|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.112.95.63
In Reply to: RE: No contradiction, but I may have confused you posted by Axon on September 13, 2007 at 21:50:45
Howdy
How about the Redbook discs that were mastered in DSD? Ignoring the Redbook discs that are mastered in DSD and not released as SACDs by this logic all CD layers of SACDs should sound as good as the DSD layers...
-Ted
Follow Ups:
As JA already showed that the CD layer on an SACD has been mastered completely differently on at least one occasion (DSOTM). Look it up.
There is no guarantee that the mastering on the CD layer of an SACD is any good. Actually, there is no guarantee that the DSD layer is any good either, but apparently, it usually is.
I'm not saying it's ALWAYS going to be like this - there are going to be SACDs out there with poor mastering that matches the CD layer, just like there are CDs out there with great mastering that matches the DSD release.
The reality of this is completely socially defined and subjective. If all labels decide tomorrow that they're going to stop spending money on high res remasters and get all the "benefits" of high res with existing CD masters, the advantage of SACD/DVD-A disappears entirely. But for now, the advantages are there.
Howdy
I never claimed ALL hybrids had their CD layers derived from their DSD stereo layer, but most hybrid SACDs have their CD layer derived from the DSD stereo layer with Sony's Super Bit Mapping.
Go look on Hi-Res where some of the masterers laugh at the idea that they don't take at least as much care on the CD layer as the DSD side: after all many people who get the hybrid SACDs (most for single inventory releases) just play the CD layers and the masterers sure don't want to release inferior material for every one to judge their work (of course the man paying the bills is still boss): e.g. http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/63631.html and http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/164821.html or http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/155060.html and http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/153403.html and http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/129128.html
For that matter go compare some XRCD, XRCD2, XRCD24, or K2HD CDs, etc. to hi-res. They are among the best mastered CDs around (the mastering process for them is designed to preserve the most possible precision and to use the least jitter prone production), but they are still at the disadvantage of the Redbook format: too few bits and too small of a freq response compared to hires.
All I'm saying is that there is no evidence to support the tenuous hypothesis that the only advantage hi-res has over Redbook is the mastering process. Anyone who thinks that the given argument makes sense clearly has little experience with SACDs, DVD-As or the mastering process.
-Ted
Baloney. Assuming we can be 100% sure mastering engineers have followed Scarlet Book recommendation -- which is to make the CD layer a straight transcode from the DSD version -- and that's a huge assumption -- you still have two issues: 1) whether your playback chain does anything significantly 'different' to the two formats after D/A and 2) sighted bias.XRCD etc is a non-argument; they are almost certainly different masterings, with different levels and EQ and whatnot; XRCD vs K2HD probably won't sound the same, and that will be evidenced in a comparison of their waveform stats too. The interesting philosophical point you unwittingly bring up is, 'should all 'best' masterings sound alike'?
As for 'tenuous hypotheses', all *you* are making are the same technically dubious assertions that "SACDs sound better because CDs don't have enough [bits, samples]". The fact is you *haven't* ruled out the other factors in your comparisons --- different mastering, different playback, sighted bias. And I've noticed some mastering 'engineers' don't bother to, either.
Howdy
No you are making assumptions about my experience and tests. But I know better than to try to convince people that have already made up their minds.
I was just pointing out that the original claim that mastering is the big difference it a huge over generalization from very little presented info and it flies in the face of my and everyone I knows direct experience as well as the facts.
-Ted
Have you go the least inkling as to why 'direct experience' is no guarantee of correct diagnosis of cause and effect?
Howdy
I brought up some of the reasons that their conclusion (that mastering differences explain the perceived benefits of hi-res) was unwarranted or at least unsupported. You haven't really addressed them, instead you attack my (undisclosed) experience and avoid the real issues.
Bye.
-Ted
d
HowdyI basically agree with posts from yourself, other inmates and especially bjh in http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/3/37228.html
Also I think my posts in this subthread indicate that my belief is that they are more or less clueless if they think that mastering is the biggest difference in quality of hi-res. It shows an unbelievable degree of unsophistication for people that aspire to doing real research.
-Ted
The mindset behind such work is NSD, "no sonic difference". If "hi-rez" is no better than "reg-rez", the next step certainly must be to prove that "reg-rez" is no better than MP3.
NSD, QED!
clark
Or are just being crudely political and feeling like it's time to summon up the reactionary troops? I though you did have a rational Western-style education building on the enlightenment tradition, but maybe I read too much into your CV.TL
HowdyYes I read the paper and in fact I don't think it was materially misunderstood here (ignoring the expected knee-jerk responses of the fundamentalists on both ends of the spectrum.)
-Ted
Are you an AES member?
clark
Howdy
I'm a member of the ACM, IEEE, MAA and AES. Tho I have no idea where anyone would find my CV :)
-Ted
and I guess I should listen to it more. I've got the player. But in my opinion, the large quality gains experienced with hires release just cannot be explained by resolution differences that happen to magically disappear in ever blind test conducted so far. It just doesn't make any sense.
I have plenty of experience listening to SACDs, DVDA and CDs, Axon.
Rest assured that for the home listener, separating the intrinsic 'sound' of the formats, from other possible factors, is well-nigh impossible without the sorts of efforts Meyer et al took.
And I have certainly heard 'hi rez' releases that are dynamically compressed and processed like their CD counterparts. I;'ve also 'seen' them , too, as waveforms.
Howdy
Come visit sometime :)
It's obviously equipment specific, but I've listened to arguably the best Redbook reproduction on the planet get stomped by much less expensive SACD players over and over. I have thousands of SACDs (and thousands more CDs) and have been playing and listening to them for years. When people claim things that are obviously foreign to my, my friend's, my mastering friend's, people whom trust on Hi-Rez's, etc. experience I suspect that they don't have nearly as much experience or at least haven't listened with better than average players...
-Ted
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: