SACDs

[Gremal]

As for the observation that single-layer SACDs tend to sound better than hybrid SACDs, the pits aren't the issue; it's the laser's ability to read between layers without dropping bits, adding errors, etc. Seems plausible to me the presence of two layers adds complexity that may affect laser performance in a subtle way. But rather than dismiss people's observations for theoretical reasons, maybe it's best to just share our own observations. I agree that overall, single layer SACDs do have an edge in AQ but not at all to the point where I will avoid hybrid versions.

Originally Posted by blu2

Audiophiles are always looking for some new "tweak" to improve the sound , and the market (especially in Japan it seems) is happy to oblige (Single Layer SACD's, "Green" SACDs, SHM, Blu Spec, etc)

Read in another part of this forum:

"I am listening to this CD after demagnetizing it with my HIFI Tuning Disc Demagnetizer, I am using the Herbies Audio Super Black Hole CD mat and I am using a new (and not burned in) TimePortal Reference Power Cord on my [...]"

Is this really necessary? Have you tried any of these products? So how do you know if there is merit to someone else's observations using their own preferred treatments and gear on their own discs? What good does it do to mock or belittle someone's attempts to get the best sound from their products? Isn't the pursuit of audio excellence part of what this hobby is all about?

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Is this really necessary? Have you tried any of these products? So how do you know if there is merit to someone else's observations using their own preferred treatments and gear on their own discs? What good does it do to mock or belittle someone's attempts to get the best sound from their products? Isn't the pursuit of audio excellence part of what this hobby is all about?

Well said!

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Only if those people can explain how the fact that the disc is hybrid changes the lands and pits on the SACD layer. And the answer is that it doesn't. Hybrid discs have two different layers, one for the standard Redbook recording and one for the SACD. They do not interact with each other. The only possible problem that I could see is if you have a player than can read either, I suppose if the player has trouble focusing, it might conceivably switch back and forth between the layers. Although I've never seen that happen in "real life".

The problem is that many people have absolutely no understanding of digital technology and they apply analog concepts to its use. If you're playing back vinyl, for example, a change in tracking force or the geometry of the playback cartridge/stylus might improve the frequency response or limit inner groove distortion, so there's lots of tweaking that can be done. On a vacuum tube, you can increase or decrease feedback within the tube. Etc.

But these geniuses simply refuse to understand that all that's on any CD are lands and pits representing digital 1s and 0s. There is no tweaking. The system is either accurately reading those lands and pits or it's not and it's either doing so "on time" or it's not. The only possible tweaking is in the filtering circuitry that limits the frequency response to be no more than twice the sampling rate (and vice-versa), but that's mainly a recording, not playback issue. Where there is a difference in quality is in the quality of the D/A converters and obviously the circuitry ("b-chain") associated with analog playback.

Opto-mechanical issues come into play when a hybrid SACD is being read by the transport. It is not all 1's & 0's, because digital artifacts such as jitter get introduced into the playback of the SACD. It is why many of the ultra-expensive SACD players have extensively focused on improving the quality of the transport mechanism, to reduce the errors introduced by these problems.

The problem is not severe enough to hear for entry-level consumer equipment because the noise floor is too high, but does start encroaching on the sound quality at the upper end of the market.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Is this really necessary? Have you tried any of these products? So how do you know if there is merit to someone else's observations using their own preferred treatments and gear on their own discs? What good does it do to mock or belittle someone's attempts to get the best sound from their products? Isn't the pursuit of audio excellence part of what this hobby is all about?

I think he's making the point that some of the "treatments" people rave about are just plain silly. There's well established science explaining the inherent biases in personal observation. A healthy dose of skepticism is seldom a bad thing.

[blu2]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Is this really necessary? Have you tried any of these products? So how do you know if there is merit to someone else's observations using their own preferred treatments and gear on their own discs? What good does it do to mock or belittle someone's attempts to get the best sound from their products? Isn't the pursuit of audio excellence part of what this hobby is all about?

OK, I apologize if there was a perception of mocking someone.

But I remain skeptical about SHM, Blu Spec, and ... demagnatizing plastic/aluminum discs.

Of course, if one of the reviewers at blu-ray.com provides a postive assessment of the likes of this blu-ray demagnatizer, maybe I'll come around.

http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/65...etizer-CD_Care

[dobyblue]

At the very least I don't think belittling another forum member is necessary.

[PanaPlasma]

Originally Posted by blu2

OK, I apologize if there was a perception of mocking someone.

But I remain skeptical about SHM, Blu Spec, and ... demagnatizing plastic/aluminum discs.

Of course, if one of the reviewers at blu-ray.com provides a postive assessment of the likes of this blu-ray demagnatizer, maybe I'll come around.

http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/65...etizer-CD_Care

Even "legendary" mastering engineer Barry Diament was positive about shm & blu spec.

Is this really so hard to understand.

These "materials" are easier to read for your cd-laser, so less stress with error and jitter correction for your player, which gives a more relaxing sound

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by PanaPlasma

Even "legendary" mastering engineer Barry Diament was positive about shm & blu spec.

