signal, the S/N ratio will most likely be slightly
worse _with_ Dolby A/SR/Dbx/whatever, than without (the electronics may
add some noise to the signal).

Dolby A and SR will, in addition to this, also introduce phase artifacts,
which probably won't help the resolution at all.

---Ketil

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

"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
newsfl7kl0hqg@news2.newsguy.com...
> "michael" <mpresley@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> newsfipl10rve@news4.newsguy.com...
>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 Sep 2005 14:48:35 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 1 Sep 2005 15:03:53 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>If the signal processing was identical (taking into
>>>>>>account the
>>>>>>structural differences between SACD and CD), and the
>>>>>>source was of
>>>>>>higher resolution than either product, we can then
>>>>>>compare the
>>>>>>capabilities of the two disc systems. Otherwise, no.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If we used a 30 ips analogue master tape with Dolby A
>>>>>>noise reduction,
>>>>>>for instance, we have something that both systems can
>>>>>>sink their teeth
>>>>>>into. We can compare the three versions directly to
>>>>>>each other.
>>>>>
>>>>>What makes you think that such a tape has superior
>>>>>resolution?
>>>>
>>>>Not being digital at all, it allows a completely
>>>>objective comparison
>>>>of the capabilities of the two systems. Using a 30 ips
>>>>analogue master
>>>>avoids any digital-digital conversions. 30 ips Dolby-A
>>>>tapes are
>>>>superb, and of sufficient resolution and dynamic range
>>>>to allow a fair
>>>>comparison. I remember listening to Joan Baez LP albums
>>>>recorded with
>>>>Dolby NR cack in the early 70's, and the quality was
>>>>stunning. When
>>>>heavy metal and pop producers started dominating the
>>>>scene, the quality
>>>>of recording went down appreciably.
>>>>
>>>>If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings,
>>>>you're in for a
>>>>shock.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is my understanding that Dolby S offers even better
>> resolution (ie,
>> S/N). I don't know how prevalent Dolby S is, these days,
>> if at all.
>>
>
> Yes it does...but do we really need the difference between
> 78db and 88db?

Of course we do. Actually the SNR with Dolby SR is 96dB
(I have measured it myself, so this is not hearsay) The
advantage of the extended SNR, as I have mentioned
before is that the peak recording level can be lowered
thus reducing distortion.


> The real advantage of Dolby S was that it was a small
> package much more
> practical for 24 channel machines than the older Dolby A.

Early Dolby units were 6U high *per channel*
Cat 22 cards made the all in one package a reality. Before
this, Dolby A361 and A362 units were rack mounted.
Some could be switched between record and replay,
but if you wanted to monitor the playback during
recording a double set was needed. Racks with 50
channels of Dolby A were quite common in major
studios.

> Dolby S came in
> near the end of the Dolby era ... most of the seventies
> and early eighties
> recordings were done with Dolby A if noise reduction was
> used.

Dolby A has been around since the mid 60's. All major
companies used it. SR is still available, as are
Studer multitrack machines, and still surprisingly
popular.

Interestingly, a second hand analogue Studer multitrack
commands a higher price than a second hand DASH
recorder.

Iain

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

On 6 Sep 2005 23:30:47 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> >
>> >If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings, you're in for a
>> >shock.
>>
>> Please note that professional recording engineers on this newsgroup
>> completely disagree with you on this point.
>
>
>That's not the point. The point is that 30ips Dolby A recordings are
>superb, and since digital conversions would have to be made from this
>tape, any differences between CD and SACD should appear (assuming that
>the tape is well-made).

Now you are simply trying to dodge an issue that you raised yourself.
No analogue tape has better dynamic range than CD, so it is *not*
suitable as a reference for comparing the *resolution* of CD and SACD.

Changing the subject does not alter this simple fact, which you got
completely wrong.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
newsfo7ha01kdm@news1.newsguy.com...
> On 6 Sep 2005 23:30:47 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>> >If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings,
>>> >you're in for a
>>> >shock.
>>>
>>> Please note that professional recording engineers on
>>> this newsgroup
>>> completely disagree with you on this point.
>>
>>
>>That's not the point. The point is that 30ips Dolby A
>>recordings are
>>superb, and since digital conversions would have to be
>>made from this
>>tape, any differences between CD and SACD should appear
>>(assuming that
>>the tape is well-made).
>
> Now you are simply trying to dodge an issue that you
> raised yourself.
> No analogue tape has better dynamic range than CD, so it
> is *not*
> suitable as a reference for comparing the *resolution* of
> CD and SACD.

