|
|
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
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.... |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
... 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? They don't, if the same master is used. Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks out like a chapel hatpeg.... As has been pointed out numerous times, (almost) all SACD (or DVD-A, or whatever) releases have been remastered for that format Nooooo..... 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? - either addressing deficiencies in earlier CD masters, or simply to be sufficiently "different" that consumers don't start questioning the £££ they've spent on a new player, or the ££ they've spent on purchasing yet another version of a release they've probably acquired in several other formats. Yes, bit like picture discs and coloured vinyl, I suppose.... Really, Keith, you must try and keep up .... I know - I've finally got my MP3s sorted but I've now got 3,000+ LPs still need cleaning...... ;-) |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:45:42 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote: "Julian Fowler" wrote in message .. . 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? They don't, if the same master is used. Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks out like a chapel hatpeg.... As has been pointed out numerous times, (almost) all SACD (or DVD-A, or whatever) releases have been remastered for that format Nooooo..... 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? I believe so ... the blurb says that " The other layer includes high-resolution stereo and a 5.1 surround version of the recording that works on SACD-compatible DVD players and home theatre systems. " The 5:1 is not just a remaster, its a remix (and would therefore sound as different from the standard CD as the Quad vinyl did from the original LP). Even if "standard" mastering techniques had been used to create the "high-resolution stereo" version, there's every reason to suppose that the mastering engineer took decisions based on the target hardware and wouldn't have sought to recreate every nuance of the 16/44.1 redbook version. I can't confirm, but I bet that the standard CD version is taken from the same master as used for the 25th anniversary edition (which, in turn, sounds very different from early CD releases, presumably because they went back to something close to the original studio master). I've only heard the 5:1 version once (and wasn't hugely impressed) - can anyone who owns the 30th anniversary release comment on differences between the three versions on that disc and the 25th anniversary version? Julian -- Julian Fowler julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
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. -- Jim H |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
... On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:45:42 +0100, "Keith G" wrote: "Julian Fowler" wrote in message .. . 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? They don't, if the same master is used. Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks out like a chapel hatpeg.... As has been pointed out numerous times, (almost) all SACD (or DVD-A, or whatever) releases have been remastered for that format Nooooo..... 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? I believe so ... the blurb says that " The other layer includes high-resolution stereo and a 5.1 surround version of the recording that works on SACD-compatible DVD players and home theatre systems. " The 5:1 is not just a remaster, its a remix (and would therefore sound as different from the standard CD as the Quad vinyl did from the original LP). Even if "standard" mastering techniques had been used to create the "high-resolution stereo" version, there's every reason to suppose that the mastering engineer took decisions based on the target hardware and wouldn't have sought to recreate every nuance of the 16/44.1 redbook version. I can't confirm, but I bet that the standard CD version is taken from the same master as used for the 25th anniversary edition (which, in turn, sounds very different from early CD releases, presumably because they went back to something close to the original studio master). I've only heard the 5:1 version once (and wasn't hugely impressed) - can anyone who owns the 30th anniversary release comment on differences between the three versions on that disc and the 25th anniversary version? Since posting I've been told the CD version on the new hybrid is the 'traditional' CD version and the 5.1.stereo SACD versions are remixes/remasters, as you say. OK, that's DSOTM sorted - still leaves my original question which I will word in a less troll-like way thus: 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.......) Hmmm? (How's that then? - Managed to ask a 'digital' question without using the word '****e' once...!! :-) |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
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 ... 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 :-) Julian -- Julian Fowler julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk |
(O/T) - Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
"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"? Personally I find all the recording analogue and digital formats that I've heard are "crap" in comparison with real live music. 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? -- RobH The future's dim, the future's mono. |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
In article ,
"Keith G" wrote: DSOTM Since posting I've been told the CD version on the new hybrid is the 'traditional' CD version and the 5.1.stereo SACD versions are remixes/remasters, as you say. The PCM layer is evidently a new mastering: http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?852 Don't throw away the original lps... Stephen |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
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). 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. 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! -- John Phillips |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
"MiNe 109" wrote in message
... In article , "Keith G" wrote: DSOTM Since posting I've been told the CD version on the new hybrid is the 'traditional' CD version and the 5.1.stereo SACD versions are remixes/remasters, as you say. The PCM layer is evidently a new mastering: http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?852 Yup, this para explains all: "This hybrid disc has everything the format can offer: two-channel stereo CD and SACD layers, as well as a 5.1-channel surround mix. The stereo mixes are remastered from the original 1973 two-track master. The multichannel track, an entirely new mix made from the original multitrack elements and kept in the analog domain until converted to DSD, was begun by James Guthrie in late 2002 and finished in February 2003. With a thick, full-color booklet and an imaginative new cover, this is one of the best reissue values I've seen. " Don't throw away the original lps... No chance of that happening....... ;-) |
(O/T) - Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
"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? |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
"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! |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
"Jim H" wrote in message
... 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? |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
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 |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
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 |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
"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'.... ;-) |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
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 |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
"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....... |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
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 |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
"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...... :-) |
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. |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:38:44 GMT, Clive Backham
wrote: 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). I agree completely, but since I haven't heard SACD I can't say if cd is past the limit of human hearing. However, an above-cd recording of vinyl on my soundcard sounds no better than a cd-quality one, asthough this is more likely to be limitations of the equipment -- Jim |
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. Is it possible that, back then, the DACs were only effective up to a certain rate, at a lower rate than for the ear? If, say the DACS showed no improvement in sound past 44kHz, your experiment would always show cd to bo optimal. Just a thought. -- Jim |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
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. 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. Now, for an analogue signal, the accuracy is perfect, the sound isn't said to be 'to the nearest x'. 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. Digital = perfect precision, limited accuracy. Analogue = limited precision, perfect accuracy. That's the tradeoff! NB: I'm not saying anything about the superiority of the sound of either format here. -- Jim |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
"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? Mike F |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
"Jim H" wrote in message ... 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. 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. Now, for an analogue signal, the accuracy is perfect, the sound isn't said to be 'to the nearest x'. Nice theory but how does that work in practice? Don't analogue signals suffer all sorts of atenuation and distortion once you attempt to propogate them? I suppose you could argue that a record is 'to the nearest atom of vinyl' Only if the "resolution" of the mastering process is at an atomic level and if you start to examine vinyl at an atomic level the actual playing of the record will alter the shape of the groove simply because of difference of the physical properties of diamond and 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. Digital = perfect precision, limited accuracy. Analogue = limited precision, perfect accuracy. That's the tradeoff! NB: I'm not saying anything about the superiority of the sound of either format here. -- RobH The future's dim, the future's mono. |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
Now, for an analogue signal, the accuracy is perfect, the sound isn't said to be 'to the nearest x'. Nice theory but how does that work in practice? Don't analogue signals suffer all sorts of atenuation and distortion once you attempt to propogate them? Yes, but that lowers the precision of the signal, not the accuracy. The two are not the same. I suppose you could argue that a record is 'to the nearest atom of vinyl' Only if the "resolution" of the mastering process is at an atomic level and if you start to examine vinyl at an atomic level the actual playing of the record will alter the shape of the groove simply because of difference of the physical properties of diamond and vinyl. That's why I went on to say "accuracy on that level is pretty much irrelevent", It remains that the axiom of a vinyl recording is the atom. -- Jim H |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
"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? -- RobH The future's dim, the future's mono. |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
"Jim H" wrote in message
... 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. I would thoroughly recommend adding a phono preamp. My 13yr-old deck has survived a long period of toddler and "dusting" abuse - many broken stylii (and a downgraded cartridge) later I've added a preamp and it sounds better than ever. Don't know whether it outperforms CD though, it all depends on how good the recording is. I do have a couple Blue Note releases on both CD and Vinyl, well recorded on both formats and its very difficult to tell the difference! Mike F |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
"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. ;-) Now I've suggested it, someone is probably mad enough to try this... - Andrew [1] Atomic Force Microscope; works by dragging a needle over the surface in question, where it bounces off the electron clouds of the atoms composing said surface. Materials scientists love them. But then you get into the realms of Quantum Mechanical effects, the Uncertainty Principle et al You could then start to debate the probability of the "record" being accurate but let's not go there. -- RobH The future's dim, the future's mono. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk