|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Verance being audible is a baseless rumor? posted by michi on January 28, 2003 at 11:16:58:
Warner chose to use it on their releases and others didn't.I don't like it but I don't like the dsd noise shaping artifacts too.
At least the pcm masters are not contaminaited by the watermarking.
A dsd master will always contains the noise shaping artifacts.Watermarking is optional with DVD Audio AND with sacd.
In fact, Philips demonstrated similar watermarking technology for sacd. It's there for record companies who want to use it.
It's a pity this sacd feature wasn't highlighted in the (biased) audiophile press as well.It's useless to go on and on about it. It will show up on sacd and redbooks sooner or later.
Follow Ups:
.
and bat ears are not needed to hear it.
Please cite:
1 Disc, 1 Track, 1 Time Mark where you have heard DSD noise-shaping artifacts on a released SACD title.
Bucky Pizarelli disc from chesky.
On every track every time the stick impacts on the vibes.Frank
that one? Have you heard artifacts on any other SACDs? If you haven't heard problems on any discs I own (I have about 150 currently), I will get this one to find out what you're hearing. Do you have a more detailed description of what this artifact sounds like?
I have heard it on other disc too.Louder transients in the upper frequency range sounds a bit distorted and 'unattached' from the rest of the instruments tones.
At the moment it occurs soundstaging looses it's stability and sounds pull back into the speakers. Sonic images are also less solid and give an impression sounding more airy but less focussed.
artifacts?
Have you heard the DVD-A?
Best
Eric
This is particularly the case with brushed cymbals in jazz. I can name at least three discs off the top of my head. Frank hears a somewhat more general problem. In any case, you can easily predict this by looking at the S/N ratio over 10 kHz of actual SACD players in Stereophile's lab tests.
...no reviewers at TAS or Stereophile, or any other reputable magazine (for that matter, neither I nor anyone that I know) have noticed what you claim is "clearly audible". Please provide specific examples to support your case.
These reviewer even fail to recognize simple harmonic distortions generated by the SET tube amps they review.
...trying to reconcile the listening impressions with the measurements. Just because it generates some distortion, doesn't mean the reviewed equipment sounds bad. In fact, SET amps often sound extremely GOOD. Our ears are fairly tolerant of harmonic distortion, but very sensitive to some distortions produced by early (and many more recent) SS amplifiers. I'd take an SET over a Phase Linear amp or a typical receiver amp section any day.
Objectionable distortions that can be easily removed with a sane amplifier design are much more harmfull than any of the dsd or watermark artifacts.It doesn't sound more musical. If it does to you you should attend live concerts a bit more often.
...but neither do I insist that low THD SS amps are better-sounding (or even more accurate overall) for that reason alone. THD figures are close to worthless for judging the sound quality of an amplifier, IMO.P.S. Most of the concerts I attend are of the non-amplified, classical variety. : )
...the timing.
My ears, my system. DK, When I Look Into Your Eyes, "I've Got You Under My Skin", brushed cymbals throughout the track. They are more clearer and more detailed on the CD as played back through my Marantz SA-14. Just bear in mind, I don't think this is a big deal - just as I don't think the watermark thing is a big deal. Nothing is perfect.
the last time you quoted this as an example, not only can't i hear what you claim, but i appear to be hearing more resolution on sacd than what you are hearing on your system (sacd or cd), so whatever the limitation is it's not in the medium.
Christine,
Yes, but not now because I'll need to cite track and time on Waltz for Debby and Know What I Mean?. By the way, sarcasm aside, my conclusion was that you could well be getting less resolution on CD on your system than I am on mine. How you could conclude that you were getting better resolution on CD (where I indicated that I was hearing far more detail in the brush strokes than on SACD) and SACD is beyond reason. Since we would each need to spend 48 hours on planes to do an A/B (and my aural memory wouldn't survive 48 minutes) this will remain a mystery.
it's quite simpleyou say you can't hear hiss unless you turn up the volume. i can hear hiss even at low volume levels. i can even hear a slight wow and flutter characteristic on the hiss.
you say the brushwork sounds like hiss on sacd
it sounds nothing like hiss on either sacd or cd on my system
ergo, i am hearing more than you (this is not intended to be sarcastic or condescending, although i appreciate it sounds a bit blunt)
also - my advice to you was to listen to the disc on another system to see if your impressions can be replicated. have you done so?
since then, i have heard the disc on a high end system (xa777es, krell preamp, halcro dm58, b&w signature 800) and i can confirm all the detail that i quoted are present and even more on a higher end system - far higher than yours or mine.