If our glow-in-the dark friend wants to make such a
comparison, then
15ips with SR is the place to start as regards the analogue
platform. It
can offer SNR 96dB, and so would equate with 16bit digital
in this
respect.

Iain

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

On 8 Sep 2005 05:31:14 GMT, "Iain M Churches" <tael@kolumbus.fi>
wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>newsfo7ha01kdm@news1.newsguy.com...
>> On 6 Sep 2005 23:30:47 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >If you have never heard 30 ips Dolby-A recordings,
>>>> >you're in for a
>>>> >shock.
>>>>
>>>> Please note that professional recording engineers on
>>>> this newsgroup
>>>> completely disagree with you on this point.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's not the point. The point is that 30ips Dolby A
>>>recordings are
>>>superb, and since digital conversions would have to be
>>>made from this
>>>tape, any differences between CD and SACD should appear
>>>(assuming that
>>>the tape is well-made).
>>
>> Now you are simply trying to dodge an issue that you
>> raised yourself.
>> No analogue tape has better dynamic range than CD, so it
>> is *not*
>> suitable as a reference for comparing the *resolution* of
>> CD and SACD.
>
>If our glow-in-the dark friend wants to make such a
>comparison, then
>15ips with SR is the place to start as regards the analogue
>platform. It
>can offer SNR 96dB, and so would equate with 16bit digital
>in this
>respect.

Indeed so, and it's fair to point out that the SNR of properly
dithered CD is more like 93dB, although without the dynamically
varying noise floor of SR. It's also true that the 15ips tapes will
likely give better results than 30ips in the bass, although of course
not comparable with digital in this regard.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> Indeed so, and it's fair to point out that the SNR of properly
> dithered CD is more like 93dB, although without the dynamically
> varying noise floor of SR. It's also true that the 15ips tapes will
> likely give better results than 30ips in the bass, although of course
> not comparable with digital in this regard.

Why is that? Why better bass at 15ips?

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

Hi Stewart,
It's been a while. They let me out of the cage today and I had some
time to kill.

One thing I recommend Harry try is to make his own recording, master it
for 2 channels, and then burn it to SACD and CD (alternatively, he
could take some already mastered 24/96kHz material and put on DVD-A). I
then low pass filtered it and made a CD of the same material. I've
also tried analog rips of DVD-A's, and then compared the original DVD-A
to the 2nd generation material, as well as low pass filtering the rips
and comparing them to the original DVD-A discs.

A variety of people have tried hearing the difference between the
original DVD-A material and the CD (and also the analog-ripped, 20kHz
lowpass'd material). I as surprised that nobody could reliably hear
any differences. I simulated a "theoretically perfect" FM bandwidth
channel by low passing the DVD_A material at 16kHz, and the younger
expert listeners were able to pick out the original DVD-A material
right off the bat. I could to, but the difference was rather subtle ...
and not something I would pay a lot of money to obtain.

John Feng
P.S. Here's another interesting experiment. Take some native 5.1
material (24bit, 96kHz) and make a DVD-A and a DTS disc. Compare them
to see if you can hear a difference. Then try comparing DVD-A to AC-3.

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
newsftk280vom@news2.newsguy.com...
> On 9 Sep 2005 02:40:52 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Freedom from noise is not resolution, Stewart, and you know it.
>
> If you don't understand that they are inextricably interdependent in a
> linear system such as a tape recording, then you have no business
> joining a technical debate.
>
>>The speed of the tape is the limiting factor. 30ips is damned fast.
>
> The speed of the tape has little relevance to resolution, and in fact
> is notoriously destructive of bass accuracy. I'm sure Iain will be
> happy to enlighten you regarding 'head wobble'.
>

This is true, but if it were the only factor we'd all be recording at 3 3/4.
Professional machines used a lot of physics and engineering in the tape path
and head designs to keep this problem under enough control for it to be
sonically minor. I have much worse on my old Teac 7030SL at 15ips because
it was essentially a souped-up 7 1/2ips design.

The main advantage of a 30ips machine from a practical standpoint is a much
higher saturation point in the high frequencies, as well as extended high
frequencies. This allows for recording at higher practical levels when
there are loud high-frequency overtones present without the sound becoming
in any way constricted or distorted, and without the need for Dolby.

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

On 10 Sep 2005 03:35:28 GMT, bfeng7@yahoo.com wrote:

>Hi Stewart,
>It's been a while. They let me out of the cage today and I had some
>time to kill.

