SACDs

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

No no, most hybrid SACDs have a PCM layer using DSD recorders, so they sound better than the regular CD version, it's true, it has been said and I personally confirmed it.

You can believe whatever you want, but 16-bit/44.1kHz PCM will only sound different from 16-bit/44.1kHz PCM if the mastering is different. There is only one way to encode a CD, that's 16/44.1.

If the source material is different and you're saying a DSD source converted to 16/44.1 CD-DA is better than an analog source converted to 16/44.1 CD-DA I'd again have to put it down to the mastering.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

You can believe whatever you want, but 16-bit/44.1kHz PCM will only sound different from 16-bit/44.1kHz PCM if the mastering is different. There is only one way to encode a CD, that's 16/44.1.

If the source material is different and you're saying a DSD source converted to 16/44.1 CD-DA is better than an analog source converted to 16/44.1 CD-DA I'd again have to put it down to the mastering.

There are other factors at play that I don't fully understand and the specification propellerheads don't fully understand, but which are clearly audible on a good system. These factors may play into the laser performance and its real-world effect on interpolation. To prove 16/44.1 is not 16/44.1, just take a CD and use the "green marker" method to mark up the edges and spindle area. To my shock, this does have an effect on the sound quality. And so does the plant that burns the discs, differences in the disc surface and related issues. DSD authoring could indeed be such a factor. Ignoring all that and just repeating a tautology like "16/44.1 is 16/44.1" is not particularly helpful because people are hearing differences.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Gremal

There are other factors at play that I don't fully understand and the specification propellerheads don't fully understand, but which are clearly audible on a good system. These factors may play into the laser performance and its real-world effect on interpolation. To prove 16/44.1 is not 16/44.1, just take a CD and use the "green marker" method to mark up the edges and spindle area. To my shock, this does have an effect on the sound quality. And so does the plant that burns the discs, differences in the disc surface and related issues. DSD authoring could indeed be such a factor. Ignoring all that and just repeating a tautology like "16/44.1 is 16/44.1" is not particularly helpful because people are hearing differences.

They're hearing differences in playback hardware set-up, not in the CD-DA. You cannot effect the data on the CD with any sort of markings, other than ones which render playback impossible; the data is still the exact same data.

To show this, take any CD you like and rip it to 100% quality with Exact Audio Copy. Create an .md5 checksum. Now mark the disc, rip again to 100% quality with EAC. Create a new .md5 checksum. Compare. They will be identical.

[Gremal]

But we're not talking about ripping discs, we're talking about listening to music. We know disc machines can drop bits like crazy while listening, otherwise they wouldn't be engineered with interpolation filters. Otherwise audiophiles wouldn't go to great lengths to minimize vibration and reduce reflection of the laser.

[doctorsteve]

Originally Posted by Gremal

To prove 16/44.1 is not 16/44.1, just take a CD and use the "green marker" method to mark up the edges and spindle area. To my shock, this does have an effect on the sound quality...Ignoring all that and just repeating a tautology like "16/44.1 is 16/44.1" is not particularly helpful because people are hearing differences.

Please, oh PLEEEEZE tell me we aren't getting into another 'rubber ring' discussion.

Some people hear what they want to hear. There (unfortunately), are too many people that don't hear/see any difference between SD/HD TV or Blu vs. DVD.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by doctorsteve

Please, oh PLEEEEZE tell me we aren't getting into another 'rubber ring' discussion.

I dunno what a rubber ring is, but there is precedent in hearing an audible difference between two differently-manufactured/treated discs with the same information on it. So we're supposed to censor discussion about what we hear with our own ears? Why even have a discussion forum, then?

Some people hear what they want to hear. There (unfortunately), are too many people that don't hear/see any difference between SD/HD TV or Blu vs. DVD.

If I heard what I wanted to hear and saw what I wanted to see, I'd be content watching DVDs on my laptop and listening to music through my laptop speakers, and my bank account would have tens of thousands more bucks. If you don't hear/see those differences, you're lucky. But then you can sit out discussions like these.

