Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"Clive Backham" wrote in message
...
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,


Oi! - Wotchit!


but there's no reason to be
quite so naive.


OK, that's better......


Do the SACD and CD layers on DSotM have different
masters? Of course they ****ing do, otherwise they wouldn't sound
different, would they?


OK, I'm getting the picture.......



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.


In other words the CD versions *have* been 'hit wiv a stick' then......

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"Jim H" wrote in message
...
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?

Ok, but I doubt we can do that much on my budget. The tt is a Technics SL-
Q33. Its direct drive and quartz controlled, it seems to spin at perfect
speed from the strobes.

I got this deck for £30 2nd hand, electronically fine but in need of work.
First up, the interconnects were going rusty! so I chopped an IXOS mono
lead in half and soldered the 'middle' bits into the tt. Problem solved!
Then there was no cueing. Turned out to just be a badly decayed band,
couldn't find a spare used a normal rubber band. The biggest problem was
cart/stylus - the stylus was actually bent 90°! Looking up the difficult
to
find stylus was the worst £20 I ever spent, I should have known the cart
was knackered. I've now got an unknown red Audio Technica cart that sounds
much better, but is likely still the weakest point in the system.

Its plugged into the phono input of an integrated amp. I'll maybe get a
seperate preamp one day.

Hope you can help. Some of my records are new, but most of the older ones
are a bit scratched. I've got some great stuff - original Floyd, K.U.K.L,
big pile o' jazz. The biggest problem is that the sound seems confined,
but
the system seems to handle jazz better than anything else.

I originally bought a turntable to just play my records on. I'm sceptical
that it will outperform cd, but hopeful that it might.


No reason your deck cannot outperform a CD (in my book....) if you fettle it
up a bit. Also, although the more money you *wisely* spend on vinyl gear,
the better the sound you will likely get, but no-one has to spend megabucks
to beat some CDs. I heard Yello - 'Claro Qui Si' earlier tonight on a
Technics deck with a Shure M97 on B&W 601s through an Audio Innovations*
15wpc valve amp with built in valve Phono stage* (all as per
http://www.apah20.dsl.pipex.com/setup/setup.htm ) for the first time.

It BLEW THE LIVING **** out of any playing of the same CD to date - which I
have done for years on 8 million different CDPs on loads of different
setups. I am talking about this album just did not sound the same - more
detail, depth, soundstage than I have ever heard before. None of this kit is
expensive stuff by normal standards!

I have this LP (acquired only today) with me now and my 'tubes' are warming
up as we speak, if it don't sound as good on my own kit, the gerbil's gonna
get it!!!

I see Mike has started the ball rolling with some excellent advice about
external phono stages and sorting your cart out.



First off, your deck gets this mention in Vinyl Asylum (which I have
'lifted')
"WRONG: SME series III is an ultra low mass tonearm. From my limited
experience of Technics turntables, I would guess that the S-shaped arm on
the Technics SL1500 is a medium mass arm - ie between 9g and 12g. I used a
Technics SLQ33, and used it with a Shure V15VxMR for a while (high
compliance cartridge); there was no problem."

Right, that's a £300 cart (I have one) and these VA boys don't fart about
when it comes to their gear. Add to that the fact that Technics do *not*
have an intergalactic rep for producing ****e decks and I would say your
deck is almost certainly perfectly capable of decent vinyl replay. In fact,
the pic on http://www.geocities.co.jp/HeartLand...677/audio.html shows it
to be an attractive little number - no frickin' idea what the text says tho!

So, if you've fettled it into good working order we can proceed:

Initially, I would say your AT cart is quite likely to be a bit decent. At
any rate I would certainly recommend the AT110E (£28) as a good enough cart
for anyone on a budget (or linear tracking, as it happens) deck. They get 5
stars in any comic you care to name, they are used by both the Queen and
Stavros on decks all over Buck House, Madonna has got two of them and Bill
Clinton is apparently making enquires about one.....

Question is - is it set up right? If you don't have a protractor, you can
download one from www.enjoythemusic.com and print it out for yourself (make
sure you print it 'full-scale') - it is of the '2 null point' type and is
all you need. It will get alignment and overhang sorted.

Next is azimuth - if the cart is squint (and you have no tonearm adjustment)
you may have to pack one side of the cart with a sliver of paper (between
cart and headshell) to get the needle perfectly upright. Fiddly but
important.

VTA - if you have no adjustment for this, then just don't worry about it for
the moment.

Tracking Force - if this is not easy to set on your tonearm then get hold of
a little 'seesaw balance' from a friendly 'hifi' store - they should give
you one for nowt, if you are lucky. Otherwise it's pence. Set the weight of
your cart to the manufacturer's spec. (ie 1.7-1.8 gm - works every bloody
time!)

Now the needle should be about right. I'm assuming it's in good condition,
otherwise replace it (naturally).

Next comes the records. Get 'em feckin' clean - ****e vinyl sounds ****e. If
nothing else, use a barely damp cloth to scrub 'em up and a bone dry one
(yellow dusters are good) to dry them off. Do this perfectly flat on a
table, forget any daft ideas about sinks and running water. If you can get a
1:4 IPA to Distilled Water mix, this will be perfect. Use NO OTHER
concoction whatsoever.

Routine, dry wiping can be done with Swiffers ('antistatic dusters) which
cost about a quid a box and will last months, if not years. Tip - do not
mention they are for cleaning records or the shop will be forced to charge
you £39.99 a box (BADA regulation?).

Right, your cartridge is set up right, the decks working fine and your
records are CLEAN. Now's the time to look at your kit.

You don't say what amp you are using and whether or not you are using an
integral Phono stage. As Mike has already stated - an external PS (pre-amp)
is very likely to sound better (They usually got their own dinky little
outboard power supplies for a kick-off - it helps no end). If you can run to
one (£40 for a ProJect Phono Box or better) it probably would be a 'leg up'
The trick is to see if you can borrow one and try it out. At the end of the
day I don't think you can beat valves, but they don't come cheap,
infortunately.....

Try this course of action and let us know how you get on.


*Audio Innovations valve amps (especially with built-in valve phono
stages)? - If you see these buy them! It's a '2 for the price of one' valve
scenario and they are cracking good!

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

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote in
message ...
In uk.rec.audio "Keith G" wrote:

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!)

I have all of Björk's (official) *solo* work from 'Debut' onwards.
These are all CDs, released (at the time) by/through Elektra and AFAIK
were not released on LP at the time. However, in 2000 'One Little
Indian' (re-)released her full *solo catalogue* on LP. The exception to
that is her last (official) album 'Vespertine' (2001) which AFAIK is
still only currently released/available on CD (and DVD) - (at least it
was at the time I bought my copy of 'Vespertine' then CD copy only, NA
on LP).



OK, I'm thinking of original releases, ideally and at nice secondhand
prices - which are starting to creep up BTW!

Went to Nemesis Records today
(http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...is/nemesis.htm)

and grabbed the following:

Laurie Anderson - Mister Heartbreak
Laurie Anderson - Big Science (again)
Laurie Anderson - Strange Angels (again)
Charlie Mingus - Charlie Mingus
Joan Baez - The Best Of
Melanie Phonogenic/Not Just Another Pretty Face
Suzanne Vega 10" Book Of dreams
Gipsy Kings/Gipsy Kings
The Mamas And Papas - The Best Of
Marty Robbins - Gunfighter Ballads
Dire Straits - Money For Nothing
Queen - The Miracle
Queen - Live Killers
Ian Dury ATBHs - Greatest Hits
Chris Rea - Road To Hell
Chris Rea - On The Beach
Chris Rea - Wired To The moon
Chris Rea - Chris Rea
Mark Knopfler - Local Hero
Yello - Claro Qui Si
Yello - Soli Pleasure
Died Pretty - Lost

and a Eurythmics - Sweet Dreams Picture Disc (AL in her 'dyke' gear)


All in 'mint' (or unplayed) nick and only 85 spons the lot! - He (Dai the
Pie) had a bit of gusset in tow so he was in a fairly 'uncommercial' frame
of mind! :-) This little lot works out at less than 4 quid a slice - that's
cheaper than Charity Shops these days!

