"RobH" wrote in
message ...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all
'digital'
music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to know
why
exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the
equivalent
CDs?

I'm curious to know at what point music becomes "crap" if it is
digitized. You have a preference for vinyl but many of the classical LPs
that I have are "original digital recordings" - are they then "crap"?


Not necessarily, I have a dozen or more 'digitally' produced Warner Bros Ry
Cooder LPs which sound excellent but I also have a Vox/Pioneer 'Digital
Recording' LP ( Mahler 1 - H10002V) which proudly lists:

Tech Spec:
PCM -1600 Digital Recording system
Sampling Rate: 44,056
Encoding: 16 Bit linear
Frequency Response: +0, -0.5dB; 4 Hz to 20 Hz
Microphones (2) B & K 4133/2619, Levinson ML-8 Pre-amps
All distortions less than .05%
Mixing Electronics: Levinson LNP-2
Monitor System: Levinson HQD
Producer and Balance Engineer: Brian Culverhouse
Production Advisor: George H de Mendelssohn-Bartholdy
Digital Recording: Digital Recording Systems Co., Inc.
Digital Editing: Sony DEC-1000 (prototype)


Impressive huh? - Tells you everything except what fillings they had in the
sangies, doesn't it? Trouble is I have a number of other (bog-ordinaire)
recordings that sound better. It's very well played, a bit spitchy but,
worst of all is lacking in 'life' and 'ambience' and a bit 'dull' compared
with some of the others. If I can possibly get the time, I will make some
comparisons (as I will with many other pieces of music I have on a number of
different discs) with a view to posting the results on the new vinyl group
some time.



Personally I find all the recording analogue and digital formats that
I've heard are "crap" in comparison with real live music.


I never compare the two. When I play a record I'm playing a bloody record,
not trying to recreate some sad-arsed past 'live event'. (If my records
sounded as disappointing as some of the 'live music' I've heard in my time,
I'd ditch 'em!)



Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks
out
like a chapel hatpeg....
Are you related to DABSWTFM by any chance?


Who he?

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:49:16 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

snip

If even I, a self-styled 'vinyphile', who is not in the least bit
discerning
when it comes to 'digital' music and for whom MP3/128 will do perfectly
well
for those occasions when it is sufficient to only use digital music, can
easily tell the difference on a couple of CD/SACD stereo hybrid disks
(and
thereby deem it safe to presume that everyone else can) therefore ask
what
it is that makes the difference so obvious?

No good saying there is 'no' difference - a blind man could see it at
midnight, on a foggy day. (To maintain 'no audible difference' would be
to
demonstrate 'denial' on the level of some severe form of pathological
neurosis.......)

If there is an obvious audio difference, the overwhelming probability
is that the CD and SACD versions have (at least) been mastered
differently. I've yet to hear of any dual-format release where the
only difference is definitely known to be in the number of bits and
the sampling frequency used ...


I even wondered if the CD 'side' had been 'hit wiv a stick' to make the SACD
version sound better. (Worked for Minidiscs - they always came out a dB or
so 'fuller', I reckon... ;-)



Hmmm?

(How's that then? - Managed to ask a 'digital' question without using the
word '****e' once...!! :-)

Yes, but you used "mp3" which means the same thing :-)


Nowt wrong with an MP3/128 DAC'd through valves (or even on the computer)
when you haven got time to ponce about with records - still beats the ****e
you get on the wireless these days!

"Jim H" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:47:33 +0100, Keith G wrote:

Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all
'digital'
music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to know
why
exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the
equivalent
CDs?

Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks out
like a chapel hatpeg....


I am yet to hear a SACD, but the reason they supposedly sound better is a
higher sample frequency, bringing the digital waveform closer to the
analogue ideal.


:-)


Its similar in some ways to having an raster image use more
pixels. There is also a simpler method of encoding, although what effect
this has on the sound I'm not sure.

That's not to say analogue is ideal, there's a trade off between analogue
accuracy and digital precision. On my current system I prefer cd, but then
my tt is nothing special.


OK, give us the spec. then and we'll tweak it up for you - wotcha got?

A certain Keith G, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Nooooo.....

I'm talking about disks where there are both CD and SACD versions of the
same music.

It depends whether or not they are taken from the same master.

If you take the same master and put it on SACD and CD, they will both be
identical. Any differences will be down to differences in the player,
not the recording.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

A certain Keith G, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

I even wondered if the CD 'side' had been 'hit wiv a stick' to make the SACD
version sound better.

After adding my other responses, a really obvious thing occurred to me.
If these are 5.1 remixes, then the mastering engineer will have had to
go back to the original multitracks. If you're a real purist, this means
that they are essentially a different work of art in some respects to
the original locked down mastertapes. Two different engineers (or even
the same engineer, particularly if working years later) will always
produce a different master tape from the same multitrack session tape
each time.

(Worked for Minidiscs - they always came out a dB or
so 'fuller', I reckon... ;-)

The sound on MD will of course have been distorted slightly by the
compression used.

(How's that then? - Managed to ask a 'digital' question without using the
word '****e' once...!! :-)

Yes, but you used "mp3" which means the same thing :-)

Nowt wrong with an MP3/128 DAC'd through valves

I do not understand the point in distorting a sound and then putting it
through valves to warm it up. MP3s are certainly brilliant for making
music practical, but they distinctly subtract from the listening
experience IMHO at 128kbps.

(or even on the computer)

Yech, standard computer soundcards (even Creative Labs) sound awful and
are full of noise and distortion. Definitely surprised that you'd not
complain about this as loudly as you'd complain about CD.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

"John Phillips" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G wrote:
Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all
'digital'
music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to know
why
exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the
equivalent
CDs?

Well, even having never heard a SACD, I would dare to say that one element
is that digital audio production in itself is still getting better (IMHO,
I guess I should add - I'm sure there are those who will disagree but
I will give just some examples for why I suggest this).

First, many of the DDD CDs I have from the 80s (but not all) are very
flat in sound quality, regardless of performance quality.

However, I have CDs of analogue recordings from the 1960s onwards
with modern (1990s onward) digital mastering. Most sound marvellous.
Full of life and full of the ambience of the recording venue. For example
Boehm's 1967 Wagner Ring which just drips with the Bayreuth Festspielhaus
accoustic (even through the audible tape hiss).


Tape hiss? (He says while taping a couple of New Orleans Jazz LPs as he
types.....) What's that then? Is it like the 'needle noise, pops and tics'
that make LPs 'unlistenable?

;-)

Yer hafta larf......



Another specific example: I have a 1985 CD of a rather splendid 1975
performance conducted by Carlos Kleiber of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5. It
sounds flat. I also have the 1995 re-mastered CD. Even after correcting
for the higher level of the newer CD, it has bags more ambience. In many
ways it's much more like the 1970s LP I have of the same performance.

Actually I will listen to and enjoy that recording on any reasonable
medium - the performance is superb and the medium does not detract from
that. I also have CDs of superb performances back to the late 1920s
(e.g. Bix Beiderbecke and Pablo Casals) which a digital purist would
probably consider unlistenable.


Digital 'purist'? That's a good way of putting it it!



In my own experience, generalizations about CDs being better than vinyl
are as just as false as generalizations that vinyl is better than CD.
I dare to suggest the same today about the generalization of SACD
versus CD. I am fairly sure digital production has a long way to go yet.

Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks out
like a chapel hatpeg....

Myself, I would have kept up the former dignity. Tsk!



I know, I've spent too long on this group seeing vinyl get bashed to death
by a few, er, 'digital purists'.... ;-)

A certain John Phillips, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
However, I have CDs of analogue recordings from the 1960s onwards
with modern (1990s onward) digital mastering. Most sound marvellous.
Full of life and full of the ambience of the recording venue. For example
Boehm's 1967 Wagner Ring which just drips with the Bayreuth Festspielhaus
accoustic (even through the audible tape hiss).

Indeed. The analogue tape decks at the time, if properly aligned and set
up, were very good, and things improved a bit on the hiss front whenever
Dolby came along. I agree that many earlier CDs were indeed crap due to
dodgy mastering and dodgy equipment - amazing how an old recording can
really shine through in the hands of a good engineer.

In my own experience, generalizations about CDs being better than vinyl
are as just as false as generalizations that vinyl is better than CD.
I dare to suggest the same today about the generalization of SACD
versus CD. I am fairly sure digital production has a long way to go yet.

Leaving aside the X vs Y business, I'd say stereo digital reproduction
is pretty much as good as it needs to be right now; the signal recorded
is essentially identical to the input signal. There's not much room for
improvement at the moment.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

"Chesney Christ" wrote in message
...
A certain Keith G, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all
'digital'
music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to know
why
exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the
equivalent
CDs?

There's any number of reasons, but I'm inclined to believe that
significant differences would result from better mastering on the SACD.


OK, I'm specifically talking about a couple of hybrid disks played on my (no
longer) Sony SCD-XB940 CD/SACD Player, where you could literally 'back to
back' the two (stereo) modes via the Remote Control. (Ie start and play any
given track in either 'mode') All who heard them picked the SACD as the
better sound every time. IIRC, this was 100% - no exceptions.......

A certain Keith G, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
There's any number of reasons, but I'm inclined to believe that
significant differences would result from better mastering on the SACD.

OK, I'm specifically talking about a couple of hybrid disks played on my (no
longer) Sony SCD-XB940 CD/SACD Player, where you could literally 'back to
back' the two (stereo) modes via the Remote Control.

I'm sure, but just because they are on the same physical disc, doesn't
say anything about from where each recording was sourced or what
different treatments were applied to each. There's nothing to stop them
putting two completely different albums on the two separate hybrid
layers.

(Ie start and play any
given track in either 'mode') All who heard them picked the SACD as the
better sound every time. IIRC, this was 100% - no exceptions.......

The conclusion you are hinting at, namely that there is something
inherently better about SACD playback, is only one of many possible
reasons why they may sound different.

BTW, as an exercise, try getting a friend/offspring/sibling/spouse to
switch them for you, and double check that you can easily discern the
difference blindfolded. See if you can easily tell the difference. For
the test to work, obviously your friend isn't meant to give you any hint
about which is playing, and you should be able to distinguish the
recordings 80% of the time.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

"Chesney Christ" wrote in message
...
A certain Keith G, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

I even wondered if the CD 'side' had been 'hit wiv a stick' to make the
SACD
version sound better.

After adding my other responses, a really obvious thing occurred to me.
If these are 5.1 remixes, then the mastering engineer will have had to
go back to the original multitracks. If you're a real purist, this means
that they are essentially a different work of art in some respects to
the original locked down mastertapes. Two different engineers (or even
the same engineer, particularly if working years later) will always
produce a different master tape from the same multitrack session tape
each time.



Yup, kinda lets the air out of the 'accurists' balloon a tad......



Nowt wrong with an MP3/128 DAC'd through valves

I do not understand the point in distorting a sound and then putting it
through valves to warm it up. MP3s are certainly brilliant for making
music practical, but they distinctly subtract from the listening
experience IMHO at 128kbps.

(or even on the computer)

Yech, standard computer soundcards (even Creative Labs) sound awful and
are full of noise and distortion. Definitely surprised that you'd not
complain about this as loudly as you'd complain about CD.


There are some fairly wobbly little tracks on my 'Vinyl Page'
http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keith_g/vinyl/vinyl.htm if you want to hear
what I consider 'acceptable' by way of 128 MP3s recorded from vinyl, warts
an' all. (Give you a larf if nothing else.) They sound good enough to me on
my machine with my Harmon Kardon speakers/sub setup.

(Don't be too hard on the Shure V15 - I've only just got the bias weight
hacked down to a fraction of that supplied with my new deck and I need to
spend some time on the VTA since we had a bit of 'tweak up' a few days
back...... :-)