As I recall, your normal listening level (SPL) is higher than mine. I said that the hiss was lying at about -70dB and the brushwork at about -60dB. I said that turning up the volume made the tape hiss objectionable, not audible. I don't think that the dynamic level of the hiss should change appreciably from system to system. Actually, I said that the brushwork sounded like hiss on my brother's 670. I have no doubt that the CD replay on my Marantz SA-14 is significantly better than your Sony's. Why don't we let Methos listen for himself?
i "turned up" the level to match what you quoted (above 80dB) in your post. that does not imply that is my normal listening level.by the way i said the hiss was detectable even at low listening levels, an observation which you chose to ignore again and again. this clearly shows your system is not resolving the hiss when *you* (not me) listen at levels below 80dB. and it's not tape hiss - it probably comes from the mic.
and you did not say the brushwork sounded like hiss on your brother's system. from memory, you said you couldn't hear the brushwork on your brother's system. you took extraordinary trouble to correct a poster (twice!) who *correctly* noted that there was hiss on the track, which strongly indicates *you* did not observe the hiss.
*** I have no doubt that the CD replay on my Marantz SA-14 is significantly better than your Sony's ***
more sarcasm again?
i would be very interested to hear on what basis you are saying that. have you actually A/B'ed cd replay on the sa-14 vs xa777es? i have, on more than one system.
ps - i don't see how my posts are impeding methos' ability to test for himself. all i am saying is that you have yet to convince me.
Yours as I recall is more like 75dB. On my brother's 670 you can't distinguish between the brushwork and the hiss, even though they are a good 10 dB apart. The poster had a low end Sony as well.
it ranges from 70-90dB (!!!) depending on the material for critical listening, and also whether i am reviewing or not. but typically lower than higherfor background listening of course it is much lower
i don't know where you got the impression that my listening levels are higher than yours - i have never stated that, all i said was i tried matching the level to the level you quoted in your post.
anyway the point is that the hiss is clearly audible on my system even when the material is played at 60-70dB SPL - maybe even lower than that. i certainly don't have to crank it to 80dB like you do just to hear it.
I filter out hiss until it becomes objectionable. However, I can't hear hiss recorded at -70 dB when playing at 60 dB on any system.
.
nt
As soon as my stereo is re-assembled (I just moved), I will listen for this. I may just hook up my preamp for a headphone session first.
nt
the most likely conclusion to this test will be that one party says he hears something bad on an SACD and the other party says he doesn't. I have seen this type of thing happen in the same room with two people listening to exactly the same material. Disagreeing about what they are hearing. So across the world, with different systems, is agreement likely? Not at all. There will never be one right answer to these kind of questions anyway.
Furthermore, even if there is limited dynamic range in SACD relative to CD and DVD-A above 10 kHz, it would be easy to get around this through careful engineering.
I have the DVD A and it sounds much more 'natural'.
The recording was done with ambisonics technology and at home I'm sitting IN the audience. The applaus completely surrounds me and handclaps are right next to me. The vibes sound much more convincing.With the sacd it's more in a circle auround me at a larger distance.
I doesn't sound convincing.
Thanks Frank,I find your posts very clear and factual.
Did you find other notable differences in the surround mixes?
(These are just subjective impressions on my end of other records, to see if they match yours.)- Some sounds being above listening position or above you in DVD-A, but not in SACD (circle effect, but nothing really above ear level)
- Surround effects in SACD being slightly "non-focused" (I don't mean a fuzzy image, very detailed but no firm point where elements are located, things floating around in a very nice, but slightly eerie way, impression that people are not "grounded" to the floor...)
(I hope this makes sense)Thanks for your comments
Best
Eric,FGTH - Rage Hard -The Sonic Collection
Track 5 - Welcome to the Pleasuredome, first 90 seconds.
Sounds coming from every direction, most certainly from above my head in some cases (birds, sound of something which goes around the room and above my head).I understand that you're talking about DVD-A and SACD versions of the same music, but if the FGTH SACD can have the effects you're missing from some other SACDs (Frantic by Brian Ferry, I guess), wouldn't it mean that it is possible to mix an SACD with 'above your head' effects?
My surround speakers are at ear level, some 1.5 meters behind the listening position (sofa).
Hi
I need to get a copy of that FGHT (ZTT lost my order), and check it out. I also have some 'up and above' effects in the Beck Sea Change (most obviously at the end of Track 1), but it is usually a very precise element, not the impression of a sonic 'ceiling' or 'roof' that you have above you during a track. I find many DVD-A tracks give you that impression (the same you have at a live concert, when sometimes you can't help raise your head to see where a sound came from). I almost never have that impression in SACDs.
Perhaps it's all in the mix, or my brain getting old :)Frank's answer below is also interesting ("more airy, less substance").
Best
I agree with your subjective impressions. More airy but less substance to sum it all up.The mix on the Bucky Pizarelli DVDA disc is a 4.0 mc config and the sacd is mixed to 5.1 mc.
Since both are derived from a ambisonics B recording I don't see much difference in the actual mix.
Your English is obviously more concise :)Best
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: