Hi Res CD's make all your stuff sound like...

F1nut

Ha! I've got more than a few redbook CD's here that sound as good, if not better than some SACD's. Format alone does not guarantee great sound, but compressed music is compressed music and DTS is compressed music.

As far as not adding resolution, tell that to Ed Meitner.

frreo1

You know the story about "The Emperor's New Clothes?"

That analogy applies if one thinks up sampling CD's will wind up sounding as good or better than SACD. Unless the mastering job is totally botched, that should never happen.

Many of the Music DVD's I am talking about are 2 channel (not compressed) PCM. Even if you take the original master tape (most of which are analog) and re-run it through as DVD video/audio, you will capture more information from the source at a higher sampling rate, and eight more bit word length. It will sound better.:D

F1nut

frreo1 wrote: »

That analogy applies if one thinks up sampling CD's will wind up sounding as good or better than SACD. Unless the mastering job is totally botched, that should never happen.

But it does happen.

Many of the Music DVD's I am talking about are 2 channel (not compressed) PCM. Even if you take the original master tape (most of which are analog) and re-run it through as DVD video/audio, you will capture more information from the source at a higher sampling rate, and eight more bit word length. It will sound better.:D

I will have to disagree.

frreo1

I am curious what you base the disagreement on. The laws of physics are pretty straightforward here. Can you provide a recording where the CD is better? I'm willing to listen and keep an open mind, but basic engineering says otherwise. If you provide an example, I'll check it out myself.

disneyjoe7

Ok so about this CD which got me started. It's maked as

Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound / All DVD players Yuk

Advanced Resolution Surround Sound 96khz/24-bit DVD-Audio Players

Advanced Resolution Stereo 192khz/24-bit DVD-Audio Players

Ok so if I have it hooked up using Signal Cables Analog 2 from the 2 channel output on the Pioneer 79Avi player, I'm getting the 192khz/24-bit sound right?

frreo1

Yes, you will. And do not not let anyone tell you that the CD will sound better. If you have an i-link, you can pass the output to the receiver/amp digitally. I usually use the i-link, and it's awesome. (Oops, thats assuming your receiver can accept i-link input). My secondary player is a DV-59 AVI, and analog out (which provides advanced resolution) is how I used it before I obtained a DA9000ES, which uses i-link.

disneyjoe7

Digital output with i-link wouldn't you be using the DAC in the AVR instead the DAC in the player? I think the player DAC maybe better then the DAC in an AVR, so the analog output maybe better.

frreo1

It depends. In some cases, you would be right. In the case of the DA9000ES, not the case. The DA9000ES is a digital amp, and the i-link has an anti-jitter circuit (HATS) which cleans up the digital input. The bit stream is applied directly to the amplifier output stage (if it is SACD, the DA9000ES converts all incoming to SACD bit stream, and applies that to the D/A output). By the way, the DA9000ES was demonstrated at the CES with Wilson WATT/Puppies, so you know it's a good amp.
I work at a R&D lab, and most of us there are engineers. We have compared the output of the i-link to that of the Denon 5910 (which has very good DACs), and the i-link is markedly better.

F1nut

frreo1 wrote: »

I am curious what you base the disagreement on. The laws of physics are pretty straightforward here. Can you provide a recording where the CD is better? I'm willing to listen and keep an open mind, but basic engineering says otherwise. If you provide an example, I'll check it out myself.

The new Mofi release of the Allman Brothers, Idlewild South. As there isn't a SACD release of this recording, it can't be compared directly, but I can tell you that it sounds just as good as some of my SACD's, physics be damned. Donald Fagen's, Morph The Cat is another CD that simply sounds like SACD. An SACD that doesn't sound any better than the remastered CD version, CCR's Cosmo's Factory. Granted, SACD's in general sound better than redbook, but again, format alone does not guarantee great sound.

