Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

General Asylum

SACD bombed very, very badly. So,

72.237.127.253

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display Email Next ] [ General Asylum ]

what's next?
I, for one, am quite pleased with redbook and would only consider another massive replacement investment were it truly to raise the bar. Frankly, considering that sota seventies equipment playing good vinyl wasn't surpassed by digital... I think perhaps we've reached the limits sound reproduction.

Follow Ups:

Somebody forgot to tell the folks at SA-CD.net, there are now 4,536 SA-CDs. - Teresa 01:29:49 05/20/07 (1)
SACD has not bombed and is not dead yet, at least not in classical music and Classic Rock. Even DVD-Audio is still kicking with the release "The Beatles: Love" and Warner Bros. new commitment to DVD-Audio with their new web site promising 100's of new 180 Gram LPs and DVD-Audio's.

I will agree that even high-resolution digital has not surpassed Vinyl yet.

If you are pleased with Redbook you are putting artificial limits on the possible realism and enjoyment of the music you love! Why settle for mediocrity? If not SACD or DVD-Audio, how about LP or Reel to Reel?

"Music is love"
Teresa
- SA-CD.net (Open in New Window)
- After seven years of existence - 4536 SACD titles! Whoa! - porky_pig_jr 15:03:21 05/22/07 (0)
  Surely SACD isn't dead. It's just in Terry Schiavo-like state.
Nice troll, tin. You da' man! - Bruce from DC 15:30:48 05/18/07 (0)
You get so much practice Outside, I'm glad to see it's doing you some good!
Double blind tests... - KlausR. 00:16:52 05/17/07 (7)
done in Germany by sound engineer students on hi-rez vs redbook have shown that hi-rez is indeed better. Higher sampling rates however didn't prove to be better.
Another DBT has shown that no audible difference between SACD and DVD-A could be found.
The question is not whether or a new format is better, the question is does the public in general recognize the advantages and benefits of new formats. Apparently it doesn't.

Klaus
- Re: "...does the public in general recognize the advantages and benefits of new formats. Apparently it doesn't." - tlyyra 05:45:08 05/17/07 (6)
  Or, simply care about them. I really can't make out any of the reasons beyond that surface-level symptom.
  My reactionary guess would be that the function(s) of listening, as an activity, have undergone or are busy undergoing change - a bit in the same way as it went with TV, from intentionally watching specific programs together to the present-day incorporation of the telly (that's on most of the time) into the habitus of everyday life within the decentered space of one's home.
  What people clearly seem to care about though is picture (visual image) quality. That's the frontline. What it has to do with some broader transformations in human life, I'm not sure about; but already from the late '60s on Luigi Nono, the composer, grew increasingly concerned about our diminishing ability to listen (as an existential category rather than anything about psychoacoustics or goldenearism). As a consequence he switched from rather straightforward avantguarde methods and Darmstadt social radicalism to approaches that highlighted this preoccupation of his, away from the goals and more on to processes.
  But that's another topic.
  TL
  - Re: "...does the public in general recognize the advantages and benefits of new formats. Apparently it doesn't." - KlausR. 08:06:23 05/17/07 (5)
    When CD came its advantages and benefits the public could readily recognize. Sales figures speak for themselves. Hi-rez has no further advantage or benefit as far as handling, track access etc. is concerned, it's simply the same. The only step forward is audio quality. I've never heard hi-rez of any kind so I cannot judge.
    However, that German study was done with students, i.e. young people ( <25 years of age). I wonder what the outcome of such studies would be when people of 40 or 50 years of age were used. Maybe for them there's no difference to CD or the difference is too small as to worry about.
    In any case audio quality aloine is not sufficient except for a small minority of what already is a niche market.
    In any case it would be the audio industry that has a vested interest in knowing the exact reasons. Did they perform any studies?
    
    Klaus
    - Re: "...does the public in general recognize the advantages and benefits of new formats. Apparently it doesn't." - tlyyra 09:18:14 05/17/07 (4)
      I've seen, or seen a reference to, quite a many studies from the late '70s and early '80s, just before the digital format was launched, regarding just about every parameter of sound reproduction & audibility in terms of PCM vs. analogue, mostly coming from Japan. But I don't know off hand of any industry studies on hi-rez vs. PCM, even though there must be a lot of those, too, and I'm not even sure if these are what you meant, and in any case please don't ask for any references for now since today is ... my free day!
      Despite all the general concerns and specs design going into them, it was of course the "compact" in the compact discs that sold everyone to them. Ditto now with downloads and iPods now. As I remember it, just about the only sound improvement-related comment you ever heard anyone say at the time was that with CDs, there was no rumbling and no clicks and pops. Which was quite nice. The rest was taken at the face value.
      Of course, we were all lied about their physical indestructibility and longevity. There were these amusing demonstrations were CDs were thrown around in the room like frisbees...
      I think what the non-youths amongst us would hear in hi-rez is increased definition and dynamics, if nothing else. That should be evident even with age-related hearing loss affecting the audible bandwidth in its upper ranges, shouldn't it? But even significant improvement in those areas might be too little reason for most, as you say. There are too many other factors to worry about when thinking of your sound system, and almost all of them surrounded by thick mists of confusion and false information.
      And with the unprecedented array of new possibilities and prospects already in sight (creating competitive pressure) there was of course no way to secure broad-based consensus and no motivation for commercial risk-taking in the industry, so there you go. By the time the future was decided (or rather left totally undecided) it was already clear that audio wouldn't for long be the moneymaker, least of all those niches inside it where there was innate interest in propagating the sound aspect. Moreover everyone had just bought again all their recordings in the disc format and wouldn't be easily persuaded to do that again, for another while.
      TL
      - Re: hi-rez is increased definition and dynamics - KlausR. 04:36:22 05/18/07 (3)
        
        In Reply to: Re: "...does the public in general recognize the advantages and benefits of new formats. Apparently it doesn't." posted by tlyyra on May 17, 2007 at 09:18:14:
        
        As a starter, read this
        http://sjeng.org/ftp/SACD.pdf
        
        Then, CD when properly dithered has a dynamic range of 115 dB. SACD offers 120 dB. But you'd also want to reproduce that range.
        Now look at what the amp power requirements are for various SPL (an enlarged version of the table is available in the link)
        
        See what I mean?
        Then, how loud can a given speaker play whilst keeping distortion levels low?
        
        Klaus
        
        Power - How Much Do You Really Need? (Open in New Window)
        
        Re: hi-rez is increased definition and dynamics - tlyyra 05:54:57 05/18/07 (2)
        
        In Reply to: Re: hi-rez is increased definition and dynamics posted by KlausR. on May 18, 2007 at 04:36:22:
        
        Good questions. (And incidentally I was just reading Lipshitz & Vanderkooy in another context - so, that much for the weekend doing gardening.) That would surely put these benefits out of the hearing range for most of us. I think the cumulative thrust of your points speaks in favor of better solutions in our audio systems, such as well-engineered active speakers, if we want to enjoy that fabulous extra 5 dB and all the other improvements to their max.
        TL
        
        Re: better solutions in our audio systems - KlausR. 06:19:11 05/18/07 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Re: hi-rez is increased definition and dynamics posted by tlyyra on May 18, 2007 at 05:54:57:
        
        In active speakers the amps are driving an inductive load, in a passive speaker the amp is driving a reactive load, which, according to Brad Meyer, increases the current demands on the amp to as much as several times that demanded by a simple resistor. In his article about active speakers Bob Stuart mentions a factor 3. Which would mean that the 400 Watt amp, as used in my speakers for the bass driver (8 Ohm, 98 dB), equals to a 1200 Watt outboard amp.
        So if you want live-like reproduction you not only need live-like timbre but also live-like SPL. Hence BIG power amps for those who have inefficient speakers. So why do audiophiles stick to those technically obsolete solutions?
        
        Klaus
        
        Re: better solutions in our audio systems - tlyyra 07:55:53 05/18/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: better solutions in our audio systems posted by KlausR. on May 18, 2007 at 06:19:11:
        
        To say nothing of the fact that in active applications, the speaker designer would have probably also had a big say in the design of the amps as well (if not wholly designed them from the scratch) that drive those speakers, i.e. matched them optimally together. Which would render the whole issue of external-amp matching a moot point (along with all that speaker cable mystique). A big headache gone for good for all audiophiles, and a lot more time and money left for music!
        TL
SACD: mixed bag, IME - cdb 20:16:11 05/15/07 (0)
'Avalon', Roxy Music, mebbe a 5-10% improvement in bass clarity over the vinyl. No great shakes... Unimpressed.
'12x5', Rolling Stones. A deal closer. The extended version of 2120 S. Michigan is worth an SACD player alone. This one is the real deal...
The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated - Joe M 19:47:14 05/15/07 (0)
Mark Twain.
I still buy 2 or 3 SACD's each week.
SACD bombed very, very badly - one suggestion why - John C. - Aussie 17:48:36 05/15/07 (0)
VERY few people have heard about SACD and even fewer understand or care what it is about.
So who does that leave who are interested -> nutters like us. BUT here is the rub. The Sony obsession with copying has made modding DACs to improve upon DSD virtually impossible, so we are left with the commercial machines which vary from the very ordinary to the very good.
However, even the very good ones (and the Esoteric UX-1 here is put in that category) do not extract the potential of DSD. I would not argue that DSD could sound better than redbook PCM. The fact that it does not do so here reflects the very good DAC in the Esoteric vs the outstanding modded DAC 1 which is used here for CDs etc.
And I'm a fan of surround sound, but that does NOT have to be via multi channel SACD or DVD-A. A good processor can simulate very satisfying ambience from 2CH. Been there, done that for decades now.
John

Do not criticise the idiots in this world - we need them as they make the rest of us look so much better :-)
Just to see how badly it bombed, - sser2 17:01:37 05/15/07 (3)
check the availability of SACD titles on Amazon or CD Universe. Also can look on eBay. Most classical SACDs are going like hotcakes with several bids if the price is $10 or below. I guess people are buying them to throw in a trash can with contempt...
I am emphatic with those who say CD is better than SACD. To spend a fortune on buying and modding a CD player only to see that the superior format is taking hold, that's a real bomber.
And two channel is so much better than five, folks!
OK, flame suite on.
- 2 Channel Is Better Than 5? - Robertc88 06:38:52 05/16/07 (2)
  Under what circumstances? Perhaps you may feel the recording quality of the MCH mix is a mess a large percentage of the time? Perhaps it's too expensive for the equipment and one needs the proper amount of room also but that doesn't mean 2 channel is better than five!
  Given the right equipment, 5 channel slaughters 2 channel especially with these DSD recordings. Also, off topic but I much rather watch DVD in 5.1 than 2 channel any day!
  One thing though I agree on which is an eye opener that one cannot discount is the number of SACDs that can be had on the used market for $10 and below.
  - I was joking. - sser2 09:30:59 05/16/07 (1)
    But you can hear people saying that seriously.
    One thing clear though that hi end industry at large does not have a technologic capacity for 5 channel SACD. That's why they are stubbornly peddling 2 channels and engage reviewers on their payroll to convince the public that 5 channels are not needed.
    - Lots Are Giving Up Though - Robertc88 12:02:26 05/16/07 (0)
      And are now home theater shops where the stronger market currently lies. This will happen more and more whereby the hi-fi shops for two channel audio already a niche will even be less than that.
Agreed, but redbook digital is usually poorly processed - but try out the new Benchmark DAC 1 mod from Empirical Audio - John C. - Aussie 15:08:23 05/15/07 (0)
Extracting the best from CDs has proven a lot more challenging than most ever suspected with the result the format has received a bad reputation, one which I shared for 2 decades.
However there is finally light at the end of the tunnel and I'm now getting better music ex good CDs (and sadly they are in the minority) than from SACD.
I posted a review on the digital board about these experiences which have resulted in the receipt of the latest DAC mod from Empirical Audio. If your budget allows and you are keen on finding out how good CDs can sound, then this path is highly commended.
One odd negative should be reported however. The resolution is superb with laserdiscs as well as CDs BUT the pin point soundstaging this latest mod gives often highlights the panning in videos. The sound comes accurately from the right yet the video is centre screen!! But I can live with that.
John (now a really happy CD camper)

Do not criticise the idiots in this world - we need them as they make the rest of us look so much better :-)
- Extensive review on the digital mboard (Open in New Window)
Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, - Dan Banquer 12:50:42 05/15/07 (0)
"Frankly, considering that sota seventies equipment playing good vinyl wasn't surpassed by digital... "
I think the seventies was about the time your education stopped.
d.b.
Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, - Todd Krieger 12:50:19 05/15/07 (0)
The problem with all digital playback is there are complications with both jitter and RFI that need to be addressed. I just think the problem gets overwhelming once the resolution becomes greater than that of Redbook CD.
The concept is good. But nobody has been able to execute high-rez playback to a satisfying degree.
Heck, there are so few decent examples of well-executed Redbook CD playback, the trend has been drifting the other way.... Toward MP3.
Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, - Dr. S. 12:46:29 05/15/07 (29)
If you have never heard native DSD then you simply don't know what you are talking about.
Celebrating a recording medium (PCM) that offers a fraction of the resolving power, regardless of the lamentable fact that Sony cannot find it's collective ass on a good day, is short-sighted and self-defeating.
As a recording medium, DSD is indistinquishable from microphone feed. Period.
If SACD languishes, celebrating it is like the folks who celebrate the "sanitization" of classic liturature. Stupid, short-sighted and ultimately, tragic.
Dr. S.
- Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 14:27:43 05/15/07 (28)
  "Celebrating a recording medium (PCM) that offers a fraction of the resolving power".
  
