I have seen like 60 CD's in shops, clearly people go for Music DVD's, there are not enough crazy folks out there who believe you can hear the difference.
Just look at the equipment people have, how should something like that get through? Mp3-Players are booming...
[Link]
DenverDon Benevolent
Firmly Embedded in Depravity 5914 Posts 7/02
Posted - Jan 31 2006 : 8:09PM
Ok, thanks coolman. Learn something new every day.
I looked into SACD when it first came out; however, in spite of its supposed advantages, it still had the same HF roughness that, to me, is the bane of all digital music formats (although as I get older, this is less a problem).
Generally speaking, I don't think subwoofers or 5.1 should have anything to do with music. But too many interesting SACD's came out lately and an alternative firmware made my divx player a sacd player by magic so I went out and bought one of the Talking Heads reprints. Judging by play.com, sacd's still come out. I'd love to have a listen at Ziggy Stardust and Gaucho. Flaming lips even made an exclusive sacd release.
A DVD/SACD player with an iLink audio-connection is able to send the SACD signals digitally to the AV-Receiver.
But I’ve got a stereo sound system only (with a Marantz SA8400 CD/SACD). You don’t need any rear-speakers, when the sound engineer has done a good job! ; ) Chesky recordings show a great soundstage in stereo for example. Although I’ve listened to some fine 5.1 SACDs (a friend of mine got this surround stuff), there is a strange feeling while listening, cause have you ever been surrounded by a band or an orchestra in real life (except you’re one of the musicians or a conductor)?
In the shops the dealers don’t care bout SACDs at all. Without internet you would be all fuck** up! :(
cu
[Link]
Dither Persona non grata
I love America 650 Posts 8/05
Posted - Feb 5 2006 : 6:39AM
I think it's difficult to argument on a technical/objective basis, that all digital formats have high-frequency roughness. For the CD-format, I might be inclined to agree, since the requirement for massive antialias-filtering just above the audible frequency band might lead to various artifacts. However, with high sample-rate material, like DVDA and SACD, this problem is for the most part eliminated. However, SACD uses so-called noise-shaping, which leads to a significant increase in noise density for high frequencies, this might be a reason that some with high-bandwidth ears dislike the SACD-format as well. If you ask me, DVDA is much better.
But generally, I think most of the reason for digital audio's bad rep among audiophiles, is the so-called loudness-race. CD-remasterings are massively compressed before the volume is pushed all the way up. This to make them sound as loud as possible. One of the most fundamental psychoacoustic mechanisms is "louder is better", hence the eagerness to do so. But the compression also flattens out and kills the dynamic nuances that in reality constitutes much of the musical expression. Read a rant about the loudness-race here.
LPs, opposed to CDs, are often remastered with lower RMS-level, but much more dynamic range. In a car-stereo or bad sounding radio this would not sound good, but on a high-end stereo system, capable of reproducing this large dynamic range, it sounds much better. I agree that LPs often sound better (the Pink Floyd remasters on 180g vinyl from Elusive Disc sound incredible), but I don't think it's down to the format, or analog vs. digital as such, but simply the way CDs and LPs are remastered.
Well, I’ve read the loudness-race link. But honestly I’m not sure if “let’s make it hotter” is a problem for every CD production. Maybe average pop productions run the loudness-race, but high ending CDs a la Chesky or Reference Recordings etc.? I don’t think so. But this is a CD not a SACD problem.
Some people like Dither think that DVDA is much better. The problem of the SACD is the authoring! Cause the DSD data stream must be converted into PCM . And this can reduce the quality of the source. The same story with a 5.1 SACD player. Without detour over PCM no bass-management or time- alignment. And I’ve read parts of a degree dissertation by two German sound engineers (Dominik Blech and Min-Chi Yang). They made a listening experiment with 110 participants (mostly sound engineers in spe). Result: No difference between DSD (naturally without authoring and detour through PCM) and high resolution PCM (24 bit).
The LP-freaks can laugh about this! But why sounds a turntable so good? It is the same reason why high-end companies put tubes into CD players! Tubes or turntables add harmonic distortion to the signal. Human ears like it.
I've got the entire series of MFSL half-speed mastered heavy-vinyl LPs. Ignoring ones content preferences and considering only the sound, nothing has ever even come close when piped through my Martin-Logan Monoliths (or even my Dalhquists, for that matter). And that includes the many audiophile CDs I own and SACDs I've heard (I had Sony's $2K SADC player for about 6 weeks - sold it to a friend and have 'borrow-back' privileges). I don't have DVDA playback; but several friends do: I'm underwhelmed.
You think you've heard a good high end? Try listening to the MFSL PF/DSotM LP with M-L electrostatics. It's a transcendent experience.
You're absolutely right. Chesky, MF, RR and some others still know how to remaster. But these are recordings intended for an audiophile audience. The large bulk of CD releases are compressed to death. And that's a problem for me; although I occasionally buy albums for good sound, I primarily just purchase the music that I like. I had an "LP-period" a while back, after purchasing a second hand Linn Sondek/Valhalla/Ekos, but I'm lazy, I like the convenience of CDs, hence I sold it again. The thought of rebuilding my music collection also turned me off.Fact is, most AD and DA converters convert DSD to PCM as well, it's not only done in processing. I don't think that this is very harmful sonically, as it's basically just a process of low-pass filtering, but it does undermine much of the (by Sony) stated advantages of DSD. Actually, 1-bit audio is considered yesterday's technology by data converter designers, due to jitter and slewing issues compromising analog performance. I don't see any advantages with DSD compared to hi-res PCM.That's hardly surprising. The distortion levels of the formats per se are in both cases well below any audible limit. What debunks DSD is the difficulties in designing good AD and DA converters.Arguably. A slight amount of lower harmonics will probably in many cases make the music sound more euphonic, but it's something that should be done with great care. And many modern tube amps and LP-rigs do have very little distortion.
I think it's more down to the "feel-good-factor". The glowing tubes in the dark, the feeling of carefully, almost ritually, unpacking your favourite slab of vinyl and put it on the turntable, it adds something to the whole sensation of listening that may not necessarily be down to the actual sound.
But I won't in any way deny that LPs as well as single-ended triode amps may in some constellations sound absolutely fantastic, even though I'm not completely able to understand exactly why.
The Martin Logan speakers are very, very nice, as are the Quad ESLs (esp. the 989s). If done right, electrostats can sound absolutely magnificent. But they need lots of space and have a radiation pattern that require some careful room-tuning. In my modest-sized living-room, I will probably be better off with a pair of conventional speakers, like the Sonus Faber Cremonas I'm currently using. By the way, my amp, the Phatos Logos does have a tubed input stage. And I love the design. Just like with cars, there's something special about italian hifi.
Introducing Lady LorReign
Posted - Jan 31 2006 : 12:07PM