On another note, basic engineering says that a ruler flat response from a speaker should sound great, but we all know that's not the case.

reeltrouble1

Glad you are digging high rez Steve, go for the stereo higher rates with the DVD-A, mine are better cd to cd over there redbook brothers, but alas, what you want is the MLP on your DVD-A, invented by Bob Thomas at Meridian, they do DVD-A right, of course the machines are very expensive and do not play SACD, which is my preferred high rez format, but if its not on SACD I will buy the DVD-A, comparing Morph as Jesse mentioned I do give the edge to the DVD-A on my Denon, on the Kw with the Redbook and the Denon with the DVD-A the differences are slight with a bit of an edge going to the high rez version on the Denon.

As MadMax says, everything depends on everything.

RT1

Splash........

treitz3

frreo1 wrote: »

The laws of physics are pretty straightforward here.

Straightforward and useful in designing, but the end result when it comes to what hits your ears dictates that one must leave physics behind at a certain point, concentrating on the end result beyond that.

All formats can sound better or worse than others when looking at certain aspects of reproduction [accuracy, sound stage, realism, depth for example] Gear, synergy, recording quality all have a play in it.

reeltrouble1

Splash goes the Physisist.

Time to clean the pool Steve.

RT1

disneyjoe7

Cleaning the pool SUCKS

frreo1

"The new Mofi release of the Allman Brothers, Idlewild South. As there isn't a SACD release of this recording, it can't be compared directly, but I can tell you that it sounds just as good as some of my SACD's, physics be damned. Donald Fagen's, Morph The Cat is another CD that simply sounds like SACD. An SACD that doesn't sound any better than the remastered CD version, CCR's Cosmo's Factory. Granted, SACD's in general sound better than redbook, but again, format alone does not guarantee great sound."


The reason you cannot sight an example is because it does not exist. There is no CD that sounds as good as SACD, period. There are many examples of SACD over CD (think Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon!). So, score one for science.:eek:

Seriously, we are each entitled to our opinion, and I'll respect the position. However, if one ever wants to change another's thinking, one has to provide some sort evidence. There is plenty of objective and subjective edvidence about SACD sound quality vs. CD. There is no edvidence to support the contrary other than opinion. :cool:

F1nut

The reason you cannot sight an example is because it does not exist. There is no CD that sounds as good as SACD, period. There are many examples of SACD over CD (think Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon!). So, score one for science.

I gave 3 examples and I can sight more. In fact, many folks think the Mofi of DSOTM sounds better than the SACD and in some ways I tend to agree.

You seem to be missing the point, so here it is again. Format alone does not guarantee great sound. Score two for common sense.

frreo1

You seem to be missing the point, so here it is again. Format alone does not guarantee great sound. Score two for common sense

You mean score one for nonsense. Music is analog, and SACD/DVD-A, with its higher bit resolution will always be better (more accurate) than straight CD, to the original analog waveform, no matter how much alternative reality one practices.

Hey, wait a tic! Maybe this argument is about semantics (pronoun trouble). I always equate more accurate with better, But, maybe that's the trouble. You see, many of the modern pop recordings are excessively bright, slightly distorted, and poorly mixed. I noticed that some of these recordings sound less offensive (more pleasant) when converted to AAC. So to the extent that CD, with less resolution, may make a given recording more pleasant to the ears than SACD/DVD, then yes, THAT would be true. (It would still be less accurate, but maybe more pleasant)

treitz3

frreo1 wrote: »

There is no CD that sounds as good as SACD, period.