  You could argue that CD offers a fraction of the resolving of SACD, but PCM in general which must include even 24 bit/192 and higher bit rates?
  I celebrate the demise of SACD because it was an attempt by SONY to sell us the same old titles on another format and deprive us of the ability to make perfectly legal copies for our own use.
  There's also the fact that many adopters of SACD were very quick to mock anyone who thought SACD wouldn't succeed and basically criticise them for being 'trolls'.
  Well, the 'trolls' were right.
  Lastly, does DSD not have well documented issues with ultrasonic noise, the old 'velvet curtain'?
  No doubt DSD does sound identical to a live mic feed through studio monitors, but are you saying it's any better than high-rez PCM, and if so do you have some unique way of demonstrating this isn't down to the source which may be better at converting DSD than PCM?
  
  Best Regards,
  Chris redmond.
  - Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, - Dr. S 20:33:22 05/15/07 (27)
    Yes, I am saying it is superior as a recording medium to both high resolution PCM and high speed analog tape.
    You are pleased because you think it is failing, and pleased because of issues unrelated to the fundamental merit of the technology.
    Isn't that sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face?
    Personally, I give crap all about the other things ... I care about the music, and there DSD has it, hands down. 0 - 100K frequency response, over 110 db usable dynamic range ... simply superior.
    As to the noise issue, you apparently read something somewhere, good for you. Now, go and get some direct experience and see if that changes your preconceptions.
    Dr. S
    - Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 09:57:43 05/16/07 (25)
      "Isn't that sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face?"
      I'm not doing the cutting, it's not my nose and not my face.
      You think we're losing out but I think we've managed very well without DSD and will continue to manage without it.
      
      "Yes, I am saying it is superior as a recording medium to both high resolution PCM and high speed analog tape."
      
      I'm disagreeing with you and you seem to have a problem with that.
      
      "As to the noise issue, you apparently read something somewhere, good for you. Now, go and get some direct experience and see if that changes your preconceptions."
      So are you saying that an SACD that we can buy in a shop isn't an exact replica of the master, and if so why not?
      This thread is all about SACD as a consumer format and I'll have had at least as much experience as yourself when it comes to listening to SACD, DVD-A and CD so get down off your high horse and stop being so condescending.
      I notice you don't answer the question I put to you about how you can possibly state that one format is better than another when the quality will be governed by the digital to analogue converter which will be better at converting one format than the other.
      
      Best Regards,
      Chris redmond.
      - Ok, so I will try this without being snotty - Dr. S 20:49:50 05/16/07 (24)
        
        In Reply to: Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 16, 2007 at 09:57:43:
        
        It doesn't matter all that much what happens in the distribution end, IF the original recording preserves the event.
        The SACD of Dave Brubeck's TIME OUT, started life as a remarkable analog tape, in the days of thermionic electronics. Even with the truncated dynamic range of analog (60 db or less) ... even with all of the compromises forced by the technology of a previous century, the recording lives, far better than most of what is being produced with PCM. Now it has been converted to DSD, I sleep well, knowing that it has been preserved in the best recording medium we have currently, and that the aging magnetic tape will not spell its death, as it has for so many vintage recordings.
        Is it possible to do better on the recording end than analog? Absolutely. This is where DSD excells. And this is my point. I am concerned that if we lose SACD as a distribution medium, we may also lose DSD as a recording and archiving medium.
        I am indifferent to people's choices in distribution media. If you want to listen to a distributed form in some sort of F'd up, heavily downsampled whatever ... be my guest. Who cares? As you proudly pronounce, you are the consumer. It is your choice.
        But if the original recording is forever trapped in a technically inferior medium, that is all she wrote boys ... you can't polish a turd, as has been oftened repeated. How many of you wish we could hear vintage music with more of the original event preserved for us?
        And on a personal note, why is it that the few voices crying for the best we have at the recording end are on our "high horses?"
        But you are right. You are the consumer, and if you want crap, you should get crap and celebrate it in the process. I feel the same.
        If I want Velveeta, I should have it ... but, it would be nihilistic to deny another, with perhaps a more refined palate, the Stilton he is nibbling with the just perfectly ripe pear and walnuts.
        This is SUPPOSED to be about audio as art ... we should want the best, not celebrate a woeful compromise.
        The Good Doctor
        
        Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 11:02:25 05/17/07 (19)
        
        In Reply to: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty posted by Dr. S on May 16, 2007 at 20:49:50:
        
        "It doesn't matter all that much what happens in the distribution end, IF the original recording preserves the event."
        I'd argue not so as that's like saying it doesn't matter if we can't see every pixel or the full colour range in a photograph copied onto the best paper available, so long as the guy who took the picture assures us that the photo is in fact perfect.
        
        "The SACD of Dave Brubeck's TIME OUT, started life as a remarkable analog tape, in the days of thermionic electronics."
        The best recordings I've heard are sourced from analogue tapes, one of the finest being 'Blues in Orbit' which I actually have on SACD, but I'm sure there are plenty of open reel tapes and vinyl pressings floating around which are quite capable of ensuring this recording doesn't sink into obscurity without DSD having to come riding to the rescue.
        
        "I sleep well, knowing that it has been preserved in the best recording medium we have currently".
        In your opinion.
        
        "Is it possible to do better on the recording end than analog? Absolutely. This is where DSD excells. And this is my point. I am concerned that if we lose SACD as a distribution medium, we may also lose DSD as a recording and archiving medium."
        Again, that is your opinion. Many would argue that the ADC and DAC processes in the recording and playback of DSD mean it can never better analogue even given the disadvantages of friction and the mechanical hurdles.
        Digital is and always will provide recordings which have been basically cut up, processed and reassembled, no matter how effective and seamless the processing might be.
        That being said, I'm very happy with CD and believe that high-rez PCM is superior to DSD. :0)
        
        "I am indifferent to people's choices in distribution media. If you want to listen to a distributed form in some sort of F'd up, heavily downsampled whatever ... be my guest. Who cares? As you proudly pronounce, you are the consumer. It is your choice."
        I thought you said you weren't going to be snotty?
        Seems like you F'd up!
        
        "But if the original recording is forever trapped in a technically inferior medium".
        Again, your opinion so it's a big IF, but I'm surprised you are able to enjoy 'Time Out' at all when it was captured on inferior analogue tapes.
        
        "And on a personal note, why is it that the few voices crying for the best we have at the recording end are on our "high horses?"
        Because you're condescending and pompous, and because you believe DSD is 'the best' then you must be right and anyone who disagrees is less enlightened or discerning than yourself.
        You carry on crying out for 'the best' in the unshakable certainty that you're defending the very soul of musical recording/reproduction, while the masses listen to their inferior analogue recordings on their inferior turntables and inferior open reel tape decks.
        
        "If I want Velveeta, I should have it ... but, it would be nihilistic to deny another, with perhaps a more refined palate, the Stilton he is nibbling with the just perfectly ripe pear and walnuts."
        Congratulations! You've actually succeeded in fitting stilts to your high horse!
        
        "This is SUPPOSED to be about audio as art ... we should want the best, not celebrate a woeful compromise."
        I DO want the best - the best replay in my home, but in my ignorance I don't believe DSD is the best and what is worse, I like Velveeta. :0(
        
        Best Regards,
        Chris redmond.
        
        Chris "High-rez PCM is superior to DSD"? Not in my system! - Teresa 23:55:26 05/19/07 (3)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 17, 2007 at 11:02:25
        
        Although I admit 192kHz 24 Bit PCM can capture much of the resolution of DSD, it cannot capture it's beauty and soul. Pure DSD recordings such as those from Telarc have an almost "analog-like" realism and feeling of being there that PCM at any resolution cannot capture.
        
        And even though I now have CD playback with out PAIN, it still doesn't have the resolution, imaging, dynamic impact, realistic deep bass and warm acoustic of analog Cassette and Reel to Reel tapes! And LPs and Reel to Reel tapes have a high frequency ease and extension that even SACD and DVD-Audio cannot reach. Even though CD bass is often deeper than LP (due to the nature of bass response versus playing time) it is colder. Bass on SACD has most of the warmth of analog, and high resolution PCM to a lesser degree.
        If you get decent machines that play all formats you would have a totally different perspective on the virtues of each and see just how low on the totem poll redbook CD is.
        
        I own and listen to recordings on:
        LP
        Cassette
        Reel to Reel
        CD
        24/96 DAD DVD
        DVD-Audio
        SACD
        
        How about you?
        
        And to say the Redbook CD is better than either SACD or DVD-Audio is not only a cruel joke but also a bald faced lie.
        
        "Music is love"
        Teresa
        
        RE: Chris "High-rez PCM is superior to DSD"? Not in my system! - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 03:33:55 05/20/07 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Chris "High-rez PCM is superior to DSD"? Not in my system! posted by Teresa on May 19, 2007 at 23:55:26
        
        "And to say the Redbook CD is better than either SACD or DVD-Audio is not only a cruel joke but also a bald faced lie."
        
        Please direct me to the sentence/paragraph where I said that Theresa.
        
        As far as the rest of your opinion, over the years your stance has shifted more than the sands of the Sahara depending on the players you've owned, so I can't take them seriously anymore.
        
        Best Regards,
        Chris redmond.
        Teresa says DVD-A better than Vinyl and reel to reel. (Open in New Window)
        
        Here you go Chris in your own words in this very thread: - Teresa 17:23:35 05/20/07 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Chris "High-rez PCM is superior to DSD"? Not in my system! posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 20, 2007 at 03:33:55
        
        Chris said "CD is and always has been capable of the very finest audio replay available"
        
        "Music is love"
        Teresa
        Your own words (Open in New Window)
        
        RE: Here you go Chris in your own words in this very thread: - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 10:10:37 05/21/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Here you go Chris in your own words in this very thread: posted by Teresa on May 20, 2007 at 17:23:35
        
        CD does provide us with the finest replay available, because the finest recordings are available on CD in my opinion and apart from possibly the Meitner and APL Esoteric based player, the best digital source components are CD players.
        
        As a format, High rez PCM must by definition be 'better' than CD but the replay is poorer because there aren't any high-end DVD-A players out there and the DVD-A titles are spartan.
        
        However, if the titles were available and the likes of Audio Note, Marantz, Zenden, Meitner etc manufactured DVD-A players I'm certain that DVD-A would provide the finest replay available.
        
        I notice that in an earlier post you described the Toshiba SD-9200 as high-end but I owned that player for a few years and it was mid-fi compared to a decent CD front end.
        
        The only DVD-A player I've heard which alluded to the real high-end was a Meridian but even that fell short, and the Denon DVD-A1XV (5910) I own now is again not in the same ball park as a decent CD player.
        
        Best Regards,
        Chris redmond.
        
        Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty - Dr. S 15:37:55 05/18/07 (10)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 17, 2007 at 11:02:25:
        
        AH! Gloves off, toe to toe, I respect that. Let the games begin!
        "It doesn't matter all that much what happens in the distribution end, IF the original recording preserves the event."
        
        My point, lost again, is that in this moment in time any one of a number of distribution media may be selected. It is irrelevant in terms of what is preserved on the original recording. If it is worthy music, and a worthy recording, I promise you … someone will dig it up, clean it up and re-release it. Sheesh, if they re-release Duran Duran they will do anything.
        
        "The SACD of Dave Brubeck's TIME OUT, started life as a remarkable analog tape, in the days of thermionic electronics."
        <
        And my point is that their masters are falling apart. And sadly there is no whole sale funded project for preserving them, such as there is with films. Even many classic recordings of the sixties are in very rough shape, and may only have a couple of plays left in them. That being the case, wouldn’t you rather the transfer go to the highest fidelity medium, regardless of politics?
        
        "I sleep well, knowing that it has been preserved in the best recording medium we have currently".
        < >
        
        Dismissive, and pompous, as you would say, but compare DSD to high rez PCM - 194K, 20-20,000 frequency response, 70+ dB dynamic range, to 2.88 Megahertz, 0-100,000 frequency response and 110 USABLE dB of dynamic range. For the little bit of objective data that can be stipulated to, seems fairly clear, without us continuing to throw subjective lobs at each other.
        
        "Is it possible to do better on the recording end than analog? Absolutely. This is where DSD excells. And this is my point. I am concerned that if we lose SACD as a distribution medium, we may also lose DSD as a recording and archiving medium."
        <
        Friction and mechanical hurdles? Do you mean dragging a mineral tipped needle through the softness of vinyl, the absolutely labyrinthian path from tape head or cutting head, to record, to … and on and on. Do you mean brick wall filters at 20 and 20 K for PCM, and decimating the entire signal, with limited word lengths? Why do you think there are brick wall filters in PCM?
        Just the geometry of analog is bewildering to most, and I say this as someone with a killer analog set up and lots of records.
        
        < That being said, I'm very happy with CD and believe that high-rez PCM is superior to DSD. :0) < <
        
        Recording is, per force, a process of transduction … turning one kind of energy into other kinds of energy in a series of steps, each of which adds and subtracts. The process is mostly anything but seamless.
        However, having had direct experience with short path (no more than fifty feet of microphone cord) through ONLY a microphone preamplier to a DSD recorder, with NO intervening steps, I will stick with my pronouncement. There simply is no contest.
        I have thousands of CD’s and many are very enjoyable, but they are pale lights of what is possible with pure, native DSD, as is 196k (when rarely found) PCM, simply because most of the issues with PCM remain, regardless of resolution.
        I buy CD’s because they quit putting the music I liked on LP’s, not because I thought they were an improvement.
        
        < <"I am indifferent to people's choices in distribution media. If you want to listen to a distributed form in some sort of F'd up, heavily downsampled whatever ... be my guest. Who cares? As you proudly pronounce, you are the consumer. It is your choice."
        I thought you said you weren't going to be snotty?
        Seems like you F'd up! < <
        
        How is that snotty? Personally, I think the sound from an I-Pod is absolutely horrific. But I would never, ever intimate or interfer or criticize someone who chooses that distribution medium, unless they are doing it out of ignorance (like most people who buy Boze).
        
        "But if the original recording is forever trapped in a technically inferior medium".
        Again, your opinion so it's a big IF, but I'm surprised you are able to enjoy 'Time Out' at all when it was captured on inferior analogue tapes.
        
        Where did you draw the conclusion I am down on analog. Hell man, I love the stuff … tubes too. My issue with classic analog tapes is that they are deteriorating. We are going to lose a lot of music forever.
        
        "And on a personal note, why is it that the few voices crying for the best we have at the recording end are on our "high horses?"
        <
        Nay, nattering nabob, I originally took issue with you “celebrating” the presumed demise of SACD. Your point was that DSD diserves to die, and that is simply irrational. It is neither pompous or condescending to oppose that sort of gleefully shallow thinking. I am a big analog fan … to the point where I sport a custom deck (Jena Labs) built around a Technics SP-10 – SME-1O arm, Cardas Heart MC Cart, a BAT VK-P10-SE tubed phono. I would say that is pretty good evidence I am not anti-analog.
        
        "If I want Velveeta, I should have it ... but, it would be nihilistic to deny another, with perhaps a more refined palate, the Stilton he is nibbling with the just perfectly ripe pear and walnuts."
        <
        Because I prefer Stilton to Velveeta, lol … OK, guys, let’s see a show of hands out there … cheese whiz or a french triple cream? lol.
        
        "This is SUPPOSED to be about audio as art ... we should want the best, not celebrate a woeful compromise."
        <
        I celebrate your right to have the yellow box and munch away to your heart’s content. You on the other hand, celebrate something you think should go away … hum, which is the more insulting behavior?
        The Good Doctor
        
        Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty - Christopher Redmond 00:32:14 05/19/07 (9)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty posted by Dr. S on May 18, 2007 at 15:37:55:
        
        This is more like it good Doctor - you've gone from someone I'd probably tip my pint over to someone I could actually have a drink with whilst engaging in a healthy though heated debate, although being essentially tea-total it would have been a mineral water so no real harm done.
        Now I dare say we could carry on batting the DSD ball between us ad nauseum with rallies which could rival Nadal vs Federer on clay in their duration and intensity, but as with religion and politics we have our entrenched positions and we're not going to budge are we?
        
        "My point, lost again, is that in this moment in time any one of a number of distribution media may be selected. It is irrelevant in terms of what is preserved on the original recording. If it is worthy music, and a worthy recording, I promise you … someone will dig it up, clean it up and re-release it. Sheesh, if they re-release Duran Duran they will do anything."
        
        This is the crux of your argument and despite your suspicion it isn't lost on me at all. You believe that so long as a performance is recorded to the very best medium we have presently, that performance is saved for posterity and technological advances could enable better and better quality replay so long as the initial recording was of the highest quality.
        Yes, I agree with the principle as any sane minded person would, but I don't agree with your assertion that DSD is the medium and the problems with DSD as an archiving medium are real.
        Perhaps when the sampling frequency is doubled as I seem to remember Michael Bishop mentioning, the noise will be pushed further up the frequency range and become less of an issue (even a non-issue), but until then DSD is not suitable for archiving in my opinion.
        I've included a link which many people will no doubt have already read, but there are many more critics of DSD out there who aren't merely critical because they have financial interests in DVD-A.
        Obviously the equipment now exists so that the PCM conversion referred to during mastering doesn't need to take place.
        
        CD v DVD-A v SACD (Open in New Window)
        
        F.Y.I: There is NO audible noise with PURE DSD even though headphones. 192kHz PCM has more audible noise for example. - Teresa 00:00:44 05/20/07 (5)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty posted by Christopher Redmond on May 19, 2007 at 00:32:14
        
        Get a good set of high-end headphones and listen for yourself.
        
        Until a format is invented with less audible noise that DSD, DSD will remain the best format for archiving.
        
        "Music is love"
        Teresa
        
        RE: F.Y.I: There is NO audible noise with PURE DSD even though headphones. 192kHz PCM has more audible noise for exampl - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 03:40:47 05/20/07 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: F.Y.I: There is NO audible noise with PURE DSD even though headphones. 192kHz PCM has more audible noise for example. posted by Teresa on May 20, 2007 at 00:00:44
        
        "Get a good set of high-end headphones and listen for yourself."
        
        I'm currently selling a pair of Stax Lambda Signature headphones with the SRM-TIS valve energiser Teresa.
        
        Why is it that people such as yourself and the good Dr can't acept opinions contrary to their own without assuming the contrary opinion is obviously uninformed?
        
        It's arrogant and says more about you than it does of me.
        
        Best Regards,
        Chris redmond.
        http://www.adverts.hififorsale.com/vardet.asp (Open in New Window)
        
        All I am saying is just listen for yourself on your Stax Lambda - Teresa 16:56:58 05/20/07 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: F.Y.I: There is NO audible noise with PURE DSD even though headphones. 192kHz PCM has more audible noise for exampl posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 20, 2007 at 03:40:47
        
        and you will hear for yourself.
        
        Here is an easy test:
        
        A PURE DSD SACD such as one of the many Telarc SACD
        
        versus
        
        An Original 192kHz or 96kHz 24 Bit recording via DVD-Audio such as from AIX, Hodie or others.
        
        And listen for low level noise, you have to wear headphones as none of these recordings have ANY audible noise through speakers.
        
        And your will be able to hear for yourself in the audible range DSD is quieter than PCM.
        
        I gave this as an example so you could hear it for yourself. But hey you thing low resolution Redbook CD is all we need. I refuse to limit myself the way you do that is why I have multiple formats to my beck and call!
        
        It is your refusal to test these things for yourself that is arrogant!
        
        "Music is love"
        Teresa
        
        RE: All I am saying is just listen for yourself on your Stax Lambda - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 09:57:28 05/21/07 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: All I am saying is just listen for yourself on your Stax Lambda posted by Teresa on May 20, 2007 at 16:56:58
        
        "And your will be able to hear for yourself in the audible range DSD is quieter than PCM."
        
        So by that logic, DSD is better than analogue yes?
        
        Best Regards,
        Chris redmond.
        
        RE: All I am saying is just listen for yourself on your Stax Lambda - Teresa 22:31:13 05/21/07 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: All I am saying is just listen for yourself on your Stax Lambda posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 21, 2007 at 09:57:28
        
        "So by that logic, DSD is better than analogue yes?"
        
        DSD is quieter in the ultrasonics versus LP which between 20kHz - 50kHz is 50% noise. But that does not mean that DSD is sonically superior to analog.
        
        By the way why are selling the Stax and what have you found that is better?
        
        "Music is love"
        Teresa
        
        RE: All I am saying is just listen for yourself on your Stax Lambda - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 10:40:58 05/22/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: All I am saying is just listen for yourself on your Stax Lambda posted by Teresa on May 21, 2007 at 22:31:13
        
        "DSD is quieter in the ultrasonics versus LP which between 20kHz - 50kHz is 50% noise. But that does not mean that DSD is sonically superior to analog."
        
        I rest my case. :0)
        
        "By the way why are selling the Stax and what have you found that is better?"
        
        I bought the Stax rig because my system is boxed up while I do work in the house, and the intention was to have the Marantz CD7 with Stax in the corner of the living room so I could at least have some quality listening to prevent withdrawal symptoms.
        
        As it is I rarely get the living room to myself nowadays and I can't leave the Marantz alone as there are also a lot of kids running around with it being Summer.
        
        After moving everything to the bedroom I ended up like a hermit, sat alone in the dark for hours. My girlfriend wasn't too impressed and too be honest headphones just don't 'do it' for me Teresa - better to sell them and put the money towards an upgrade to the main system.
        
        Best Regards,
        Chris redmond.
        
        Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty - Dr. S 21:34:17 05/19/07 (2)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty posted by Christopher Redmond on May 19, 2007 at 00:32:14
        
        Ok, I typed this really articulate and witty response, and it disappeared into never never land when I went to preview it ... grrrrrrr
        
        The noise thing is nonsense, too high up in the band to be an issue, and with pcm there is always the frequency response limitation and decimation to contend with.
        
        If I had the opportunity to sit you down in the control room and listen to a live to dsd surround recording of the Basie band, I am confident the experience would have turned you into a drooling convert, but c'est la vie
        
        My concern is that these internecine battles in audio (DSD versus PCM, tubes versus SS, etc.) are nothing to celebrate ... the should be a source of embarrassment.
        
        Take care,
        
        Doctor S.
        
        Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 06:39:51 05/20/07 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty posted by Dr. S on May 19, 2007 at 21:34:17
        
        "My concern is that these internecine battles in audio (DSD versus PCM, tubes versus SS, etc.) are nothing to celebrate ... the should be a source of embarrassment."
        
        I disagree - it's very healthy so long as the participants don't take themselves too seriously and respect their opponent's point of view. :0)
        
        The biggest source of embarrassment and what damages audio reproduction is corporate greed, and format wars created not because one company believes their format is best, but because they want to have a bigger share of the pie and in Sony/Philips case they wanted to offset the loss of the CD patent.
        
        If the backers of DVD-A had backed SACD it would have succeeded and visa versa, but manufacturers of hardware, recorders of software and consumers wanted to know which format was going to be 'the winner' before committing and we know what has happened.
        
        Best Regards,
        Chris redmond.
        
        Re: Corporate Greed - Dr. S 13:50:43 05/20/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 20, 2007 at 06:39:51
        
        Well, I am certainly not going to defend Sony on any grounds whatever. I think they are nefarious, and if SACD fails, it is largely because of their own internal insanity that has Sony Music actually opposing SACD in the market place, which is nuts, whatever their opinions.
        
        Don't confuse the technology with who owns it. Trust me, you would pretty much have to stop eating, drinking, and consuming most everything if A: You knew where it came from and how it was produced, and B. You knew the politics and practices of the people who made it.
        
        As to the internecine battles in audio, I will also remain in disagreement. To say, "I prefer the sound of tubes and planars" is very diffent from the typical, "If you listen to anything other than X, you are a malodorous bolus of hog phlegm" which is pretty much how it goes.
        
        I actually had a manufacturer queer a positive review, when their marketing rep learned that I had, GASP, solid state equipment in my reference system!
        
        With that in mind, you have not acually heard native DSD, so my original chastisement stands. If you want to assert a cogent disagreement, go forward and take the experience. What possible harm could it do to you to actually go listen to what you are chastising?
        
        Until then, you are pretty much arguing from every standpoint (and in my opinion, unsuccessfully) but personal experience.
        
        The Good Doctor
        
        Re: What you believe ... - Dr. S 06:57:43 05/18/07 (3)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 17, 2007 at 11:02:25:
        
        is simply not accurate. And since you have no personal experience, you are simply repeating what you have read somewhere.
        Your comments about the conversion processes as fatally flawing DSD are nonsense. Every recording medium is "converted" between types of information and if you want to see some jagged nasties, take a look at equalization curves necessary to make analog work. Do you understand the principles of a cutting head?
        The real question is which process of transcription best preserves the original event and that is DSD, at least in our current technology.
        I know this because the specs support it, the experts support it, and in direct experience with all three recording media, my personal experience supports it. I have done listening sessions with groups as diverse as the leadership of Concord Records (who migrated to DSD, at least when they were actually interested in making real recordings), the Basie Band, and one particularly interesting sessions with the Manhattan Transfer.
        What is your source?
        And referring to, and appreciating the "finer things" does not make me a snob; that is what this hobby is supposed to be about.
        Would you sniff at an oenophile who rightfully opines that a properly preserved pre war Latour makes the best of California just grape juice? Or a car fan who insists that a McLaren F-1 is superior to the current generation Detroil muscle, is a snob?
        Ok, admittedly I have been batting you around a bit, but when you blithely choose to trample upon some very hard fought ground,without any direct experience to cite you make yourself a target.
        Tell me about your experiences with recording music in these three media we are discussing, and then perhaps you will earn a bit more respect.
        
        Re: What you believe ... - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 10:00:30 05/18/07 (2)
        
        In Reply to: Re: What you believe ... posted by Dr. S on May 18, 2007 at 06:57:43:
        
        "Your comments about the conversion processes as fatally flawing DSD are nonsense. Every recording medium is "converted" between types of information and if you want to see some jagged nasties, take a look at equalization curves necessary to make analog work. Do you understand the principles of a cutting head?"
        
        OK - add patronising into the accusations I've levied at you.
        If you don't recognise the fundamental difference between analogue and digital I won't add any further comment.
        
        "The real question is which process of transcription best preserves the original event and that is DSD, at least in our current technology."
        Again, in your opinion. This is where you let yourself down, because you don't recognise that there can be any other opinion than your own.
        Of course there will others who believe as you do, but there are equally as many who don't and who have at the very least as much experience as yourself in recording studios where it appears you have very little experience in fact.
        I helped to build Reborn Studios in Whalley, Lancashire for my then boss John Ashworth and his business partner Dennie Laine, formerly of Wings and the Moody Blues.
        I sat through the recording of various albums and was able to compere the live sound with the recorded medium, both during and after production.
        Unfortunately there was no DSD (tragic!) but the PCM masters sounded identical to the live feed before entering the Pro-tools mincer, but that wouldn't lead me to declare myself 'holder of the truth' and attempt to ridicule anyone who didn't believe PCM was the very finest recording/archiving medium available today.
        I'd respect anyone who argued that Analogue or DSD was 'better', unless of course they were patronising, condescending individuals with a superiority complex.
        
        "I know this because the specs support it, the experts support it, and in direct experience with all three recording media, my personal experience supports it."
        You know it? No, you BELIEVE it!
        The experts support it? No, some experts believe it! Some experts believe analogue is 'best', some believe high bitrate PCM is 'best', but of course they're misguided right?
        
        "I have done listening sessions with groups as diverse as the leadership of Concord Records (who migrated to DSD, at least when they were actually interested in making real recordings), the Basie Band, and one particularly interesting sessions with the Manhattan Transfer."
        Wow! I'll get you a T-shirt printed shall I?
        Concorde migrated to DSD because they gambled that SACD would be a success and were wrong.
        
        "And referring to, and appreciating the "finer things" does not make me a snob; that is what this hobby is supposed to be about."
        Appreciating the finer things in life doesn't make somebody a snob - what makes somebody a snob is when they look down on anyone who they believe doesn't appreciate or can't recognise what they do.
        
        "Would you sniff at an oenophile who rightfully opines that a properly preserved pre war Latour makes the best of California just grape juice?"
        Of course not, but equally I wouldn't sniff at the guy who enjoys eating the grapes and condemn him for eating 'crap' (the adjective you used I believe?)
        
        "Ok, admittedly I have been batting you around a bit, but when you blithely choose to trample upon some very hard fought ground,without any direct experience to cite you make yourself a target."
        You've been trying to bat me around but you keep swinging at fresh air. As explained, I probably have far, far more experience than yourself when it comes to comparing a live performance with the subsequent recording, but in all honesty that means diddly squat as I haven't experienced DSD in the recording studio have I?
        Then again, why should I when an SACD disc is EXACTLY the same resolution as the studio master is it not?
        In that case I have a vast experience with DSD masters and am not impressed; perhaps this is why......
        Ing. Öhman: DSD (the coding technique used in SACD) is much better than CD in the low frequency range. The problems occur at higher frequencies. The noise level in the ultrasound register is more than 100 dB higher (-40dB under maximum output level, using narrow band analysis) when compared to DVD-A (-144dB under maximum output level, full spectrum noise).
        Another way to describe the difference: The noise [power] from SACD is more than 20,000 million times higher than from DVD-A!
        But maybe it is more relevant to know that this ultrasound noise from SACD is enough to warm up the tweeters voice coil with some detectable influence on reproduced sound. Besides, the ultrasonic may also affect the audible sound by down mixing in the air, at least at higher sound pressures.
        
        Best Regards,
        Chris redmond.
        
        Re: What you believe ... - Dr. S 14:53:01 05/20/07 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Re: What you believe ... posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 18, 2007 at 10:00:30
        
        --I didn’t see this until today, so of course, I must respond, lol.
        
        "Your comments about the conversion processes as fatally flawing DSD are nonsense. Every recording medium is "converted" between types of information and if you want to see some jagged nasties, take a look at equalization curves necessary to make analog work. Do you understand the principles of a cutting head?"
        
        OK - add patronising into the accusations I've levied at you.
        If you don't recognise the fundamental difference between analogue and digital I won't add any further comment.
        
        --Duh, of course I do, I am simply ticking off the types of transduction problems in both domains, with analog presenting the most optimised, perhaps (after 100 years of experience) but certainly the most limited.
        
        "The real question is which process of transcription best preserves the original event and that is DSD, at least in our current technology."
        
        Again, in your opinion. This is where you let yourself down, because you don't recognise that there can be any other opinion than your own. Of course there will others who believe as you do, but there are equally as many who don't and who have at the very least as much experience as yourself in recording studios where it appears you have very little experience in fact.
        
        I helped to build Reborn Studios in Whalley, Lancashire for my then boss John Ashworth and his business partner Dennie Laine, formerly of Wings and the Moody Blues.
        
        I sat through the recording of various albums and was able to compere the live sound with the recorded medium, both during and after production.
        
        --Well, you assume again, my recording experience goes back to tubed Ampex, and even direct-to-disc, both studio and live, over nearly forty years. And, on both sides of the glass. As to name dropping ... please.
        
        Unfortunately there was no DSD (tragic!) but the PCM masters sounded identical to the live feed before entering the Pro-tools mincer, but that wouldn't lead me to declare myself 'holder of the truth' and attempt to ridicule anyone who didn't believe PCM was the very finest recording/archiving medium available today.
        
        --Well, here we are in agreement, Pro-tools … urgggh! And I simply crossed swords with you when you gleefully pronoused DSD dead, and good riddance … which is neither true (dead part) or accurate (it diserves to die). If high resolution PCM is your reference, of course it sounds best, because you have not experienced anything better.
        
        I'd respect anyone who argued that Analogue or DSD was 'better', unless of course they were patronising, condescending individuals with a superiority complex.
        
        --LOL, and I feel the same way about self-righteous, shallow thinking people, who do the same thing (albiet with less self-awareness). You are absolutely correct … I can be condescending, but only when it is warranted.
        
        "I know this because the specs support it, the experts support it, and in direct experience with all three recording media, my personal experience supports it."
        You know it? No, you BELIEVE it!
        The experts support it? No, some experts believe it! Some experts believe analogue is 'best', some believe high bitrate PCM is 'best', but of course they're misguided right?
        
        --Search the literature for DSD as a recording and archiving medium and look at the writing there, NOT SACD. You are getting people’s treatment of SACD as a distribution medium, and frankly, it is almost impossible to tell if an SACD has taken a trip down PCM land somewhere in the process, because many have.
        
        "I have done listening sessions with groups as diverse as the leadership of Concord Records (who migrated to DSD, at least when they were actually interested in making real recordings), the Basie Band, and one particularly interesting sessions with the Manhattan Transfer."
        
        Wow! I'll get you a T-shirt printed shall I?
        
        --Oh, now which of us is being snotty? Lol
        
        Concorde migrated to DSD because they gambled that SACD would be a success and were wrong.
        
        --And you know this, because like I was, you were in the room when they were first exposed to DSD?
        
        "And referring to, and appreciating the "finer things" does not make me a snob; that is what this hobby is supposed to be about."
        Appreciating the finer things in life doesn't make somebody a snob - what makes somebody a snob is when they look down on anyone who they believe doesn't appreciate or can't recognise what they do.
        
        --The fact that you annoyed me, does not mean I look down on you, nor does the challenge I have made to your position. My references to gourmet pursuits are analogous to audio, at least for most of us. I hardly think that most audiophiles consider themselves to be “just one of the guys.”
        
        "Would you sniff at an oenophile who rightfully opines that a properly preserved pre war Latour makes the best of California just grape juice?"
        Of course not, but equally I wouldn't sniff at the guy who enjoys eating the grapes and condemn him for eating 'crap' (the adjective you used I believe?)
        
        --If I remember right, the “crap” description was for Velveeta, and I will stick with it … it’s not even “cheese” it is a “cheese product.” I can’t get mice to eat it on traps.
        
        "Ok, admittedly I have been batting you around a bit, but when you blithely choose to trample upon some very hard fought ground,without any direct experience to cite you make yourself a target."
        You've been trying to bat me around but you keep swinging at fresh air. As explained, I probably have far, far more experience than yourself when it comes to comparing a live performance with the subsequent recording, but in all honesty that means diddly squat as I haven't experienced DSD in the recording studio have I?
        Then again, why should I when an SACD disc is EXACTLY the same resolution as the studio master is it not?
        
        In that case I have a vast experience with DSD masters and am not impressed; perhaps this is why......
        
        --Well, from my martial arts days, there are those who insist they aren’t being touched, even though their legs wobble, but I do understand that.
        
        You do not have more experience than I do, it is just comforting to you to believe so.
        
        And NO, the SACD disc may bear little resemblance to the master, just as with records and CD’s. There is no protection from ham-handed engineers and silly mistakes made in moving from the master to distribution.
        
        Ing. Öhman: DSD (the coding technique used in SACD) is much better than CD in the low frequency range. The problems occur at higher frequencies. The noise level in the ultrasound register is more than 100 dB higher (-40dB under maximum output level, using narrow band analysis) when compared to DVD-A (-144dB under maximum output level, full spectrum noise).
        
        --Notice he conveniently does not mention WHERE the noise is … and if you want to see noise, take a look at biasing for open reel decks.
        
        Another way to describe the difference: The noise [power] from SACD is more than 20,000 million times higher than from DVD-A!
        
        --Ok, he is asserting that there is 20 million to the tenth more noise in the signal? Please, you really don’t believe this, do you?
        
        But maybe it is more relevant to know that this ultrasound noise from SACD is enough to warm up the tweeters voice coil with some detectable influence on reproduced sound. Besides, the ultrasonic may also affect the audible sound by down mixing in the air, at least at higher sound pressures.
        
        --It is true that some electronics are not pleased with ultrasonics, and they might oscillate, because they were designed for 20-20,000 world. However, most high quality electronics do fine, and after using SACD since it was first made commercially available, I have yet to have any issues arise from the broad frequency response.
        
        Do this, check DSD specs for WHERE the noise shaping takes place, then look at the frequency response of your electronics. I think you will be comforted, and corrected.
        
        Well, this has been fun, but I think we have flogged this horse sufficiently,
        
        The Good Doctor
        
        Yes - horse flogged but it's been fun :0) [nt] - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 15:40:59 05/20/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: What you believe ... posted by Dr. S on May 20, 2007 at 14:53:01
        
        nt
        Best Regards,
        Chris redmond.
        
        Yes, but here's the irony - Dave Pogue 05:14:14 05/17/07 (3)
        
        In Reply to: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty posted by Dr. S on May 16, 2007 at 20:49:50:
        
        I have 4 versions of Brubeck's "Time Out" -- the SACD, two LPs (early and late), and the prerecorded 7 1/2 ips reel-to-reel tape.
        Every once in a while, for guests, I cue up the SACD, tape and an LP and switch among them via the remote on my linestage. Guess which one is CLEARLY the best sounding.
        
        Re: Ah yes, the irony - Dr. S 07:09:34 05/17/07 (2)
        
        In Reply to: Yes, but here's the irony posted by Dave Pogue on May 17, 2007 at 05:14:14:
        
        You are absolutely correct ... I am sure the analog versions trounce the early issue SACD. The Brubeck was one of the very first of Sony's single-layer SACD releases.
        MY point is that someone could come along now, such as MOFI, and instead of a rapidly deteriorating analog tape, they have the original recording preserved in DSD.
        DSD chip sets, converters, etc. all continue to improve for playback, even while the recording industry is still finding it's way with DSD.
        And since very few listeners (in the general population) now have either open reel or analog capability, and many fewer have access to those recordings in their original forms the irony is, to some degree, moot.
        To understand the early issues of SACD's, just take a trip back down memory lane to CD's, in the eighties REGARDLESS of their technology of origin... brrrrrrrrrrr.
        I will state this unequivocally ... to lose DSD as a recording and archiving medium is profoundly tragic, whether or not the "regular" folks get it, or not, AND whether or not they ever buy or listen to an SACD disc.
        To celebrate this loss, is disgusting.
        The Good Doctor
        
        Re: Ah yes, the irony - Dave Pogue 08:49:12 05/17/07 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Ah yes, the irony posted by Dr. S on May 17, 2007 at 07:09:34:
        
        Well, as to a "rapidly deteriorating analog tape," this one is going on 50 years of age and shows no signs of deteriorating. Nor do my 300-odd other tapes except for the ones their previous owners mishandled or the very few with oxide/binder issues . On the other hand, I think it's anyone's guess whether there will be playback hardware that can handle SACDs in 50 years. Lasers appear to be very perishable items, as I've discovered more than once. I'm not into celebrating losses. I enjoy my SACDs. And the Brubeck SACD is "preserved in DSD," or so the label and packaging claim.
        MY point is that we're only now able to -- or are figuring out how to -- get the most out of every medium (well, maybe not 8-tracks) Those 1980s CDs that give you the shudders aren't nearly as bad as we thought they were -- some are, granted -- and vinyl is a glory. As I said, I'm not celebrating losses. I'm celebrating wins I never thought we'd see.
        
        Re: Losses - Dr. S 11:11:02 05/17/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Ah yes, the irony posted by Dave Pogue on May 17, 2007 at 08:49:12:
        
        Estimates are that half the movies made before 1950 are forever gone, largely due to stock deterioration ... some indications that the situation may be comparable in audio ... references to analog tape made after the ban on whale products being especially prone to deterioration.
        DSD, just as PCM exists as data, and archival mastering and reasonable care should give us significantly extended life, and for DSD, life that includes the best the master tape has to offer.
        For new recordings, well ... I am one of few who has had that direct experience ... being there when DSD recordings are being made, it is simply amazing. Imagine recording a 20 piece jazz band producing 130 dB plus at the microphones ... setting the levels, and then not touching them for the balance of the performance, because you have so much dynamic range, you don't have to worry about saturation ... and even when there is clipping, it bears absolutely NO resemblance to that horrible tearing effect you get with PCM.
        If we get the best on the original recording, put on a medium that is stable enough to last ... we can worry later about how best to extract it.
        For me, I think of seeing Jimmy Hendrix live in Seattle, and comparing that memory to his recordings, and I weep.
        The Good Doctor.
    - Well said!! (nt) - JCS 01:57:01 05/16/07 (0)
      
      In Reply to: Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by Dr. S on May 15, 2007 at 20:33:22:
      
      (nt)
LONG LIVE THE CD!!! - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 12:04:54 05/15/07 (20)

In Reply to: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by tinear on May 15, 2007 at 07:46:14:

CD is and always has been capable of the very finest audio replay available, but CD players haven't been; it the case of 16 bit digital audio we definitely SHOULD have been blaming the messenger for the past twenty+ years.
Just lately I've been reading reviews of the Memory player which re-reads a CD player until 99% of the information has been successfully retrieved, and almost to a man the reviewers seem to believe this to be one of if not THE best source components available, and a significant step up from conventional CD players.
Now while I'm pretty immune to hyperbole after being underwhelmed by supposedly revolutionary components or technology (SACD for instance), I would say that IF the Memory player is the quantum leap in 16 bit replay the reviewers would have us believe, it would perhaps demonstrate that CD players do not retrieve anything like all the information from a CD, and that error correction IS NOT capable of making a silk purse from a pig's ear.
TEAC's VRDS transport mechanisms are designed to enable more accurate tracking of a CD's pits by the laser and must cost more than most CD players on their own, but the result is a solidity and depth to audio replay which stomps all over the myth that lightweight CD-ROM drives are quite sufficient for state of the art CD replay.
CD is easily capable of putting musicians 'in the room' once you get a competent player, but for too long the major manufacturers have tried to persuade us that multi-format players are masters of all when they're masters of none.
For the best CD replay you need a solid, well engineered transport with quality components and the best DACs.
Upsampling/oversampling are no panacea and are a sideways step, a different taste which excited the pallet briefly.
Now however, like SACD and DVD-A, these technologies are being coughed up like a great big hairy fur-ball to be flushed down the toilet with the contempt they deserve.
VIVA LE CD!!! :0)

Best Regards,
Chris redmond.

"CD is and always has been capable of the very finest audio replay available" ?????????????????? - Teresa 00:20:06 05/20/07 (0)

In Reply to: LONG LIVE THE CD!!! posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 15, 2007 at 12:04:54

Chris CD playback (hardware) has gotten better, but not that much better! The only format I know that has lesser sound quality than the VERY BEST CDs playing on the newest VERY BEST CD PLAYERS is 8 track cartridge.

CD is a very, very, very challenged format. I have now after decade’s finally gotten CD playback that was not PAINFUL. I consider this the major achievement of the last year, CD playback without pain. But it will never have the resolution of Cassette tape much less SACD or DVD-Audio. This is totally lubricous! Totally and completely lubricous!

"Music is love"
Teresa

"A different taste which excited the pallet." My poor pallet only gets excited... - clarkjohnsen 10:14:03 05/16/07 (4)

In Reply to: LONG LIVE THE CD!!! posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 15, 2007 at 12:04:54:

...when *I* get excited. Then we're quite the couple.
clark
PS Was that too obscure?

Re: "A different taste which excited the pallet." My poor pallet only gets excited... - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 11:33:56 05/16/07 (3)

In Reply to: "A different taste which excited the pallet." My poor pallet only gets excited... posted by clarkjohnsen on May 16, 2007 at 10:14:03:

"PS Was that too obscure?"

Unfortunately it went right over my head....and is disappearing over the horizon as I type. :0(

Best Regards,
Chris redmond.

Pallet... palette... Get it? nt - clarkjohnsen 12:08:05 05/16/07 (2)

In Reply to: Re: "A different taste which excited the pallet." My poor pallet only gets excited... posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 16, 2007 at 11:33:56:

z

Palate, perhaps? (nt) - Dave Pogue 05:20:01 05/17/07 (0)

In Reply to: Pallet... palette... Get it? nt posted by clarkjohnsen on May 16, 2007 at 12:08:05:

nt

Goddit! :0) [nt] - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 12:24:32 05/16/07 (0)

In Reply to: Pallet... palette... Get it? nt posted by clarkjohnsen on May 16, 2007 at 12:08:05:

nt
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.

Re: LONG LIVE THE CD!!! - truthseekerprime 08:24:54 05/16/07 (7)

In Reply to: LONG LIVE THE CD!!! posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 15, 2007 at 12:04:54:

The memory player is pure, 100% snake oil marketed to suckers. A glance at their promotional material shows that they either don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about (see what they say about jitter) or they're deliberately obscuring it to make it sound like something worth buying.
With a $30 CD-ROM my computer can make bit-perfect rips on nearly any CDs (badly scratched disks are an exception). I can verify this with accuraterip, which compares my rips against an online database. So my rips (and everyone elses that uses decent ripping software) are 100% perfect - every bit is correct. No need for a $10,000 memory player. Once the rip is made I can play it out using any number of devices - my favorite is the squeezebox. Now maybe the DAC or analogue stage in the memory player is good quality, but that's not what they're marketing the thing on (and if that's the issue, I can plug the SB digital out into any DAC, or buy a Transporter). So for less than $300 I get everything the memory player can do, only much more convenient and versatile.

"The memory player is pure, 100% snake oil marketed to suckers." Pity. - clarkjohnsen 09:57:25 05/16/07 (6)

In Reply to: Re: LONG LIVE THE CD!!! posted by truthseekerprime on May 16, 2007 at 08:24:54:

It's the best CD reproduction I've ever heard. Guess I should be listening to you, not to the music.
clark

read their white paper then - truthseekerprime 11:43:06 05/16/07 (5)

In Reply to: "The memory player is pure, 100% snake oil marketed to suckers." Pity. posted by clarkjohnsen on May 16, 2007 at 09:57:25:

I really couldn't care less who or what you listen to. But this:
http://www.novaphysicsgroup.com/TheWhitePaper.html
is total nonsense. Obviously that doesn't mean the thing sounds bad, but it's certainly not encouraging.

Re: read their white paper then - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 12:42:18 05/16/07 (0)

In Reply to: read their white paper then posted by truthseekerprime on May 16, 2007 at 11:43:06:

".....is total nonsense".

Again, I haven't heard the player so can't argue as vehemently as those who have, but you do admit that nothing written in a white paper will directly affect the actual sound of the player.
I do take your point that if their are obvious 'mistakes' in he white paper it can raise the eyebrows and arouse suspicion in the competency of the product's designers, but if the product is able to stand on it's own merit I'd be inclined to think the designers knew exactly what they were doing.
Which aspects of the white paper would you say are nonsense in particular?

Best Regards,
Chris redmond.

"This... is total nonsense." It's all back to you, and what you think, again. Some "seeker"! nt - clarkjohnsen 12:09:34 05/16/07 (3)

In Reply to: read their white paper then posted by truthseekerprime on May 16, 2007 at 11:43:06:

z

huh? - truthseekerprime 12:20:12 05/16/07 (2)

In Reply to: "This... is total nonsense." It's all back to you, and what you think, again. Some "seeker"! nt posted by clarkjohnsen on May 16, 2007 at 12:09:34:

Did you actually look at the white paper? If you're interested, I can point out a few of the nonsensical things it said, but I don't think you are.

"...but I don't think you are." Always what *you* think. And wrong every time! nt - clarkjohnsen 12:30:44 05/16/07 (1)

In Reply to: huh? posted by truthseekerprime on May 16, 2007 at 12:20:12:

z

Umm... yeah, obviously my posts are about what *I* think. - truthseekerprime 12:42:34 05/16/07 (0)

In Reply to: "...but I don't think you are." Always what *you* think. And wrong every time! nt posted by clarkjohnsen on May 16, 2007 at 12:30:44:

This "discussion" reminds me of 3rd grade... what a waste of time.

Re: LONG LIVE THE CD!!! - audioengr 15:24:42 05/15/07 (0)

In Reply to: LONG LIVE THE CD!!! posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 15, 2007 at 12:04:54:

The claims of the Memory Player have been debated on various forums. I for one do not believe that it does any better job of ripping a CD than EAC and a good laptop DVD-ROM drive. I've ripped some of my own tracks and listened to them on the Memory player driving the direct amplifier system just designed for it. Maybe it wasn't set-up well in this particular case, but I was not impressed. The build quality is wonderful and they seem to have implemented the transmission-lines well. Also, I did not see any low-jitter clock driving the digital stream output. In fact when I asked about this, they said that the CPU clock inside was clocking the stream..... There are those that evidently have it set-up correctly and claim amazing sound.

Quite an obtuse statement... - Mr_bill2 12:59:59 05/15/07 (4)

In Reply to: LONG LIVE THE CD!!! posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 15, 2007 at 12:04:54:

for a reviewer!
Quite frankly, I've never read any of your articles and with comments like that I can't see why I would start.

Re: Quite an obtuse statement... - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 14:08:43 05/15/07 (3)

In Reply to: Quite an obtuse statement... posted by Mr_bill2 on May 15, 2007 at 12:59:59:

"Quite frankly, I've never read any of your articles and with comments like that I can't see why I would start."

Oh dear - I'm devastated, but also mildly curious as to exactly which comment you disagree with and why my being a 'reviewer' is of any relevance whatsoever?

Best Regards,
Chris redmond.

Actually, I didn't think you would care... - Mr_bill2 15:06:56 05/15/07 (2)

In Reply to: Re: Quite an obtuse statement... posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 15, 2007 at 14:08:43:

but since you asked...shows some concern(and promise);
"Now however, like SACD and DVD-A, these technologies are being coughed up like a great big hairy fur-ball to be flushed down the toilet with the contempt they deserve"
In a position as a "reviewer" you have the power of making impressions on others that read you, I'd think you would have a more balance approach to your commentary.

Re: Actually, I didn't think you would care... - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 16:17:29 05/15/07 (1)

In Reply to: Actually, I didn't think you would care... posted by Mr_bill2 on May 15, 2007 at 15:06:56:

"but since you asked...shows some concern(and promise);"
Sorry to disappoint but I had my tongue firmly in my cheek when I said I was devastated, so looks like I don't show any promise whatsoever. :0(

"In a position as a "reviewer" you have the power of making impressions on others that read you, I'd think you would have a more balance approach to your commentary."
You mean I should be more diplomatic and mentally edit my views before committing to paper?
The fact I'm a 'reviewer' gives me no power whatsoever and I'd advise everyone not to regard my or any other reviewers opinion as more informed than his own.
If you are familiar with a particular reviewer and his reviews mirror your own experiences with the equipment in question then of course it's possible to regard his opinion as being more valuable and in fact it can be invaluable if you can't listen to equipment which he's reviewed, but I certainly wouldn't put my experience or expertise above any non-reviewer who frequents this forum.
What I wrote was indeed a 'balanced' opinion based on my own experiences, but the 'flushed down the toilet' comment was also I'm afraid said with tongue in cheek, as hinted at (not exactly in a subtle way) by the smiley. :0)
Now stop taking yourself and 'reviewers' so seriously, pour yourself a glass of wine and maybe even find one of my reviews so that you can get it on your screen and steadfastly refuse to read it. :0)

Best Regards,
Chris redmond.

Oh..T&C, now I understand. - Mr_bill2 16:48:51 05/15/07 (0)

In Reply to: Re: Actually, I didn't think you would care... posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 15, 2007 at 16:17:29:

OK your forgiven! :0)
So did you by not posting in the proper forum...ZZZZZZZZZZ....nt - The Bastard With The Hammer 11:07:28 05/15/07 (3)

In Reply to: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by tinear on May 15, 2007 at 07:46:14:

ISAIDNT

nothing wrong with posting the sacd subject here - hifitommy 18:48:40 05/15/07 (2)

In Reply to: So did you by not posting in the proper forum...ZZZZZZZZZZ....nt posted by The Bastard With The Hammer on May 15, 2007 at 11:07:28:

it addresses a different audience than the hi rez board. different points of view can be had at each venue and are of value to me, even if i dont agree with all of them.

...regards...tr

Don't you find it ironic - Sordidman 11:16:50 05/16/07 (0)

In Reply to: nothing wrong with posting the sacd subject here posted by hifitommy on May 15, 2007 at 18:48:40:

that an unregistered poster, - who may possibly be another long time poster trying to disguise himself, - tries to speak with authority and experience that are both undisclosed? Then, - as an unregistered poster, - he criticizes someone else's post location?
Hopefully, soon, we'll have forced registration everywhere........

The problem of leisure, what to do for pleasure. Ideal love a new purchase, a market of the senses. Dream of the perfect life.

Agreed - Robertc88 06:23:03 05/16/07 (0)

In Reply to: nothing wrong with posting the sacd subject here posted by hifitommy on May 15, 2007 at 18:48:40:

And I'd like to see more discussion on the music forum since most SACDs are hybrids and I'd be interested in one's opinion about many SACD classical recordings that have been released in comparison to what is already out there on vinyl and CD for those specific classical works.
Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, - illini_skn 10:15:09 05/15/07 (0)

In Reply to: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by tinear on May 15, 2007 at 07:46:14:

If you should ever get the chance to hear 7 1/2 ips tape on a quality playback machine (like a Tandberg), you'd agree with me when I say that analog has a long way to go before even breaching the state of the art in sound reproduction. Compared to my VPI TNT Mk 3/JMW10/ATOC9/Vibraplane fed into Classe equipment, the equivalent tapes sound less muddy, more authorative and far more dynamic. I am not willing to make any statements on digital until I hear something like a good quality SACD on the Meitner or Red Book with the Jadis converter. The mass market machines have significant limitations.
I pray for redbook-quality downloads, hopefully well-recorded - Jon L 09:42:28 05/15/07 (1)

In Reply to: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by tinear on May 15, 2007 at 07:46:14:

but I'm afraid mostly likely we will be stuck with compressed MP3/AAC downloads for a Loooonggg time to come. CD's? Will be gone eventually.

