High Resolution Audio Comparison

"When he reports he finds SACD less than he expected, I worry. I get to listen for myself Friday."

Something is amiss here. If he is so picky about his system, he should be getting great DSD sound. There must be something else or the machine he has is not doing a good job. The Pioneer 47s are not good at SACD IMHO.

Can you tell us exactly what system components and cables he is using and what SACD player he has?

 

You mean...in a careful listening comparison, SACD might not sound different than CD?

I'd be shocked, *ShOCKED* to hear that.

(Actually, I *would*, because AFAIK there's no easy way to compare the two formats, without two identical SACD players and a quick-switching setup.)
And this is assuming that you've got a hybrid disc where the PCM layer is otherwise identical, mastering-wise, to the SACD layer.)

 

I do have two identicle SACD players and there's a huge difference.

 

"I do have two identicle SACD players and there's a huge difference."

Me too and the difference between redbook and SACD is colossal.

Particularly on the Sonny Rollins album Colossal as well.

 

Hi Lee,

I currently have Colossal on XRCD. Have you ever heard the DCC Gold
Colossal, I was thinking of getting the Analogue Productions SACD but
wasn't sure whether to by the DCC or not.

 

Many people, including the writer of the Stereophile article seem to be misinformed about this. Sony / Philips does NOT own the rights to a hybrid disc. A hybrid is a subset of the DVD-V spec.

- Gabe

 

Let's be more specific. To do this test right -- that is, to determine as objectively as we know how, if a difference you hear is real, and likely due to DSD vs Redbook per se, you need:


1) two identical SACD players (let's assume they're level-matched, though absolute rigor would require this to be checked too)

2) connected to a quick-switching switchbox so that they both feed the same input of the same preamp

3) playing a hybrid disc where you know, for sure, that the only mastering difference between then derives from the final digitizing step (something along the lines of what SH does -- everything the same, then, DSD or PCM at the end.

4) precise playback synchronization so that one disc isn't lagging behind or playing ahead of the other (because even a tiny bit of that would allow you to ID the discs in an ABX protocol without them actually having to sound different)

5) either someone to do the switching for you, or using an ABX switchbox so that you can do 'double blind' comparison all by yourself.

6) enough comparisons so that the outcome is statistically significant.


//


of course if you really do have super powers, this will be no sweat

 

"Let's be more specific."

Krabapple...the difference between redbook and DSD is HUGE. This is not some DVDA vs DSD comparison or comparing power cords or something else subtle (if that is the case).

"playing a hybrid disc where you know, for sure, that the only mastering difference between then derives from the final digitizing step (something along the lines of what SH does -- everything the same, then, DSD or PCM at the end."

The technical problem with this is that "pure DSD" recording paths are completely different from PCM chains. To give SACD the full benefit you need to take the same session recorded straight to DSD and a simultaneous mic feed straight to PCM.

Also, it is not feasible to switch back and forth, one must listen to longer passages to really understand the differences completely. I am convinced anyone can pick out redbook to DSD short sample tests in any event.

I have the opportunity as a audiophile engineer to listen to straight PCM and DSD mic feeds and let me tell you even hi-rez PCM sounds worse than DSD to my ears.

Chesky Records has both DVDA and SACDs but the SACDs are cut from a PCM master so the comparison there is tough.

What I have found is that three things seem to stick out in sonic differences:

1. DSD captures high frequencies better. PCM remains a harsh format at the top end.

2. DSD has better bass, particularly mid-bass, to my ears. I think this may have something to do with #3.

3. DSD faster sampling rates seem to capture instrument tonality better. They also capture note transients, particularly noticeable on piano, sax and cymbals.

You should go listen to an SACD player (on a good system) yourself, however, and draw your own conclusions.

 

LeeS,

I am interested in the APO SACD releases for my XA77ES

How does the APO Gold of "Way out West" compare to the CD layer on the new SACD?

 

Why do people seem to think that if they answer my posts on suhc topics (which tend to be of the 'how do you know what you hearing is due to what you THINK it's due to" species.) with variations of "But is IS!", that I am going to be swayed by the force of their assertion?

That would work too. Just make sure all the rest of the stuff is in place, that I listed.

You misunderstand what I mean by 'quick switching' . It does not mean that you have to keep switching back and forth at short intervals. It simply means that the switching mechanism itself must be fast -- no lag between condition A and condition B, as one would encounter if using a single player to compare SACD and CD layers.

Listen as long as you like, to each format. Some people prefer short 'samples', others insist that you must listen to each condition for a long time.
Whatever. Just make sure the comparison is blind, the swithcing is fast, the music is synched, levels are matched, etc.

I'm sure we've gone through this before, but if your'e going to make this claim, and expect it to satisfy *me or similar skeptics* (and there's no law that says you have to) then you must detail the test conditions to assure me that they met at least the criteria I specified, so that bias can be ruled out.

