Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

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

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?

Hiss is that background noise which annoys pretty much anyone,
particularly on cheap cassettes. You usually can't hear it on the LP as
the LP's noise floor is often higher than that of the master tape. But
on a CD which has a much lower noise floor, imperfections such as tape
hiss come through very clearly.


;-)



"Needle noise" (do you mean surface noise?), pops and ticks don't make
an LP unlistenable, they just constantly remind you of the medium's
imperfections.


No, 'needle noise' is where you can actually hear the needle riding the
groove. (Sometimes its cutter noise, though.) Comes from subjecting all that
luvly old 50s vinyl to the rigours of modern vinyl replay gear - bit like
flashing round Brands Hatch in a 'Dagenham Dustbin', I suppose.

One point worth a mention is that a lot of people get a buzz off their vinyl
whilst using distinctly 'lo-fi' kit which, of course, does not reproduce a
fraction of the 'vinyl artefacts' that drive one or two on this group into
such a frenzy. Anyone here ever heard a café jukebox from the good ole daze?
Ever hear any 'pops' or 'tics'?


Fair play to you for being able to listen without them
detracting from your enjoyment of the music.


Right now Benny Carter is in my room behind me tooting away like a good
'un - he's enjoying it......


I'd much rather they
weren't there.


I sympathise if they get on your tits, but it really does disappear with
time. A record has got to be very bad before it bothers me. What price the
'78' boys? Better yet, what price the 'shellac and diaphragm' boys like the
chappie I've just taped a couple of 504 Jazz discs for (Nos LPS 4 and LPS
8 - it ain't the biggest label in the world! :-)

Chezzer, this world's big enough for all the different sorts of audio
nutters with all their own wacky little likes and dislikes. Unfortunately,
it seems this ng is not.....

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"Chesney Christ" wrote in message
...
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.


No good 'testing' me - I've got no idea. I even like the Roberts portable in
the bathroom - 2 minutes in and I'm 'in tha groove'....!!! (I know what I
like, mind.....)

No, I was testing one or two others - blind, as they couldn't see what I was
up to.

(O/T) - Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote

Not necessarily, I have a dozen or more 'digitally' produced Warner Bros
Ry
Cooder LPs which sound excellent

Can' be excellent, Keith :)



Jeez, Ronnie - you still up? I thought it was just me and Dave Brubeck!

Swim's 'working at home' tomorrow ;-) so I'm on one of my 'jazz vinyl into
the wee smalls' jags! :-)

NP - Brubeck 'Time Further Out' (Fontana TFL 5161*, first published 1961 to
answer one of your comments below) and I'm still on side 1, so it'll be half
past by the time I get done.


*'also available in stereo'!!!



You said:
"Given that my own preferences are for vinyl
and that I think all 'digital' music is crap compared with it."


So, the actual digital process itself is not that which removes the
'life' and 'ambience' out of music and, degrades it, but the method used
to retrieve the information, is that the 'crap' bit (pun)?


Very possibly. All I know is, by the time it gets onto my deck and out
through my valves I can listen to it 'digitised' or not. Even MP3s (offboard
DAC mind) sound quite 'listenable' if I'm busy with summat else.



Tell you something. I have some (many) dreadful sounding mid 80s
digitally produced LPs and TBH they sound/sounded just as dreadful as
their CD counterparts :)


Hmmm. I kinda missed this era (kids and companies). Any mid 80's vinyl
kicking about here (like fekkin' hundreds of the buggers on the floor of my
room) was likely to have been hers. When the vinyl group kicks off I will be
mentioning a Vinyl Want/Sell or Swap List which I will put on my 'Vinyl
Page'. (That includes 2 'PY' discs you and I mentioned a while back!)

My favourite vinyl is definitely 30s, 40s, 50s stuff on vinyl produced
probably not later than 1980. (Having said that, I'm gagging for some Bjork
at a reasonable price!)


just flipped to side 2, so it'll be the 'car ad' music soon (Unsquare
Dance) and it'll be a bit past the half past mark!


I'm not sure if a 'modern' well produced 2003 LP has quite the *exact*
same 'life' and 'ambience' as that of a well produced analogue of 20
(plus) years ago :-) ... having said that, IMO, digitally produced *LPs*
did seem to improve a little in 'life and ambience' (for me) late 1980s
onwards, or did I (we) just became conditioned?


I'm not in a position to judge - my most 'recent' vinyl is 'O Borther Where
Art Thou' and that has been made to sound 'Old Timey'. Recent(ish) Yello,
Floyd, Vangelis, etc. all sound fine to me.....

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

In article , Chesney Christ wrote:
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.

If you had said that modern stereo digital reproduction is _capable of
being_ pretty much as good as it needs to be then I could possibly agree.

I still buy modern CDs (1990s or later) where I think the sound could
have been much better. Maybe with SACDs (to return to a topic in the
thread title) in their marketing-led infancy still, more attention is
being paid to getting it right in practice.

With sales of the modern classical music CD sufficiently low on a
per-release basis, I suspect it's entirely possible to be unable to
spend enough time on basic good prodction these days, let alone time to
correct any errors.

--
John Phillips

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:45:42 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

I'm talking about disks where there are both CD and SACD versions of the
same music. What about DSOTM - does that have differently mastered versions
on it then?

Keith, you're a nice chap and all that, but there's no reason to be
quite so naive. Do the SACD and CD layers on DSotM have different
masters? Of course they ****ing do, otherwise they wouldn't sound
different, would they?

What is more likely:
1. A multi-tracked and hugely overdubbed analogue recording from the
early seventies contains more than 96dB of resolution.
2. The record company, which has a vested interest in pretending that
SACD sounds better, arranges things so that it does.

My money is on (2).

Of course, it is quite possible that in the future, all SACDs *will*
sound better than their corresponding CDs, but it will due to cynical
adjustments to the mastering, not anything to do with the intrinsic
capabilities of the formats. And as usual, it will be the buying
public that loses out.

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

In article ,
Jim H wrote:
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.

The original parameters for CD were set to be beyond the point where the
ear could hear any improvement - things like radio and TV sound
distribution systems use a considerably lower bitrate.

Higher bitrate is useful in the original studio process for various forms
of signal processing, but really isn't needed for the end user.

That's not to say analogue is ideal, there's a trade off between
analogue accuracy and digital precision.

I'm afraid those are only words without an explanation.

On my current system I prefer cd, but then my tt is nothing special.

To get the best out of vinyl is an expensive business.

--
*You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

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

Digital should guarantee a decent recording of the balance engineer's art.
But it can't correct for this if it's poor, or not to your taste.

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).

Which backs this up. The record/replay side of digital is excellent - but
it depends, rather obviously, what is put into it.

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.

Before coming to any conclusions, you'd have to know just what masters
both LP, original CD and re-mastered one came from. If, as is likely, they
are all different, it's not surprising the end results are different too.

--
*If you don't like the news, go out and make some.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:45:48 +0100, Jim H
wrote:

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.

Are you prepared to acknowledge that beyond a certain pixel density,
there is no point in adding more pixels to an image because it will be
beyond the eye's ability to distinguish the improvement? (I'm no
expert in imaging, but suspect that there would be no discernable
difference between 10,000dpi and 20,000dpi).

If you agree with that, can you also appreciate that in the case of
audio, there will come a point where further increasing the sample
rate is pointless because it is beyond the ear's ability to
distinguish the improvement?

What's left for debate is whether the sampling frequency used for CD
is already at or beyond the limits of human hearing - if it is, then
the higher sampling rate used in SACD is redundant.

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

In article ,
Clive Backham wrote:
What's left for debate is whether the sampling frequency used for CD
is already at or beyond the limits of human hearing

It is - when digital was in its infancy I and many of my colleagues had an
opportunity to play with different sampling rates on a wide variety of
material. And the point where any difference is detectable is below that
of CD - *that's* why it was chosen - although the exact rate was down to
TV video parameters so video recorders could be used.

- if it is, then the higher sampling rate used in SACD is redundant.

For the end user, absolutely.

--
*When it rains, why don't sheep shrink? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

(O/T) - Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
"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)

Err, I thought you said that ALL digital music is crap compared to
vinyl.

Is digital music okay if it is subsequently recorded onto vinyl ?


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!)

My mistake. I thought that recordings were supposed to be an attempt to
recreate some sort of musical event.

What do you find disappointing about "live music"? The acoustics? The
performance? The volume?

The first time I went to an orchestral concert I felt the constant urge
to turn up the volume.
Silly me.



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?
Sorry, I forgot I wasn't posting to alt.radio.digital.



--
RobH
The future's dim, the future's mono.