Just for clarification, are you referring to any CD/SACD out there, or the same album/recording only?

frreo1

The same album/recording.:)

sucks2beme

I have heard a side by side of the same recordings done in LP and CD.
Sometimes the cd won, sometimes the LP won. There are better FORMATS,
but that doesn't mean the sound will be better. Sometimes, the newer is
better thing turns into a hose job. The recording industry will turn out whatever sells. In a damn hurry, too. I'm sure the same applies to
other formats. WE need a good reliable format that is consistant
and cheaper than redbook cdps. Why do we have to drop big bucks
on a 25 year old technology to get a decent sounding unit?
And you know RICA will kill the new format deader that hell if they can.
Please, someone whip up the next great thing already.

frreo1

SACD audio is a great format. It has the ability to sound as good as the analog masters they are made from. Granted, some of the surround mixes are a bit gimmicky, but overall, it is outstanding.
The reality is, the average public does not know that this level of sound can be had. For whatever reason, Sony has done all of us a great disservice by not marketing this format better, and working out a deal with Warner so all the major catalogs could be re-mastered. The truth is, our parent/grandparents had better sounding systems (Fisher receivers) than most common rack systems made today. Mix that with lossy compression, (MP3, IPOD )and oy, what a mess!

treitz3

I have heard Dire Straights Money for Nothing when they are dropping the change sound real on DVD-A on my rig and two minutes later, I played the same passage on SACD, and even though the sound stage widened, imaging was more detailed and dynamics increased, the realism just was not there. It went back to sounding like a recording.

Honestly, at that point I went and grabbed a beer.

frreo1

I have heard Dire Straights Money for Nothing when they are dropping the change sound real on DVD-A on my rig and two minutes later, I played the same passage on SACD, and even though the sound stage widened, imaging was more detailed and dynamics increased, the realism just was not there. It went back to sounding like a recording.

I have this on DVD Audio, and it's most cool. Sam Cook "Live at the Copa" on SACD is outstanding.

MMMMNN......Beer

treitz3

treitz3 wrote: »

I have heard Dire Straights Money for Nothing

Sorry about that, just went back and referenced "the library"...the song was Money, By Pink Floyd where they were dropping the change, NOT Dire Straights, MFN. I was close, but no dice.:p

F1nut

frreo1 wrote: »

You mean score one for nonsense. Music is analog, and SACD/DVD-A, with its higher bit resolution will always be better (more accurate) than straight CD, to the original analog waveform, no matter how much alternative reality one practices.

Hey, wait a tic! Maybe this argument is about semantics (pronoun trouble). I always equate more accurate with better, But, maybe that's the trouble. You see, many of the modern pop recordings are excessively bright, slightly distorted, and poorly mixed. I noticed that some of these recordings sound less offensive (more pleasant) when converted to AAC. So to the extent that CD, with less resolution, may make a given recording more pleasant to the ears than SACD/DVD, then yes, THAT would be true. (It would still be less accurate, but maybe more pleasant)

Hmmmm......I see you have resorted to insults now. Always a sign that you're out of gas and just blowing hot air. :rolleyes:

The truth of the matter, sometimes CD sounds the best, sometimes SACD and sometimes vinyl. Once one realizes that fact the less ignorant they appear.

For the record, I love SACD and have from the get go. I'm not sure anyone else here has pushed the format as hard as I have. You're a little late to the party, but thanks for playing.

F1nut

Sony has done all of us a great disservice by not marketing this format better, and working out a deal with Warner so all the major catalogs could be re-mastered.

Actually, that isn't the real issue. The real issue is that the state side rock/blues artists wanted 3 times the royalties as there are 3 layers on the typical hybrid SACD. Before that little ditty hit the fan SACD was gaining ground. One will note that most rock/blues SACD's in the last few years have been released overseas because of that issue. New classical SACD's come out everyday as the artists are long dead, so the record companies don't have to shell out large royality checks.

frreo1

For the record, I love SACD and have from the get go. I'm not sure anyone else here has pushed the format as hard as I have. You're a little late to the party, but thanks for playing.

At least on this point, we can agree.

The remainder of the post was not meant to be insulting (humorous, perhaps, but not insulting). The basis is factual, sometimes a less accurate version of a recording could in fact be more pleasing, so one person's better is not another's.:)

frreo1

Actually, that isn't the real issue. The real issue is that the state side rock/blues artists wanted 3 times the royalties as there are 3 layers on the typical hybrid SACD. Before that little ditty hit the fan SACD was gaining ground. One will note that most rock/blues SACD's in the last few years have been released overseas because of that issue. New classical SACD's come out everyday as the artists are long dead, so the record companies don't have to shell out large royalty checks.