Is this really so hard to understand.

These "materials" are easier to read for your cd-laser, so less stress with error and jitter correction for your player, which gives a more relaxing sound

Relaxing? Not sure I understand what that means. Presumably you (and Diament) have data to establish that there are fewer uncorrected errors with these materials. If so, please share the data with us. Or, is this simply a statement of something that makes intuitive sense to you.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by BIslander

Relaxing? Not sure I understand what that means. Presumably you (and Diament) have data to establish that there are fewer uncorrected errors with these materials. If so, please share the data with us. Or, is this simply a statement of something that makes intuitive sense to you.

Why don't you just listen and if you enjoy SHM discs more than others, that's what counts. This is about enjoying music, not a mathematical proof. I understood Paneplasma's point--less dropped bits -> less error correction -> more analog sound--but it all boils down to what you hear. Reality trumps theory (and marketing) every time.

Currently enjoying Groove Armada - Virgo on SACD (non-SHM).

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Why don't you just listen and if you enjoy SHM discs more than others, that's what counts. This is about enjoying music, not a mathematical proof. I understood Paneplasma's point--less dropped bits -> less error correction -> more analog sound--but it all boils down to what you hear. Reality trumps theory (and marketing) every time.

Currently enjoying Groove Armada - Virgo on SACD (non-SHM).

No problem. If buying gizmos and/or expensive cables makes the music sound better to you, go for it. But, if you are going to make claims explaining why there's an actual reason for the perceived improvement, which is what PanaPlasma is doing, then we get into science. Is it unreasonable to ask for some sort of data to support a claim like this: 'These "materials" are easier to read for your cd-laser, so less stress with error and jitter correction for your player, which gives a more relaxing sound." That seems logical. But, I doubt it's true. Regardless, it's subject to objective verification.

[Gremal]

Listening to music live or an various media, opting for various components, cables or treatments is not a scientific discipline and it is creepy when people superimpose some pseudoscientific or make-believe clinical criteria on it. There is no measuring instrument that can replicate the brain or even the ear. Therefore it is subjective.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by PanaPlasma

Even "legendary" mastering engineer Barry Diament was positive about shm & blu spec.

Is this really so hard to understand.

These "materials" are easier to read for your cd-laser, so less stress with error and jitter correction for your player, which gives a more relaxing sound

That was probably before he understood what Blu-spec meant. The disc is in every way, shape or form IDENTICAL to redbook CD. Only the master is different in that it is burned with a blue-violet laser, however the pits are still read by a red laser and the Blu-spec CD I have has the exact same checksum (Temper Trap - Science of Fear) as the regular CD release pertaining to the album version of the title track, hence there can be no difference.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Opto-mechanical issues come into play when a hybrid SACD is being read by the transport. It is not all 1's & 0's, because digital artifacts such as jitter get introduced into the playback of the SACD. It is why many of the ultra-expensive SACD players have extensively focused on improving the quality of the transport mechanism, to reduce the errors introduced by these problems.

The problem is not severe enough to hear for entry-level consumer equipment because the noise floor is too high, but does start encroaching on the sound quality at the upper end of the market.

I'm familiar with jitter and that's why I said "....as long as the signal gets there on time...". But there is no evidence that I've ever seen that there's more jitter with a dual layer CD as opposed to a single layer CD.

Jitter is not noise - it's time (phase) distortion, although I suppose one could also make the case that jitter could also actually make the audio sound more "human", just as some musicians are now purposely using imperfect click tracks. But it is true that jitter can cause modulation noise, although it's questionable whether anyone, even "golden ears", could hear it because loudspeakers can't resolve it:

" paper by Ashihara et al. (2005) attempted to determine the detection thresholds for random jitter in music signals. Their method involved ABX listening tests. When discussing their results, the authors of the paper commented that:
'So far, actual jitter in consumer products seems to be too small to be detected at least for reproduction of music signals. It is not clear, however, if detection thresholds obtained in the present study would really represent the limit of auditory resolution or it would be limited by resolution of equipment. Distortions due to very small jitter may be smaller than distortions due to non-linear characteristics of loudspeakers. Ashihara and Kiryu [8] evaluated linearity of loudspeaker and headphones. According to their observation, headphones seem to be more preferable to produce sufficient sound pressure at the ear drums with smaller distortions than loudspeakers.'

In my personal opinion, concern about jitter noise is mostly hype, pushed by super high-end audio manufacturers to push expensive systems. IMO, quantization error and sampling rate are far bigger issues but those can be resolved, for example, by moving to 96/24 recording and playback systems (or higher), which the market has mostly rejected (except for people like those on this Forum.) But having said that, I have a standalone CD recorder that can record 96/24 and when transferring pre-recorded analog material to that format, I've never heard an audible difference over 44.1/16.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I'm familiar with jitter and that's why I said "....as long as the signal gets there on time...". But there is no evidence that I've ever seen that there's more jitter with a dual layer CD as opposed to a single layer CD.