Why aim so low? Why not 24 Bit 96kHz downloads? They are coming by the way. - Teresa 00:32:01 05/20/07 (0)

In Reply to: I pray for redbook-quality downloads, hopefully well-recorded posted by Jon L on May 15, 2007 at 09:42:28

Dr. Aix has discussed the ones he will be offering on Digital Drive.

Why settle for poor Redbook quality much less compressed MP3/AAC downloads?

"Music is love"
Teresa
Multichannel - Robertc88 09:34:05 05/15/07 (2)

In Reply to: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by tinear on May 15, 2007 at 07:46:14:

Very rewarding experience for those who have the equipment to receive the benefit.
We'll see not only how this format will fair with that in the future but whatever comes along.
Will it ever gain mass acceptance?? How many folks watch DVD in 5.1? I daresay more than one thinks!

Re: Multichannel - rico 10:01:57 05/15/07 (0)

In Reply to: Multichannel posted by Robertc88 on May 15, 2007 at 09:34:05:

I agree and use the Dolby Pro Logic II codec to convert stereo material into a very musical experience. (Do not confuse with the original--and truly horrible--Pro Logic). My laserdisc, CD, and lp collections have been given new life.

Re: Multichannel ---yeah! - mikel 09:38:53 05/15/07 (0)

In Reply to: Multichannel posted by Robertc88 on May 15, 2007 at 09:34:05:

even as Redbook continues to improve, SACD's additional resolution and greater sense of naturalness and venue further separate it from redbook. for me it is getting to the point where my first inclination for simple listening pleasure is a classical SACD.
a recent large system performance boost really made these differences more profound. i added the Oyaide R1 Beryllium duplex AC outlets; these unexpectantly dropped the noisefloor and increased overall system dynamics. it was as if the SACD's became 'supercharged'.....they came alive.
this event has prompted me to add multi-channel hirez to my 2-channel room. when i built the room i installed additional dedicated outlets and conduit in the floor for long cable runs for rear, center and subwoofer channels. i have purchased an EMM Labs Switchman III and have had the 'Phantom Center' option installed. i'm having some long cable runs made. i've bought rear speakers and rear amps. i'm seriously considering a subwoofer for the LFE channel.
within a week or two it should be up and running. it's all based on my perception of how awesome SACD now sounds.
if you can't hear what SACD can do don't blame it on the format.
mikel
CD bombed very, very badly. So, - Norm 09:10:11 05/15/07 (0)

In Reply to: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by tinear on May 15, 2007 at 07:46:14:

only now are we learning to gets its best. Clearly sound reproduction has a long way to go. Perhaps we will learn to do SACD at it best, before non-rotating media takes over all music storage.
Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, - Don T 09:09:06 05/15/07 (1)

In Reply to: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by tinear on May 15, 2007 at 07:46:14:

I, for one, am quite pleased with redbook and would only consider another massive replacement investment were it truly to raise the bar. Frankly, considering that sota seventies equipment playing good vinyl wasn't surpassed by digital... I think perhaps we've reached the limits sound reproduction.
LOL! Sound reproduction? I don't think so. Stereo reproduction sure like 40 years ago. Fairly recently I've begun to see great humour in the tube v. ss and lp v. CD debates. I've come to view such serious and heated exchanges as typical examples of self annointed psuedo-scientists self promoting themselves (and mostly to themselves or some sorry saplings) as audiophile gurus. Realize that what's important are not the topics or positions but the fact that either side takes the other or themselves seriously. One bubbleheaded pigeon holing generalizer lending credibility to another. Kind of like chosing sides for a playground confrontation but nowhere near as much fun.
Stereo is still fun and digital has opened up higher quality for the common consumer as well as new avenues of involvement. Me I'm thinking it's still the same old stereo and things aren't really going to get better until stereo becomes just one of many different playback choices available from a single release. How about getting raw microphone feeds on a disc or chosing from a mono mix, a stereo mix, a single (or more) multi-channel mix. The raw feeds can also be reproduced using various acoustic mapping techniques or the end user can customize his own mix. This kind of format holds infinite possibility.
Sure there's always room for measureable improvements when it comes to stereo reproduction. But from my POV such gains yeild vary little for the common user. Matter of fact I believe the stereo format and how it's been implemented over the years rarely requires the technology currently available a reasonable price points. I'm quite sure most audio purchase not made as statements of consipicuous consumption or based on figuring it out kind of yanker detective work are actually based on favoring one subjective character over another.

There will not ever be a significant raising of the bar until we move beyond stereo.
Give me rhythm or give me death!

Yep - Sordidman 10:13:25 05/15/07 (0)

In Reply to: Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by Don T on May 15, 2007 at 09:09:06:

""Sure there's always room for measureable improvements when it comes to stereo reproduction. But from my POV such gains yeild vary little for the common user. Matter of fact I believe the stereo format and how it's been implemented over the years rarely requires the technology currently available a reasonable price points. I'm quite sure most audio purchase not made as statements of consipicuous consumption or based on figuring it out kind of yanker detective work are actually based on favoring one subjective character over another.""
Very well said. I do think though that more people would be interested in spending more time listening to music if they experienced music reproduction at a higher level. Simply put, I have friends who upgraded their music systems or bought a music only system, - entry level high end, - based on hanging out at my house and listening to my system.

The problem of leisure, what to do for pleasure. Ideal love a new purchase, a market of the senses. Dream of the perfect life.
I dunno, man... - Presto 09:02:13 05/15/07 (35)

In Reply to: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by tinear on May 15, 2007 at 07:46:14:

Tinear:
I was listening to some Chopin from AIX records at 24/96 last night. I am going to buy more from AIX records. Why? They are not about "formats" - they are about recording quality . I've never heard piano with such attack, but what is perhaps more compelling is the complexities of all of the string harmonics as they decay .
I honestly think we have the learnings now to make very very good recordings - on ANY format. But if these learnings are not used, then how would a format make any difference? Poor recording techniques are going to have the same end result, and format will not improve this.
I think the disappointment in hi-res is not because the formats themselves have "failed" (if 24/96 and 24/192 'work' as per their white papers how COULD they be worse than CD??), but because trends in recording have gotten worse instead of better from an audiophile perspective.
I have shelved or given away a considerable amount of DVD-A material simply because it sucked and was not worth the 8 extra bits!
Anyways, I think good recordings from the 70's on vinyl, good modern vinyl recordings, good CD recordings, and good hi-res recordings all have one thing in common: they're superior to a bad recording on ANY format!
Maybe we should be looking at other reasons why some recordings are better than others even on the *same* format.
Am I suggesting that audiophiles should only collect GOOD RECORDINGS?
YES!!
Wine officionados don't collect shitty wine for the sake of variety. Food critics don't eat shitty food for the sake of variety. Why should variety trump QUALITY when it comes to audio?
I also think some people who "love music" and are willing to accept ANY performance with ANY recording quality, and are too quick to criticize those who also "love music" but have some standards.
I say arm yourself with enough machines to play ANY format and just collect music you like that is recorded well.
Cheers,
Presto

Re: I dunno, man... - audioengr 15:39:47 05/15/07 (3)

In Reply to: I dunno, man... posted by Presto on May 15, 2007 at 09:02:13:

Presto - I believe for those of us that have ultra-resolving systems, that we are prone to do exactly this, collect and playlist only great recordings. Everything else (lower quality recordings) is just listening to a boombox. Uninvolving, uninspiring.
I have Deja-Vu, one of the favorites of my youth from CS&N and I love the music, but the record quality really sucks. I cannot stand to listen to it. I had this on vinyl at one time, but my system also sucked at that time. Now it just gathers dust on the CD shelf. I ripped one or two tracks, but they still suck... Pat Metheny - same thing. I ripped more tracks from these and at least one live concert is not bad, so about 2-3 times a year I listen to it. Mosly not, it is just a dissappointment.
These recording engineers could do so much better IMO. The level playing field that Pro-Tools and other S/W has created has raised the overall quality of recordings a bit, because former "garage-studios" can produce much higher quality output now, but the really good studios with lots of experienced recording engineers are going under, and those are are still with us are using the same tools/hardware as the garage guys...

Which Metheny album sounds so awful? - Dave Pogue 05:23:55 05/17/07 (2)

In Reply to: Re: I dunno, man... posted by audioengr on May 15, 2007 at 15:39:47:

My dozen or so sound pretty good, especially the ECMs.

Re: Which Metheny album sounds so awful? - I thought the DVD Audio of Imaginary Day sounded terrible. (nt) - Teresa 01:35:55 05/20/07 (1)

In Reply to: Which Metheny album sounds so awful? posted by Dave Pogue on May 17, 2007 at 05:23:55

"Music is love"
Teresa

Imaginary Day is an atypical Metheny album, IMHO - Dave Pogue 05:19:58 05/20/07 (0)

In Reply to: RE: Re: Which Metheny album sounds so awful? - I thought the DVD Audio of Imaginary Day sounded terrible. (nt) posted by Teresa on May 20, 2007 at 01:35:55

That said, the CD sounds pretty fabulous on my system, but I've definitely heard it sounding overly bright and digital on others.

Woohoo! - markrohr 09:28:40 05/15/07 (30)

In Reply to: I dunno, man... posted by Presto on May 15, 2007 at 09:02:13:

Burn those straw men down! Burn, baby, burn!
Assuming your post was not tongue-in-cheek . . .
Your analogy to wine and food lovers does not hold up. I don't know any music lover who buys records for "variety." I buy records for music.
In classical, several of my favorite performances happen to have iffy to execrable sound. So what? I'm not going to listen to a mediochre performance of a work I love just because it's in great sound--life's too short. My favorite Das Lied von der Erde has crummy sound. And I can't live without it.
In rock, you buy the music you love and take what sound quality you get. With old recordings sometimes you get lovely sound (Roy Orbison, Elvis). Sometimes you get crappy sound (Stones). With modern stuff it's hard to avoid the loudness race. Waddaya gonna do? Not listen to your favorite music?
With jazz at least you get pretty fair recordings most of the time, too few were interested in dicking with the sound. But if you like the early stuff you'll take your lumps there, too.
You listen to the performances/music you love; you takes what you gets with regards to sound quality. It has ever been thus. (Holt's Law: The quality of the recording is in inverse relationship to the quality of the performance.)
Meanwhile, with every upgrade to my system more records sound good than before. Who has time to listen to great recordings of lousy performances?

I never said that. - Presto 23:20:38 05/15/07 (17)

In Reply to: Woohoo! posted by markrohr on May 15, 2007 at 09:28:40:

Where did I say to listen to "well recorded music one does not like"?
I don't enjoy ANY music that is poorly recorded.
Would you drink the beer you LOVE if it was WARM?
Would you enjoy your favorite dish if it had WAY too much salt?
Would you enjoy a drive in your favorite car with a flat tire?
Would you enjoy sex with your partner if you had the flu?
Sorry guys. Audiophiles may love music, but when you're listening to recordings, you're "loving" music REPRODUCTION. And music reproduction requires good recordings.
This is not MUSICasylum. It's AUDIOasylum.
I value bands and artists that VALUE music enough not only to play it well, but RECORD it well too. In a live performance, what you hear is the musicians final product. But with music reproduction, the RECORDING is the final product. You can't separate performance quality and recording quality once they are forever "interwoven". Sure, you can try and appreciate the good aspects of the music - but C'MON - you're saying it would not be MORE enjoyable if it were recorded properly?
I don't believe you! ;)
Cheers,
Presto

You hit the nail on the head! Would you drink the beer you LOVE if it was WARM? - Teresa 00:53:35 05/20/07 (0)

In Reply to: I never said that. posted by Presto on May 15, 2007 at 23:20:38

With millions of recordings available and multiple versions of the same recordings in tons of different formats.

If you buy a recording that totally sucks in one format but you love the music enough, there just may be an acceptable version in the same or another format.

No excuses for drinking cold beer, not with the dozens of formats we have at our disposal.

"Music is love"
Teresa

this seems completely artificial to me... - tunenut 22:51:26 05/16/07 (3)

In Reply to: I never said that. posted by Presto on May 15, 2007 at 23:20:38:

Let's get concrete here. I love a CD called Time the Revelator by Gillian Welch. It is not out on LP nor on SACD nor on audiophile CD. It is a standard sounding CD. I find it remarkable and hypnotic and totally involving. Of course, I'd rather have it in better sound. But I don't get that choice.
And that's the way it goes all the way down the line.
I bought the Mobile Fidelity audiophile CD releases of the first two Velvet Underground albums. So I tried to get better fidelity...but that's really a lost cause, those albums defined lo-fi. But they are essential. And I listened to the great Django Reinhardt the other night, recorded in the 1930s. Again, lo-fi, and again essential.
And all these pieces of music matter to me far more than anything that was ever released on Reference Recordings, no matter how realistic it sounded.

maybe you don't like the artists on Reference Recordings? Or the music? - Teresa 00:45:06 05/20/07 (0)

In Reply to: this seems completely artificial to me... posted by tunenut on May 16, 2007 at 22:51:26

My advice is never buy anything you do not like. And if you, do buy it sell it no matter how great it sounds.

And by the same token never listen to crummy sounding recordings because some review said it was a great performance. With many classical works as well as jazz standards having 100's or more versions there is no reason to suffer bad sound. Since the beginning of the Stereo era there has been more than five million recordings made, so it is impossible to hear them all, even once!