(See where I'm coming from? I'll get my Bjork but not for a while yet! ;-)

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

"RobH" wrote


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.


Bladerunner......?



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


Missing a 'some of' I think, but I will just say not all live gigs are
'perfect' (for a variety of reasons) just because they are 'live'.....



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


Er, no - I've had the same urge myself at some of the more unusual venues
like Ely Cathedral (where they are far more interested in getting it down
for the BBC......)

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

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

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.

A lot of people get a buzz off CDs in the same conditions. A lot of
people get a buzz off a £20 Bush radio bought out of Argos. As I was
saying to that other chap a few days ago, the vast majority of the
listening public don't care what the music is coming out of, and they
aren't fussed by terrible sound.

Anyone here ever heard a café jukebox from the good ole daze?
Ever hear any 'pops' or 'tics'?

I can't comment on that. But I never hear pops/tics on dance music when
it's played really loud in a disco. Of course (a) it's so loud that it'd
drown out the tiny sounds and (b) it's recorded at a really wide pitch
on the vinyl. Sounds fine, except you can only get five minutes or so of
audio on each side :)

I sympathise if they get on your tits, but it really does disappear with
time.

It's always there, on the disc. The only way it can disappear is when
your ears stop hearing it. And at that point, you have to ask what other
things your ear can't hear either.


Well, the thing with 'vinyl artefacts' is that a) you can do a lot to reduce
them to virtually zero (Brazilian music playing right now - bags of 'mucho
gusto', some fairly wacky percussion, whistling etc but not much evidence of
'pops and tics'....) and b) it either bugs you or it doesn't.....

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"RobH" wrote in
message ...

"Mike Fordyce" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
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.

Wasn't there another reason for choosing this particular sampling
rate - it
allowed storage of approx 1 hour of music on the CD technology
available at
the time?

IIRC it was to get the whole of Beethoven's 9th symphony on a single
disc or is this an urban myth?


http://www.urbanlegends.com/misc/cd/...skeptical.html

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

"Keith G" wrote in message
.. .
"RobH"
wrote


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.


Bladerunner......?

Sorry? Not being a fanboy I don't understand the reference.

You have a point about not comparing the two (record and live) 'cos it
is a bit invalid comparing "studio" albums with anything live although
it probably is valid for recordings of "acoustic" music.




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


Missing a 'some of' I think, but I will just say not all live gigs are
'perfect' (for a variety of reasons) just because they are 'live'.....
"missing a 'some of'" ... what you mean?
And the variety of reasons are?

"Live gigs" as you put are a bit of a different experience it terms of
sound quality but then that may depend on the type of music featured in
the performance.


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

Er, no - I've had the same urge myself at some of the more unusual
venues
like Ely Cathedral (where they are far more interested in getting it
down
for the BBC......)
Did they tell you that if you have to cough do it during the loud parts
of the music?

You went a snip to far and cut out:-

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 ?



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

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"RobH" wrote in
message ...

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

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.

A lot of people get a buzz off CDs in the same conditions. A lot of
people get a buzz off a £20 Bush radio bought out of Argos. As I was
saying to that other chap a few days ago, the vast majority of the
listening public don't care what the music is coming out of, and
they
aren't fussed by terrible sound.

Anyone here ever heard a café jukebox from the good ole daze?
Ever hear any 'pops' or 'tics'?

I can't comment on that. But I never hear pops/tics on dance music
when
it's played really loud in a disco. Of course (a) it's so loud that
it'd
drown out the tiny sounds and (b) it's recorded at a really wide
pitch
on the vinyl. Sounds fine, except you can only get five minutes or
so of
audio on each side :)

I sympathise if they get on your tits, but it really does disappear
with
time.

It's always there, on the disc. The only way it can disappear is
when
your ears stop hearing it. And at that point, you have to ask what
other
things your ear can't hear either.


Well, the thing with 'vinyl artefacts' is that a) you can do a lot to
reduce
them to virtually zero (Brazilian music playing right now - bags of
'mucho
gusto', some fairly wacky percussion, whistling etc but not much
evidence of
'pops and tics'....) and b) it either bugs you or it doesn't.....

Pity the poor unfortunates that like to listen to solo instrumental
music who can't hide the "vinyl artefacts" by simply turning the volume
up.



If they can't or won't clean their records and the tics bug them too much
maybe they should consider the necessary trade-off and move to CDs
then.......

(TNSTAAFL)

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

In article , Jim H
wrote:

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.

Expanation:

Contrary to popular belief the terms 'acuracy' and 'precision' are not
synonyms.

Agreed. However I'm not sure a metrologist would agree with the
explanations you give of the distinction. :-)

A digital signal may have perfect pcecision, that is, what is
transmitted/pressed is exactly what arrives. however that signal is only
accurate to a certain degree. In the example of cd audio, an atomic
sound is the nearest of about 65,000 options for that 1/44,000 of a
second.

The problem with the above is that it may confuse people between:

A) the reliability with which an output bit pattern is the same as the
*intended* pattern in terms of being recognisable as the required set of
symbols.

B) the precision or accuracy with which that pattern indicates an initial
'analog' level that has been sampled in some way.

You also need to bear in mind that most signals consist of a series of
values. This point is important when assessing digital storage and
transmission as it allows the use of dither and noise-shaping which has a
very significant effect upon system behaviour.

Now, for an analogue signal, the accuracy is perfect, the sound isn't
said to be 'to the nearest x'.

People may not say what you put in commas. However this does not mean that
for any analog signal "the accuracy is perfect". Indeed, when conveying or
storing information, information theory forbids this from occuring as it
implies an infinite amount of information is present.


I suppose you could argue that a record is 'to the nearest atom of
vinyl' but accuracy on that level is pretty much irrelevent because an
analogue copy is never totally precise - what is transmitted or pressed
will not be exactly the same as the original and with every copy the
errors get worse.

I'd agree that many/most LPs are not pressed and produced as well as they
might be. However the fundamental noise limit level of an LP is indeed set
by the sizes and arrangements of the *molecules* on the surfaces of the
walls, and those on the stylus. The stylus rests on a number of molecules
at any given time, and its location is then a sort of 'weighted average' of
these locations. If you work out the resulting noise level due to this
quantisation, plus thermal effects, you should find you get the kind of
'best' noise levels people have from LPs.

Digital = perfect precision, limited accuracy. Analogue = limited
precision, perfect accuracy.

That's the tradeoff!

I doubt that many metrologists of information theorists would agree with
you. ;-) Indeed, one of the formal arguments in information theory is to
establish that, in principle, a properly dithered noise-shaped digital
transmission system can reconstruct a signal pattern with the same signal
to noise level, and information content as the original. The limit in
practice is in terms of how well engineered a system is, not the number of
bits as such provided they meet the basic requirements set out in
information theory.

NB: I'm not saying anything about the superiority of the sound of either
format here.

Nor me. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

In article , Andrew
Walkingshaw wrote:
In article , RobH wrote:

"Andrew Walkingshaw" wrote in message
...
In article , RobH wrote:

I'm not sure that last sentence makes sense. Are you saying that
the theoretical limit of vinyl recording is at an atomic level?

It probably is if you use an AFM[1] as your stylus. (Pressing the
discs would be a right pain, though. :-) )

Well, if IBM can construct their logo using individual atoms I don't
see why they can't adopt this technology for making records. ;-)

True, it's entirely *possible*. Cost a bob or three, though - I wonder
if the vinylphiles here would want to pay a seven-figure sum per
record...

Given that it would probably also tend to increase the effective noise
level and produce noticable undithered quantisation distortion as well, I
doubt most people would prefer it. :-) Bear in mind a conventional LP
system makes good use of the 'averaging and dithering' effects of using a
large number of molecule positions affecting the stylus at any moment to
reduce these effect as the sacrifice of bandwidth and a larger groove/LP
for a given duration.

But then you get into the realms of Quantum Mechanical effects, the
Uncertainty Principle et al

The poor are always with us... ;- Fortunately, the above are very useful
for averaging purposes.

Agree with your point btw that the forces are electromagnetic, hence it is
the electron clouds, etc, that do the work. However these are shaped by the
molecules in 'PVC' (sic).

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html