Hi John, long time no see! How's the esteemed JJ these days?

>One thing I recommend Harry try is to make his own recording, master it
>for 2 channels, and then burn it to SACD and CD (alternatively, he
>could take some already mastered 24/96kHz material and put on DVD-A). I
>then low pass filtered it and made a CD of the same material. I've
>also tried analog rips of DVD-A's, and then compared the original DVD-A
>to the 2nd generation material, as well as low pass filtering the rips
>and comparing them to the original DVD-A discs.
>
>A variety of people have tried hearing the difference between the
>original DVD-A material and the CD (and also the analog-ripped, 20kHz
>lowpass'd material). I as surprised that nobody could reliably hear
>any differences. I simulated a "theoretically perfect" FM bandwidth
>channel by low passing the DVD_A material at 16kHz, and the younger
>expert listeners were able to pick out the original DVD-A material
>right off the bat. I could to, but the difference was rather subtle ...
>and not something I would pay a lot of money to obtain.

I suspect Harry would maintain that you did it wrong, that it's not
SACD unless the master was DSD, that the sun went behind a cloud, or
whatever....... :-)

>John Feng
>P.S. Here's another interesting experiment. Take some native 5.1
>material (24bit, 96kHz) and make a DVD-A and a DTS disc. Compare them
>to see if you can hear a difference. Then try comparing DVD-A to AC-3.

I *am* convinced of the DTS vs AC3 thing. OTOH, I believe that
bitrates are different, which rather makes it Satsumas to Pink Ladies.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

"Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
newsfv2gb02vic@news2.newsguy.com...
> bfeng7@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Hi Stewart,
>> It's been a while. They let me out of the cage today and I had some
>> time to kill.
>>
> Welcome back .
>
>> One thing I recommend Harry try is to make his own recording, master it
>> for 2 channels, and then burn it to SACD and CD (alternatively, he
>> could take some already mastered 24/96kHz material and put on DVD-A). I
>> then low pass filtered it and made a CD of the same material. I've
>> also tried analog rips of DVD-A's, and then compared the original DVD-A
>> to the 2nd generation material, as well as low pass filtering the rips
>> and comparing them to the original DVD-A discs.

Actually, if I decide to buy the Tascam 1000 PCM/DSD recorder I could do
that. But that item is somewhat down on my "hit list" right now. Anybody
else here invested in one? At $1500 bucks they represent an excellent
bargain. Either 192/24 PCM or DSD two- channel...your choice.

>
> What DAC do you use to analog rip? Is it a PC sound card?
>
> Perhaps we can convince Harry to first try analog "rips" of his favorite
> vinyl LP's. Then compare the CD version to the vinyl.
>

I've copied some LP's to DAT (using a Panasonic 3700) and to a DVD-RW (using
a Marantz professional CD burner). The Panasonic definitely "dried out" the
midrange and added a tinge of brightness to the treble. The Marantz was
more neutral in the midrange and I would have a tough time telling the LP
from the recording of same in this regard...there is perhaps just slightly a
lack of midrange "presence". However, there is a foreshortening of "depth"
that is discernable with careful listening.

>>
>> A variety of people have tried hearing the difference between the
>> original DVD-A material and the CD (and also the analog-ripped, 20kHz
>> lowpass'd material). I as surprised that nobody could reliably hear
>> any differences. I simulated a "theoretically perfect" FM bandwidth
>> channel by low passing the DVD_A material at 16kHz, and the younger
>> expert listeners were able to pick out the original DVD-A material
>> right off the bat. I could to, but the difference was rather subtle ...
>> and not something I would pay a lot of money to obtain.
>
> I think it may be easiest using tones above 16 KHz . Or perhaps pink
> noise.
>

I think this is an area where some people may be more sensitive than others.
My high frequency hearing has declined with age, but both when I was younger
and today, I seem to be very sensitive to transient anomalies...and this is
a high frequency function. DVD-A definitely sounds better to me in this
respect than CD, and SACD better still.


>>
>> John Feng
>> P.S. Here's another interesting experiment. Take some native 5.1
>> material (24bit, 96kHz) and make a DVD-A and a DTS disc. Compare them
>> to see if you can hear a difference. Then try comparing DVD-A to AC-3.
>>
>
> How do you make a DTS disc? I'll be very interested to compare CD and the
> DTS version of the CD material (assuming it is possible to do 2-channel
> DTS).
>