"Music is love"
Teresa

Artificial? I think not. - Presto 10:56:19 05/17/07 (1)

In Reply to: this seems completely artificial to me... posted by tunenut on May 16, 2007 at 22:51:26:

People love music. People love music so much they'll buy their favorite music even if it's recorded by a pack of drunken monkeys. When you buy a CD you are supporting the musicians which is a good thing. But you are also supporting the recording crew - and when the recording is terrible, you've just voted for something terrible with your wallet.
I think this is why despite the availability of really great recording technology we continue to get so many "less than great" recordings. This "I love music, so recording quality is secondary to me and I can't control it anyways." just seems to be a blatent contradiction in terms. It seems the issue here is whether or not there is something we CAN do about it.
I've never returned an album on the grounds the recording sucked.
Maybe I am part of the problem too! Maybe it's time to start...
I guess until then we can continue to blame perfectly good *formats* for the crappy sounding recordings we're getting.
Cheers,
Presto

that's very idealistic - tunenut 11:19:00 05/17/07 (0)

In Reply to: Artificial? I think not. posted by Presto on May 17, 2007 at 10:56:19:

to the point of unrealistic.
While you are boycotting recordings to force better quality, the masses will be buying mp3s from amazon and apple. Audiophiles cannot even agree on the merits of any recording between themselves.
If you want to limit your listening to a certain level of perceived recording quality, that's your choice. But nothing you or the tiny audiophile market does is going to influence the recording industry.
And people who love various types of music will continue to listen to it in whatever forms it happens to become available. Nothing is going to change.

"This is not MUSICasylum. It's AUDIOasylum." ---Sez it all. - markrohr 10:18:28 05/16/07 (11)

In Reply to: I never said that. posted by Presto on May 15, 2007 at 23:20:38:

Where did I say to listen to "well recorded music one does not like"?
I never said you said that. Reading comprehension?
My point was obvious even though it passed right over your head in your rush to read what you thought I wrote instead of what I wrote.
I love some classical performances and some pop recordings that were not well-recorded. There is no substitute for them. One cannot find a great recording of Walter and Ferrier in Das Lied because it doesn't exist. I should listen to some snooze fest with Maazel because it sounds good?
Never in a million years.

Well, you did say... - Presto 11:29:59 05/16/07 (10)

In Reply to: "This is not MUSICasylum. It's AUDIOasylum." ---Sez it all. posted by markrohr on May 16, 2007 at 10:18:28:

"Who has time to listen to great recordings of lousy performances?"
And others in this thread said similar things: that great recordings of bad performances OR performances that they do not even prefer are of little value to them.
This I don't contest. I also don't contest that there are just some recordings in our collections that are simply "must-haves", but are regrettably poorly recorded. The whole point of my original post was that these "lemons" seem to be offered as some sort of "proof" that formats (and digital audio technology) has not evolved.
I also believe that:
a)music that is worth PLAYING well is worth RECORDING well
b)with recorded music, the RECORDING is the final product
Love for music and obsession about hi-end stereophonics are not one in the same. You can have one, the other, or both. Some audiophiles are in it JUST for the music. Others use music to listen to equipment. I am right in the middle. I want GOOD music (that I like) recorded WELL and played back on the BEST system I can put together.
I also think that those who have a system for classical/jazz and another for "rocking the house" are on the right track. I have always believed that trying to have "one stereo do it all" is, in itself a compromise.
I have rock recordings from the 80's that simply rock the soul on my custom built EV/JBL studio monitors with some good pro sound power behindl them. But these same recordings sound flat and two dimensional on my high-rez system - a system that does powerful classical passages with moving and spine-chilling realism.
In the end, I believe it's the recording quality and the system I choose to play specific music on that has the most bearing - not the format itself.
I used to be a beer drinker. But I would take a cold diet coke over my FAVORITE beer it was warm. The temperature of the beer being synonymous with the quality of the recording is a good example of the point I am trying to make.
I loved the beer but it had to be cold.
I love music, but I prefer it when it's recorded well.
I don't understand why this concept is so contrarian and heretic to music lovers.
Oh, and my reading comprehension level is just fine thank you.
Cheers,
Presto

Please, for goodness' sake, stop with the analogies already. - markrohr 13:46:59 05/16/07 (9)

In Reply to: Well, you did say... posted by Presto on May 16, 2007 at 11:29:59:

They ain't makin' it.
Okay, listen up. You have beer in two states: warm and cold. In either state it's the same beer.
Now, you have a performance of Das Lied to die for. The sound sucks. There's another performance that sucks but sounds great. It's not the same performance. It's entirely different. One cannot be substituted for the other. They are not interchangable. To stretch your impossible analogy, it doesn't taste the same. Warm or cold!
The second one is unlistenable, in glorious sound. If you enjoy that--and if you enjoy not listening to great pop music that was poorly recorded, have fun! Go nuts! Invite your friends! Have a happy life!
I will listen to music I enjoy, the records I enjoy, the performances I enjoy, and if they happen to have good sound I'll enjoy them even more. But I won't drink horse piss because it's cold!
GEDDIT? Jeez Luiz!

Well I don't drink beer anymore but... - Presto 17:11:45 05/16/07 (8)

In Reply to: Please, for goodness' sake, stop with the analogies already. posted by markrohr on May 16, 2007 at 13:46:59:

But I don't enjoy listening to beautiful music that was butchered by incompetent recording and mixing. And I think the REASON for not liking it is BECAUSE of my love for music, not merely for a love of "good recordings regardless of performance quality".
To me, performance and recording are part of one product. I can sit and IMAGINE how good the live performance "would" or "could" of sounded had the recording not been butchered. But I think an inept recording crew is about as good for a performance as a drunken conductor.
I ask myself: who is really revering music more? The person who listens to beautiful music despite it's poor recording quality? Or the person who refuses to let inept recording engineers profit at the EXPENSE of musicians and audiophiles both?
I don't like supporting recording companies that can't do the only thing they're supposed to KNOW how to do - which is RECORD MUSIC WELL.
If you don't care about recording quality and only care about the music, then why worry about what your system, speakers and room are doing either? If you can listen to crappy recordings and enjoy music, maybe it would stand to reason that you can use cheap sources and speakers too and save a bunch of money in the process. This is, of course, what is implied if a "love for music" is all you need.
In my opinion, love is wonderful - but often it isn't enough.
I want great performances that are masterfully recorded. And there's so much of THAT out there, I don't fret about the odd performance that is butchered beyond use. I really don't think asking for both is as limiting as you are making it out to be.
Cheers,
Presto

"I really don't think asking for both is as limiting..." I agree with you 100% also - Teresa 01:04:57 05/20/07 (0)

In Reply to: Well I don't drink beer anymore but... posted by Presto on May 16, 2007 at 17:11:45

for me poor sound quality actually diminishes the music and keeps me from enjoy the music as does "hi-fi'ish" sound as both are distractions. The most enjoyable music from a deep emotional and sonic standpoint are those that are so naturally recording that my stereo melts away and all I hear is the music. This is why audiophile recordings are so great, and with over 10,000 audiophile recordings one only has to buy what one likes.

To suggest anyone buys an audiophile recordings for the sonics only is lubricous. It is all about the music and better it is recorded the more it can be enjoyed as "pure music".

Audiophile recordings sound better the same way that and well designed concert hall made on premium wood with velvet covered seats makes music more enjoyable than a stadium made on concrete with plastic chairs.

"Music is love"
Teresa

So you won't listen to a great performance of a classical work, or a killer pop record, unless it sounds good. - markrohr 11:18:22 05/17/07 (6)

In Reply to: Well I don't drink beer anymore but... posted by Presto on May 16, 2007 at 17:11:45:

Best definition of "audiophile" I've ever heard!
That Das Lied I was talking about was not recorded "ineptly." It was made in the 40s, an air-check as it happens, probably direct to 78RPM acetate. And it's in mono! The horror!
It happens to be the best the engineers could do at the time. I've played for drunken conductors. There's a difference.
"I ask myself: who is really revering music more? The person who listens to beautiful music despite it's poor recording quality? Or the person who refuses to let inept recording engineers profit at the EXPENSE of musicians and audiophiles both?"
I don't care who's "revering music more." I just want to hear the best (classical) performance, the one that moves me, not some snooze fest foisted on us by these blow-dried conductors. And once again, it's usually not "inept;" it's usually just, ah, historical recording procedures. Or merely a late-70s DG multimike travesty.
And if you think that "profit" of recording engineers is particularly high, I've got news for you!
"I don't like supporting recording companies that can't do the only thing they're supposed to KNOW how to do - which is RECORD MUSIC WELL."
I don't either. But if the performance I love comes with less than stellar sound, tough titty. I've wasted hours of my life listening to interpretations that don't move me, and some that are actually an insult to music--all in spectacular sound. No more.
"If you don't care about recording quality and only care about the music,"
Never, ever said that. Why do you respond to what I haven't written?
"then why worry about what your system, speakers and room are doing either?"
For those happy times when a great performance is coupled with a great recording. Obviously. Plus, the nicer your system the better the "crappy" ones sound, too. I've spent untold time and money and DIY effort over the last 45 years as an audiophile getting my system better, including a couple of years developing and building my own speakers, to that end.
Or don't I count as an audiophile?
"I really don't think asking for both is as limiting as you are making it out to be."
Well, of course you mean "as limiting as my interpretation of what you're saying" would make it out to be. After all these years I don't feel limited by a treasured performance having less than terrific sound. Holt's law, again. That's life. But I won't give up listening to that Das Lied, because it is an incomparable, transcendant performance. And I won't give up listening to great rock records that don't sound so good, either.
If you are in fact willing to forgo a terrific rock record or a transcendant classical performance because it doesn't sound great, well, have fun with your music and enjoy life. To each his own.
Why won't you let me do the same? Or do I have to give up calling myself an audiophile? Then is it okay?

with all the 100's of recordings this old MONO "Das Lied" is the ONLY one that has ever moved you. - Teresa 01:09:36 05/20/07 (0)

In Reply to: So you won't listen to a great performance of a classical work, or a killer pop record, unless it sounds good. posted by markrohr on May 17, 2007 at 11:18:22

I really believe if you were willing to listen to other interpretations you could find one with a happy balance, excellent performance and excellent sound. It is not hard to do; you just have to be willing to try!

"Music is love"
Teresa

That depends on how you feel about being called an audiophile I suppose!! :o) - Presto 16:55:14 05/17/07 (4)

In Reply to: So you won't listen to a great performance of a classical work, or a killer pop record, unless it sounds good. posted by markrohr on May 17, 2007 at 11:18:22:

Markror:
What's wrong with mono? lol. I'd rather have mono that some crazy surround mix with some "middle of the band" experience. (I tried to get middle of the band experiences in high school but was removed from the stage by security each and every time...)
"I you are in fact willing to forgo a terrific rock record or a transcendant classical performance because it doesn't sound great".
Well, probably not. But sometimes I use less revealing mid-fi (HT), auto or a second system to play these recordings so I **CAN** enjoy the music. Highly revealing systems are wonderful when reavealing the subtleties of well recorded material. But this is a double edged sword - I find hi-res systems can make lesser / older recordings MORE annoying than a mid-fi rig!!
I do find that I have more "reverance" (and tolerance for lesser recordings) for bands and groups that I liked before I became an audiophile, but when trying out new material, I find that recording quality has become a criterion. I guess I don't want to fall in love with music that is recorded poorly ALL THE TIME. It's so much more gratifying (and easy) to fall in love with music that is NORMALLY recorded very well. And you KNOW you can choose who (and what) you fall in love with! ;)
Some examples of great artists that regularily produce WONDERFUL recordings that got me into 'audiophilia' in the first place:
Jennifer Warnes, Holly Cole, Jesse Cook, Allison Kraus, Eva Cassidy, Roy Orbison, Mark Knopfler, Chris Isaak... to name a few. Then you get some oddballs like Sarah McLachlin, who has somewhat "studio/pop" sounding recordings, but comes out with acoustic tracks like "Ice" from "Fumbling Towards Ecstacy" that are so good it makes your skin crawl up your back.
I'm not saying I would like a favorite artist LESS because of poor recordings, but I really have a weakness for GOOD music that's ALSO recorded well.
Who doesn't?? :P
Cheers,
Presto

If "improvements" to your system make iffy records sound worse . . . - markrohr 05:32:18 05/18/07 (3)

In Reply to: That depends on how you feel about being called an audiophile I suppose!! :o) posted by Presto on May 17, 2007 at 16:55:14:

. . . and you have to retreat to a boom box to enjoy them, you are heading in the wrong direction with your system.
Happens to a lot of us.