[blu2]

Originally Posted by Gremal

There are other factors at play that I don't fully understand and the specification propellerheads don't fully understand, but which are clearly audible on a good system. These factors may play into the laser performance and its real-world effect on interpolation. To prove 16/44.1 is not 16/44.1, just take a CD and use the "green marker" method to mark up the edges and spindle area. To my shock, this does have an effect on the sound quality.

So are there any "audiophile" CD makers who "pre-mark" the discs to achieve better sound?

And so does the plant that burns the discs, differences in the disc surface and related issues. DSD authoring could indeed be such a factor. Ignoring all that and just repeating a tautology like "16/44.1 is 16/44.1" is not particularly helpful because people are hearing differences.

There are indeed people who claim this, and you'd probably find threads over at Stevehoffman.tv on this topic.

Sony Japan would have people believe that "Blu-Spec" CDs are superior to plain-ordinary CDs. And there are SHM-CDs (Super High Material CD) and Extended Resolution Compact Discs (XRCD) from other manufacturers.

The raw bits for the same master would be identical, but the manufacturers will all claim these discs deliver superior sound for various reasons. So we have an industry (in Japan at least) that itself perpetuates a view that the music cannot be correctly extracted off a run-of-the-mill disc by a CD player.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by blu2

So are there any "audiophile" CD makers who "pre-mark" the discs to achieve better sound?

I think so, but I can't recall the label doing this. There are also black CD-Rs that you can buy.

There are indeed people who claim this, and you'd probably find threads over at Stevehoffman.tv on this topic.

It's been a very common observation among audiophiles for at least 15 years.

Sony Japan would have people believe that "Blu-Spec" CDs are superior to plain-ordinary CDs. And there are SHM-CDs (Super High Material CD) and Extended Resolution Compact Discs (XRCD) from other manufacturers.

The raw bits for the same master would be identical, but the manufacturers will all claim these discs deliver superior sound for various reasons. So we have an industry (in Japan at least) that itself perpetuates a view that the music cannot be correctly extracted off a run-of-the-mill disc by a CD player.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and since SACDs offer the CD layer on a separate substrate than the DSD layer, I don't think it's easily dismissed that some claim to hear a difference.

[doctorsteve]

Originally Posted by Gremal

I dunno what a rubber ring is,

http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/sicomine.html

If you don't hear/see those differences, you're lucky. But then you can sit out discussions like these.

I'm actually referring to both ends of the spectrum. I'm dubious to the claims of either end... There are those who claim using a marker to color the edges, or using a rubber ring to 'eliminate vibrations' will somehow get more data off of the disc - which translates into an extra bit/byte - which somehow translates into in discernible, audible difference.

There are also those that look at a high-def set, and see no differences between that and standard def.

Personally, someone at either end of the spectrum would never be granted a date with the daughter I don't have.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Gremal

But we're not talking about ripping discs, we're talking about listening to music.

In your example we were talking about 16/44.1 = 16/44.1 (you said use the green marker to prove 16/44.1 doesn't = 16/44.1) and once a disc is burned that 16/44.1 data is the same no matter what you do to it. The EAC comparison would clearly show this. If there is some difference in pick-up it would be reflected in your EAC log by your PC CD drive. Regarding the actual playback I've seen error correction testing which showed no change in error corrections over a 1m20s sample of a CD between several samples without the green marker, and then testing with the marker.

Anyway, this is a bit off topic, the original assertion was whether an analog>DSD master on CD (16/44.1) would sound any better than an analog>16/44.1 master on CD and I just don't see how other than differences in mastering there would be any difference at all. I don't see the value to DSD mastering unless you're releasing SACD, then it makes perfect sense.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

In your example we were talking about 16/44.1 = 16/44.1 (you said use the green marker to prove 16/44.1 doesn't = 16/44.1)

No, I said many serious listeners have noticed a difference after applying the marker treatment to discs--and I was just mentioning it as one example that we can't always account for observations. To tell someone he is not hearing an advantage in a CD layer of an SACD compared to a different disc, simply based on "theory" is ill advised unless you've compared the discs and didn't hear the difference. What people hear trumps theory any day.

and once a disc is burned that 16/44.1 data is the same no matter what you do to it. The EAC comparison would clearly show this. If there is some difference in pick-up it would be reflected in your EAC log by your PC CD drive.