No kidding? Now that's interesting (and useful) information. Thanks for that. Where did you find this out?

What about the performers of Classical? I have a number of Lang Lang classical CD's. Would that apply to the artists, or strictly the composers?

reeltrouble1

So DJ7 is the pool clean yet??? I use my changer as a cd storage cabinet, works great.

Really freeo? well, we do appreciate your stopping by this thread, we have been talking sacd for years and F1 has most certainly been one of the folks here who has been a strong supporter of this format, you should hear sacd or even redbook on his set-up, awesome.

I myself have read several articles about the sacd royalties issue, its about money, it nearly always is. Not enough money for everyone involved, I am sure if some lawyer can figure a way for his client to get a nickel here and there no matter what their part in the recording they will.

Only audio kooks will pay high dollar for these recordings and then only some of that pie. I choose to pay, others do not, there is nobody right or wrong.

You are welcome to come to Polkfest, meet F1, DJ7 and many others here and enjoy some music.

RT1

Danny Tse

frreo1 wrote: »

No kidding? Now that's interesting (and useful) information. Thanks for that. Where did you find this out?

What about the performers of Classical? I have a number of Lang Lang classical CD's. Would that apply to the artists, or strictly the composers?

Here's an article that will give you an idea what F1 is talking about regarding the multiple royalties that artists and producers are asking for....

Beyonce SACD cancelled for the US

The Beyonce SACD was eventually released overseas (although I got mine from a website in the US). It should also be noted that after the announcement of the cancellation to the Beyonce SACD, Sony did release stateside SACDs by John Mayer, John Legend, and Duran Duran (not to mention many classical SACD titles). Sony Music in Japan is an entirely separate company from the stateside Sony BMG, and it has cotinuously released SACDs. The latest Japan Sony SACD include several Herbie Hancock titles, featuring the debut of "Future Shock" (with the single "Rock It") on hybrid SACD (it was previously available on single-layer SACD).

Don't know about classical performers' royalties.

Regarding recent pop/rock SACDs released overseas but not in the US....Genesis, Bjork, and Depeche Mode (Dire Straits and Mark Knopfler are in similar situation) are all signed to a Warner Music label in the US. And we all know which format Warner Music supports (DVD-A). The problem here is that Warner Music chose NOT to support hi-rez at all....not even its own DVD-A format. The Moody Blues SACD were also originally not released in the US, but Universal Music brought these titles over to the US officially instead of having these come over as "unofficial" imports.

For whatever reason, Sony has done all of us a great disservice by not marketing this format better, and working out a deal with Warner so all the major catalogs could be re-mastered.

I think Sony did a solid job of promoting SACD....full page color ads in mainstream magazines such as Sound & Vision, free SACD sampler in Rolling Stone magazine, the SACD of DSOTM and Bob Dylan, the placement of listening stations at stores like Circuit City, etc. Certainly more can be done....like going completely to single-inventory hybrid SACD (Sony does this for its recent SACD releases), mentioning SACD playback capability in its PS3, etc. I think it just so happen that SACD debuted at the wrong time....the advent of digital downloads. And the mainstream will always pick convenience over quality.

As for Sony not working out a deal with Warner Music for the release of SACD for Warner artists, this actually became a reality....in Hong Kong. HK Warner Music released 9 SACD titles, featuring remastering work by Sony's New York studios and SACDs pressed in Japan by Sony



Unfortunately, Warner Music crushed any further SACD efforts. See this article. BTW, in terms of sound quality, these Warner Music SACDs blow away the subsequent XRCD versions.

frreo1

You are welcome to come to Polkfest, meet F1, DJ7 and many others here and enjoy some music.

Thank you all for your insight. Always happy to exchange ideas and learn something new each day.:)