No, having more than one system is the ONLY direction - Presto 10:23:44 05/18/07 (2)

In Reply to: If "improvements" to your system make iffy records sound worse . . . posted by markrohr on May 18, 2007 at 05:32:18:

In my experience, the more I fine-tune a high-resolution (highly resolving system) the better well recorded music sounds. But often lesser recordings, especially over-compressed ones, actually sound worse.
I find it's hard if not impossible to improve resolving power and "forgiveness factor" at the same time- these are more likely just conflicting design goals.
The only way to make bad recordings sound less bad is to mask the things that make them bad, and this is the opposite of getting to higher levels of resolving power.
Again, I don't think it would be silly at all to have two systems: one that is more laid back and more forgiving, and another one that is hyper-detailed. I think the main reason why audiophiles are always trying to "massage" ONE system is that they are always playing different software. One minute they are happy, the next they are not. What changed? The software. So they get new hardware.
Although few recordings are SO bad they get filed in the "boom box / car stereo" pile, there are a lot of recordings I have (especially rock from the 80's and some heavier stuff) that definately "play" better though pro-sound monitors that indeed "like to rock". But these monitors are not nearly as flat, accurate or revealing as my high-end stuff.
I say 'have a resolving system for the good recordings and a forgiving system for the lesser recordings'. No boom box needed here! This way, one can be a music lover and an audiophile at the same time without spending all that money trying to refine ONE system to "do it all", which is a noble effort, but a stretch. I think three $10,000 systems that are specialized for the kind of music and recordings they will play will be more satisfying overall that one "hyper resolving" $30,000 system. In fact, I think too many times guys get INTO high-buck systems only to find how BAD 1/2 of their collection really is (recording wise). Do they admit this? Not after spending $20K they sure as heck don't!
All they needed to do was keep their older vintage gear in another room (or in a parallel setup in the same room) for the stuff that they LOVE to listen to but is not recorded well enough to SOUND GOOD through a high-buck system.
Then there are those who believe that EVERYTHING you play through a high-buck system should sound good REGARDLESS of recording quality and there's no telling THESE guys anything...
They're the ones pissed off about the poor "off road" performance of their new BWM. After all, for $100,000 it SHOULD go anywhere right?
Riiiiiiiiiight.
Cheers,
Presto

Re: No, having more than one system is the ONLY direction - markrohr 12:01:26 05/18/07 (1)

In Reply to: No, having more than one system is the ONLY direction posted by Presto on May 18, 2007 at 10:23:44:

"In my experience, the more I fine-tune a high-resolution (highly resolving system) the better well recorded music sounds. But often lesser recordings, especially over-compressed ones, actually sound worse."
That was once my experience, long ago. It tends also to be the experience of audiophiles whose quest for "detail" and "air" has led them to favor speakers that I find awfully bright, and on which instruments sound unnatural as a result. Most of these folks do not hear the sound of real instruments in a real space, as I do every day, and thus mistake "high resolution" for wicked fuckin' bright.
I have a couple of audio buds in this groove; I avoid listening to their systems at all cost. They, like quite a few audiophiles on this board, are headed in the wrong direction: the selection of music that sounds good on their systems decreases as their systems get "better."
Rather, I have found for myself (and for other audio buds) that detail, air, and resolution must be obtained without added brightness, and that it can be. When that happens, all of a sudden one's less-than-stellar recordings also obtain added detail, and are more pleasant to listen to.
For the compression born of the loudness race, however, there is no solution.

Re: No, having more than one system is the ONLY direction - Presto 13:38:28 05/18/07 (0)

In Reply to: Re: No, having more than one system is the ONLY direction posted by markrohr on May 18, 2007 at 12:01:26:

Ha ha ha. I don't laugh out of malice. We're more alike than you realize.
"and thus mistake "high resolution" for wicked fuckin' bright."
Yep. There is one sure fire way to get "more detail"...put a lift on the high end and make it friggin louder so it stands out from the rest of the bandwidth - and wreck tonal accuracy and balance in the process! And it's not 20K like people think. It's more like 10K where that 'shimmer and sparkle' can turn fast into "sizzle". OUCH! Yeah, I know this can happen. It does not happen with me too much though... since I am always measuring my system and comparing both direct and reflected sound levels. If you make your speakers "flat" measured from the listening position (as required for digital room correction) but they are 30 degrees off axis, you get great measurements and glass breaking sound. One has to be aware of the implications of putting speakers in a non-anechoic environment and how room reflections make "liars" out of measurment mics. But the detail I am referring to is not borne out of a high-end lift or exaggerated high end - it's borne of better transient response, driver time alignment, and even phase correction (transient perfect digital crossovers). When you switch back to conventional crossovers, you can hear the "smear" and obfuscation (and even loss) of the real real subtle stuff. We're getting into what they call "texture" and "palpability" zones now. Very subjective too...
"For the compression born of the loudness race, however, there is no solution. "
Agreed. I hate the loudness race as do most of us here. We have enough D.R. to accomodate everything except for a nuclear blast. And clipping (especially on DVD-A / SACD material) is unforgivable. It's already compressed to hell - why not cut back the level 1db and spare us the clipping?? But no - they add insult to injury. Compressed and clipped material. And this is supposed to be "good use" of D.R. and high resolution formats.
But again. It's not the format. It's what is done with it.
Hey, if you like rock and want a good "uncompressed" recording try Bad Company's "Ten from Six" (greatest hits). Neat soundstage, very natural sounding. They're kinda half-unplugged in some tracks maybe this has something to do with it. This album always stands out for me. They did something profoundly different here. I want to analyse the levels... maybe they're not using as much compression and just used lower overall levels. I dunno. Awesome tunes and a joy to listen to.
Sarah McLachlin's "Ice" from "Fumnbling towards Ecstacy" is another recording that has silly good guitar. For a pop-recording, they sure did this track justice.
Do you have any pop recording "exceptions" that are worth noting?
Cheers,
Presto

give me great music on a shitty recording any day! - hifitommy 18:45:30 05/15/07 (8)

In Reply to: Woohoo! posted by markrohr on May 15, 2007 at 09:28:40:

over shitty music on a PERFECT recording. you wont find me or any of my friends buying tiny tim direct to disc recordings (even if they existed).
i found a doc severinsen DTD and was nearly nauseated.
as for sacd, i LOVE the sacd sound of my cheeeeep sony ns500v, even on rbcd. its the MUSIC, people!

...regards...tr

I prefer a third option: Great music on great recordings and I get it too! - Teresa 01:14:09 05/20/07 (2)

In Reply to: give me great music on a shitty recording any day! posted by hifitommy on May 15, 2007 at 18:45:30

There is no reason to suffer poor sound or poor recordings!

"Music is love"
Teresa

thats wonderful when it happens - hifitommy 08:43:18 05/20/07 (1)

In Reply to: RE: I prefer a third option: Great music on great recordings and I get it too! posted by Teresa on May 20, 2007 at 01:14:09

case in point-zubin mehta/LAphil/holsts the planets and "the blues and the abstract truth" by oliver nelson. if i had to pick the proverbial desert island records, those would be included for sure.

that the planets is massively multimiked is astounding. i only recently found that out and am still reeling. most attempts at using that many mics on classical music are failures in the recording aspect.

...regards...tr

Also great sounding are the multi-mic'ed Decca/London Phase 4 recordings conducted by Berrnard Herrmann. - Teresa 17:30:21 05/20/07 (0)

In Reply to: RE: thats wonderful when it happens posted by hifitommy on May 20, 2007 at 08:43:18

Especially the ones of his own film music such as "The Fantasy Film World of Bernard Herrmann" and the "The Mysterious Film World of Bernard Herrmann"

But you are correct there are not too many good sounding multi-mic'ed recordings.

"Music is love"
Teresa

Re: give me great music on a shitty recording any day! - Dave Pogue 05:23:11 05/18/07 (1)

In Reply to: give me great music on a shitty recording any day! posted by hifitommy on May 15, 2007 at 18:45:30:

Just noticed your attaboy for the little Sony (NS500V). Amazing SACD player all right. Sounds even better if you cut off the skimpy power cord near the unit, install an IEC pigtail, and go crazy with the power cord of your choice. The usual disclaimer: don't try this if you don't know what you're doing, etc.

iec - hifitommy 11:44:31 05/20/07 (0)

In Reply to: Re: give me great music on a shitty recording any day! posted by Dave Pogue on May 18, 2007 at 05:23:11

i suppose if i was going that far, i would have the thing modded by one of the usual suspects. i have toyed with that option and also the oppo (they can be modded too) so i can have hdcd and dvda too.

there are quite a few hdcd discs that dont make mention on the cover or they do in small print hidden in the credits somewhere.

...regards...tr

Emailed you last week - need your address fine sir to send CDs. [nt] - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 10:08:57 05/16/07 (1)

In Reply to: give me great music on a shitty recording any day! posted by hifitommy on May 15, 2007 at 18:45:30:

nt
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.

ooopsy - hifitommy 20:06:49 05/16/07 (0)

In Reply to: Emailed you last week - need your address fine sir to send CDs. [nt] posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 16, 2007 at 10:08:57:

check yer email now chris.
;^)

...regards...tr

Absotutely! nt - clarkjohnsen 10:00:02 05/16/07 (0)

In Reply to: give me great music on a shitty recording any day! posted by hifitommy on May 15, 2007 at 18:45:30:

s

"Who has time to listen to great recordings of lousy performances?" - musetap 11:22:46 05/15/07 (2)

In Reply to: Woohoo! posted by markrohr on May 15, 2007 at 09:28:40:

Most likely only those who are obsessed with how "good" their system sounds (and can sound) with the "right" recording. They seem willing to tolerate phoned-in (text- messaged-in these days?) performances because of the "audiophile" qualities recorded for, and marketed to and for...audiophiles. Not that there aren't MANY great performances of audiophile quality material available.
It seems a major distinction of our description under the blue "A" is "Music Lover/Audiophile". That slash says much more about these boards than "Music Lover & Audiophile" would.
Fortunately, many around hear are both, and the majority fit the description in the order listed.

"I always play jazz records backwards, they sound better that way"
-Thomas Edison

Quite correct, my great recordings of lousy performances go on eBay. (nt) - Teresa 01:17:04 05/20/07 (0)

In Reply to: "Who has time to listen to great recordings of lousy performances?" posted by musetap on May 15, 2007 at 11:22:46

"Music is love"
Teresa

Well said. (nt) - Presto 11:01:21 05/17/07 (0)

In Reply to: "Who has time to listen to great recordings of lousy performances?" posted by musetap on May 15, 2007 at 11:22:46:

nt
Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, - some young guy 08:33:49 05/15/07 (10)

In Reply to: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by tinear on May 15, 2007 at 07:46:14:

you're kidding... right?

Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, - Ozzy 08:37:39 05/15/07 (9)

In Reply to: Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by some young guy on May 15, 2007 at 08:33:49:

What do you think he's kidding about?
Oz

Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, - jharris 09:00:06 05/15/07 (8)

In Reply to: Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by Ozzy on May 15, 2007 at 08:37:39:

Reaching the limits of sound reproduction thats what.

Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, - Ozzy 09:18:22 05/15/07 (7)

In Reply to: Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by jharris on May 15, 2007 at 09:00:06:

Well the part about seedee NOT surpassing vinyl is VERY true.
Oz

Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, - jharris 15:20:11 05/15/07 (4)

In Reply to: Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by Ozzy on May 15, 2007 at 09:18:22:

Why?

Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, - Ozzy 01:54:30 05/16/07 (3)

In Reply to: Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by jharris on May 15, 2007 at 15:20:11:

Why, because most of the time vinyl will beat seedee. Not ALL of the time, well, you get the drift.....

Oz

I think you - jharris 03:57:44 05/16/07 (2)

In Reply to: Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by Ozzy on May 16, 2007 at 01:54:30:

misunderstood. Why do you think that cd will never surpass vinyl?

Re: I think you - Ozzy 07:21:56 05/16/07 (1)

In Reply to: I think you posted by jharris on May 16, 2007 at 03:57:44:

Do YOU think it will?

Oz

Re: I think you - jharris 09:22:06 05/16/07 (0)

In Reply to: Re: I think you posted by Ozzy on May 16, 2007 at 07:21:56:

"Well the part about seedee NOT surpassing vinyl is VERY true." I'm just trying to get you to expand on this absolute claim thats all. Not trying to attack.

Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, - some young guy 13:58:13 05/15/07 (0)

In Reply to: Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by Ozzy on May 15, 2007 at 09:18:22:

"Well the part about seedee NOT surpassing vinyl is VERY true."
that may be your opinion, based on your experience. i have a far different opinion, based on my own experience. i've heard the apl nwo 2.5 and it absolutely betters any vinyl rig i've heard. to say that sacd has "bombed very very badly" is rediculous imho. they're still being produced and sold. it might be more accurate to say that sacd isn't as popular as it could be. most folks i know outside of the audiophile comunity don't even know what an sacd is, let alone dvda.

IMO, - Esoteric's transport and "better" redbook - Sordidman 10:09:23 05/15/07 (0)

In Reply to: Re: SACD bombed very, very badly. So, posted by Ozzy on May 15, 2007 at 09:18:22:

implementations showed us that Redbook reproduction and SACD and DVD-A discs, and what plays them back, can still be improved. SACD, DVD-A, and Redbook recordings vary in quality. I have some great recordings in Redbook, - (like Monty Montgomery, Lila Downs and Kevin Johannsen), - that surpass many "average" SACDs and DVD-As. I also have some DVD-As that have been remastered and are a great improvement over the previous recordings of that material. It is pretty rare that I don't find a DVD-A or SACD and some Redbook that are better than their vinyl counterparts; or at least a sub $20K vinyl rig. IMO, - one just can't buy a sub $20K vinyl rig that will compete of your favorite flavor of the top of the line Universal players...
One cannot "blame" SACD and DVD-A failure on a vinyl vs 5" disc quality issue. Rather, it's those 5 or 6 big issues about the value of the music and the lack of interest in acquiring a quality music listening experience..

The problem of leisure, what to do for pleasure. Ideal love a new purchase, a market of the senses. Dream of the perfect life.

Post a Followup:

Moniker (Username):

Password (Optional): Forgot Password?

Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me

E-Mail:

Subject:

Message: (Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:

Optional Link Title:

Optional Image URL:

E-mail Replies: Automagically notify you when someone responds.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display Email Next ] [ General Asylum ] [ Comment ] [ Delete ] [ Copyright Warning! Click for Details ]