It was a huge and hotly contested issue among audiophiles in Japan when SACD first came out. Some even claim to hear a difference between SACDs encoded using DST(the compressed form of DSD) and the original DSD.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Listening to music live or an various media, opting for various components, cables or treatments is not a scientific discipline and it is creepy when people superimpose some pseudoscientific or make-believe clinical criteria on it. There is no measuring instrument that can replicate the brain or even the ear. Therefore it is subjective.

Sorry, but you seem to have missed the specific issue at hand here. I have already acknowledged that everyone is welcome to their own opinions about what sounds good. And, if buying a specific piece of equipment works for them, that's great, regardless of whether it actually does anything.

Here is the question I am asking (for the third time in this exchange, btw, without an answer): PanaPlasma made a technical claim about why shm and blu spec sound better. I am merely asking for the basis of that technical claim. Is there something creepy about that question?

[PanaPlasma]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

That was probably before he understood what Blu-spec meant. The disc is in every way, shape or form IDENTICAL to redbook CD. Only the master is different in that it is burned with a blue-violet laser, however the pits are still read by a red laser and the Blu-spec CD I have has the exact same checksum (Temper Trap - Science of Fear) as the regular CD release pertaining to the album version of the title track, hence there can be no difference.

Blu spec or shm has nothing to do with mastering. The album (cd rip) will be identical to the original US or European "cd". It just the "material" that is different.

Due to the crisis in the music industry, Japanese record companies use the latest UK or US mastering. It's too pricey for them to make their "own superior mastering" like back in the 80's and 90's.

Except the shm-sacd's: most of them are flat transfer tapes


Don't forget nowadays Western "cd materials" are very bad. Compare an early '80s cd (e.g. Dire Straits on the Vertigo label) with a modern cd, and you will cd what I mean. The "old cd's" were far more solid, resistant for scratches, "burning" on cd was slower - so less errors,...
.
I bought many "recent cd's" over the last 10 years, that I couldn't rip due to various errors (as a result of "bad production": burning, cheaper materials,...).

In a few years we'll laugh about these discussions, when everything is digital (less chance of any kind of errors)

I'm still waiting for the ultimate player for digital files. Computers are far too noisy, wireless high res streaming = hiccups, and dedicated players like the Olive 4HD en 6HD are buggy and overpriced.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by BIslander

Here is the question I am asking (for the third time in this exchange, btw, without an answer): PanaPlasma made a technical claim about why shm and blu spec sound better. I am merely asking for the basis of that technical claim. Is there something creepy about that question?

I think we're lost in a semantic loop, then, because it seemed the question was about "proof" and the technical claim was made up front.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by Gremal

I think we're lost in a semantic loop, then, because it seemed the question was about "proof" and the technical claim was made up front.

A semantic loop? I thought the question I asked was pretty clear. If not, let me try again. PanaPlasma offered an engineering explanation for the superiority of shm:

Originally Posted by PanaPlasma

Is this really so hard to understand.

These "materials" are easier to read for your cd-laser, so less stress with error and jitter correction for your player, which gives a more relaxing sound

You supported his claim:

Originally Posted by Gremal

I understood Paneplasma's point--less dropped bits -> less error correction -> more analog sound

Those claims are verifiable. Perhaps one of you did basic research to test the notion that shm has fewer uncorrected errors than regular SACD. Or maybe you read research published by someone else. I am simply asking that you provide whatever data you have to support your claim.

I don't want to belabor this any more. At this point, it seems pretty clear that you and PanaPlasma are presenting a theory without any data to back it up. Again, I don't doubt that shm and blu-spec sound better to you. I am merely asking about the engineering reason that PanaPlasma offered for the difference.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by BIslander

Those claims are verifiable. Perhaps one of you did basic research to test the notion that shm has fewer uncorrected errors than regular SACD. Or maybe you read research published by someone else. I am simply asking that you provide whatever data you have to support your claim.

That's ridiculous. Anyone with internet access can learn the JVC and Universal Music Japan's SHM "claims". Panaplasma answered your question and shared his personal observations. You challenged him. I gave a possible technical reason for his observation. Then you asked for data, which was odd.

This isn't a peer reviewed audio journal or a court of law, so I see no reason to talk about any of this in terms of "data" to support "claims". It's about listening to music and A/B'ing it with other versions, and sharing what you hear with other hobbyists.

At this point, it seems pretty clear that you and PanaPlasma are presenting a theory without any data to back it up. Again, I don't doubt that shm and blu-spec sound better to you. I am merely asking about the engineering reason that PanaPlasma offered for the difference.

No, I did not "present a theory" as if I was publishing a thesis in a journal of audio science. This is a discussion board, and for the sake of discussion I backed up Panaplasma's observations with a technical description that would potentially qualify as the "engineering reason" (to use your verbiage). All this talk of "presenting a theory without any data" is far afield of a subjective discussion, which is what this forum has to offer.

[BIslander]

Thanks. I think that wraps this up.