I've never listened to music by playing a disc in my PC CD drive. And manufacturers design disc hardware and software to read the EAC is the same. Why would I want numbers on a PC to tell me what I'm hearing with my own ears, or why would I shrug off what someone else tells me because of that?

Regarding the actual playback I've seen error correction testing which showed no change in error corrections over a 1m20s sample of a CD between several samples without the green marker, and then testing with the marker.

You're assuming we know everything there is to know about laser diffraction and its effect on the bitstream as it passes through interpolation filters and DACs. Theoretically, we do know, but this isn't a peer reviewed journal. It's a discussion forum and there is merit in valuing observations over theories.

Anyway, this is a bit off topic, the original assertion was whether an analog>DSD master on CD (16/44.1) would sound any better than an analog>16/44.1 master on CD and I just don't see how other than differences in mastering there would be any difference at all. I don't see the value to DSD mastering unless you're releasing SACD, then it makes perfect sense.

Yeah but even still I wouldn't dismiss what someone else heard simply based on a theoretical assertion without doing the listening myself. Many audiophiles, particularly in Hong Kong, notice an audible advantage to DSD-sourced CDs over PCM-sourced. While I haven't done this type of comparison, I have heard two early digital PCM recordings titles that were converted to DSD and released on SACD (DiMeola/De Lucia/McLaughlin's second album being one), and they sounded much better than the CD version. Not the exact same situation but...it makes me open to the idea that using DSD anywhere in the production chain has the potential to improve the sonics.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Gremal

No, I said many serious listeners have noticed a difference after applying the marker treatment to discs--and I was just mentioning it as one example that we can't always account for observations. To tell someone he is not hearing an advantage in a CD layer of an SACD compared to a different disc, simply based on "theory" is ill advised unless you've compared the discs and didn't hear the difference. What people hear trumps theory any day.



I've never listened to music by playing a disc in my PC CD drive. And manufacturers design disc hardware and software to read the EAC is the same. Why would I want numbers on a PC to tell me what I'm hearing with my own ears, or why would I shrug off what someone else tells me because of that?



You're assuming we know everything there is to know about laser diffraction and its effect on the bitstream as it passes through interpolation filters and DACs. Theoretically, we do know, but this isn't a peer reviewed journal. It's a discussion forum and there is merit in valuing observations over theories.



Yeah but even still I wouldn't dismiss what someone else heard simply based on a theoretical assertion without doing the listening myself. Many audiophiles, particularly in Hong Kong, notice an audible advantage to DSD-sourced CDs over PCM-sourced. While I haven't done this type of comparison, I have heard two early digital PCM recordings titles that were converted to DSD and released on SACD (DiMeola/De Lucia/McLaughlin's second album being one), and they sounded much better than the CD version. Not the exact same situation but...it makes me open to the idea that using DSD anywhere in the production chain has the potential to improve the sonics.

Sorry to spoil your day,but that is provenly wrong.Hearing is subjected to interpretation by our brain,and likely influenced by others opinions as well as ones expectations.

But if you feel there's a difference to the better by painting your discs:Go to town

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Sorry to spoil your day,but that is provenly wrong.Hearing is subjected to interpretation by our brain,and likely influenced by others opinions as well as ones expectations.

But if you feel there's a difference to the better by painting your discs:Go to town

Every aspect of music (and of movie production) is influenced by various people's brains; perception is no different. And since we are agreed this is a subjective realm, why try to superimpose objective constraints upon it and then pretend we understand it all? Humans didn't design the ear, and though we did design PCM, DSD and all the related hardware and software, you may want to entertain the possibility that we do not understand 100% of the factors revolving around them. Therefore, we should stick to talking about what we hear and not dismiss someone who took the time to post their perceptions just because we read some theoretical rantings on another forum. That's a bit rude to the person who is posting their observations.

As for me, I don't use the marker on my discs, but there are a lot of tweaks that have proven themselves audible in my listening sessions and I don't pursue for practical reasons, e.g., inverting polarity on all Columbia recordings. Likewise, I won't go out of my way to buy DSD-sourced CDs over normal ones (I don't buy CDs in general anymore)...but that's really beside the point. I don't think someone's observations should be dismissed unless you've heard the discs he's heard and came to the opposite conclusion. All my examples were supposed to be supporting that point, so sorry if I appeared to take the discussion off track. And no, you didn't spoil my day.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Every aspect of music (and of movie production) is influenced by various people's brains; perception is no different. And since we are agreed this is a subjective realm, why try to superimpose objective constraints upon it and then pretend we understand it all? Humans didn't design the ear, and though we did design PCM, DSD and all the related hardware and software, you may want to entertain the possibility that we do not understand 100% of the factors revolving around them. Therefore, we should stick to talking about what we hear and not dismiss someone who took the time to post their perceptions just because we read some theoretical rantings on another forum. That's a bit rude to the person who is posting their observations.

As for me, I don't use the marker on my discs, but there are a lot of tweaks that have proven themselves audible in my listening sessions and I don't pursue for practical reasons, e.g., inverting polarity on all Columbia recordings. Likewise, I won't go out of my way to buy DSD-sourced CDs over normal ones (I don't buy CDs in general anymore)...but that's really beside the point. I don't think someone's observations should be dismissed unless you've heard the discs he's heard and came to the opposite conclusion. All my examples were supposed to be supporting that point, so sorry if I appeared to take the discussion off track. And no, you didn't spoil my day.

I didn't really reflect on my response-not that I don't stand by it,but I certainly didn't want to offend anyone although it may have come off heavy handed.That was not a good sentence was it...Glad I didn't spoil it

PS: see you have the B&W 802D's.Listened on the 800 D's a few years back,and that was subliminal.I am envious

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Gremal

What people hear trumps theory any day.

Well that is where I respectfully disagree because what people "hear" often changes when they subject themselves to double blind testing in a non-fatiguing manner. Theory states that 01100101011 = 01100101011 but you state that if someone else says it sounds different to them based on KNOWING which one has the green marker and which one doesn't that those findings should trump scientific testing. Well that anecdotal evidence doesn't hold much weight to me at all. If they were to find the same results with someone else swapping the identical discs (identical with the exception of the green market) then those findings would have substantial weight indeed, but I don't doubt for a second that most of those "serious listeners" would not subject themselves to such testing.

I own More Hot Rocks, but as the DSD mastering involves different mastering than any previous CD releases, there is no reasonable way to compare them, so theory makes the most sense. In fact I cannot think of ANY release that would allow such a comparison, so how does one reach such a conclusion in the first place? If there is no possible way, such a conclusion should be dismissed. It's all in the mastering.

[mfduffy]

Speaking of DSD -- Did anyone notice that Marantz is dropping support for DSD decoding in their new line of AV Receivers?

I'm really surprised and disappointed by this move. More and more Blu-Ray players and coming onto the market that support DSD over HDMI. Why would they insult the audiophile world this way? Any ideas?

[bhampton]

Hey,

I only have 1 SACD but I love it.

I hope to get more eventually.

=Brian

[bigshot]

A couple of years ago, I bought a very good SACD player and bought a few SACDs to see if it offered an improvement. Some of the disks sounded different than the equivalent CD or even the CD hybrid layer. But careful listening led me to believe that they were differences in the mix, not the sound quality. I suspected that different masters were being used.

So I bought two copies of a beautifully engineered disk that was recorded DSD and was only available as an SACD hybrid. I lined them up side by side playing the two different layers and matched the levels. A friend of mine who is a sound engineer and I did a double blind test. There was absolutely no difference. Both layers sounded great.

The SACD player went in the closet and it's still there.

[bhampton]

Bigshot,

For real? ...

The only SACD I have is Dark Side of the Moon and I've heard various CD mixes of it over and over for a long time. The Multi-Channel mix isn't just another mix it's another level of quality and it's big step.

If it was simply CD quality sound from 6 channels instead of 2 then it would offer room for enhanced fidelity but it's beyond that.

You don't even need the best system to hear the difference, it's certainly not just a different mix.

-Brian

[rick88]

On *most* SACD's I have heard on my modest system, I could hear a difference for the better.