Yet I bet I could find audiophiles who claim that the SACD layer sounds better -- probably some for whom the difference is HUGE. Do you see why I tend to be skeptical of audiophile enthusiasm?

<remainder snipped since it all flows from the testimony above>

 

The truth be known that SACD, DSD. DVD-V and DVD-A offer superior sound
to Red Book CD.

It is also very apparent that many people other than folks like us really don't care to analyze the music or truly don't have good hearing. My Father has been a life long music lover, frequents the Live performances all over the world. He is 72 years old and is just not that attentive when it comes to this kind of music talk. How many people reallyare analyzing the music of any age?

We on this forum are the exceptions and not the rule.

But it definitely makes for lively discussions and entertaining debates.

 

"that I am going to be swayed by the force of their assertion?"

No Krabapple, it's just that when sonics are so obviously better I feel I can claim it is true.

"you must detail the test conditions to assure me that they met at least the criteria I specified, so that bias can be ruled out."

I was there and heard the difference. I don't feel that I need to justify my findings in a scientific way at all. Audio is subjective and this my personal opinion. If you disagree that's fine, but the burden of proof should be on you to prove that I am somehow mistaken, not the other way around.

"Do you see why I tend to be skeptical of audiophile enthusiasm?"

Not really. I think the vast majority of audiophiles are truthful to the music and much more in tune than casual music listeners. In my experience audiophiles are generally more critical listeners who have been connected to formal music interests at one point in their life. We have our crazies just as Home Theater has its crazies, but they are a small percentage of the group IMHO.

I also think the generalization that audiophiles are just a bunch of elitist snobs who only want to justify expensive purchases is a stereotype that is as hollow as any racist remark.

 

Just a note to let you know that I haven't been able to audition my friend's system with the kilobuck SACD player. He's come down with a nasty bug that's making the rounds at the college (pretty standard at the end of each semester).

He wrote an e-mail reasserting his disappointment thus far with the SACD format (based on the enclosed samplers), although the CD playback is as good as he's ever heard. I'll report my impressions when he comes back from vacation on a new thread.

Anyone have a recommendation of which SACD recordings truly represent the state of the art? I'd prefer classical or jazz titles.

 

There's truth that *established* via testing against reality, and truth that's merely *proclaimed*.

 

One could argue that that's not really the case, from a scientific perspective.
It is trivially easy to fool someone into thinking they heard difference -- subjectively HUGE ones -- , when none existed. That our senses are so prone to delusion, makes simple claims of having heard an obvious difference, open to
skepticism.

But audiophiles have not proven themselves to be any more immune to comparison biases than other listeners, when they've agreed to participate in such trials. If anythign they have a greater emotional (and often, financial) investment in the idea of *stuff sounding different* than your average listener, who cares little for the difference between mp3 and Redbook.

Oops.

 

Absolutely correct. But yet both remain truths. A test of audio that uses as a reference point an opinion is tending towards a proclaimed truth - which in no way a universal invalidation just a route that some have contrary views towards. If two elements in an audio chain are to be compared for differences then they should be subject to laboratory tests of frequency response et al for every understood variable - If there are differences then there remains the possibility that they sound different. If there are no differences then it may be that they are the same or that not enough tests have been carried out. This from my standpoint is all a test of difference and not preference - an individual may prefer item X under circumstance Y and yet under test conditions have a contrary view.

All the best - Andrew

 

Lab measurements may give you reason to suspect there may or may not be an audible difference; but the crucial actual test is a listening test,--- with controls in place.

And indeed, it is a test of difference, not preference.

 

It is a test of opinion - of perceived difference that has a veneeer of the scientific method wrapped around it - the real test of difference lie in the measurements.

&ru

 

"If two elements in an audio chain are to be compared for differences then they should be subject to laboratory tests of frequency response et al for every understood variable - If there are differences then there remains the possibility that they sound different."

Interesting...but how can you do this since audio cannot be measured in its entirety?

 

Well if you can't mearure everything then an element of subjectivity remains in any stated outcome and the results are to a degree matters of opinion.

All the best - Andrew

 

"Lab measurements may give you reason to suspect there may or may not be an audible difference; but the crucial actual test is a listening test"

That seems reasonable to me.

"Well if you can't mearure everything then an element of subjectivity remains in any stated outcome and the results are to a degree matters of opinion."

Yes, but some things are more obvious than others. Like the difference between redbook and hi-rez.

 

Nope. It's a test of what is truly audible to the testee. Measurments can differ and yet have produce no audible difference. Our measurement devices are often far more sensitive than our ears.

 

As is a non blind listening comparison.

Perhaps then if the element of opinion introduced by the human component is removed this provides a more scientific basis to establish difference.

&ru

 

"As is a non blind listening comparison."

I agree.

 

But do they have the perception abilities that humans do?

I think it's safe to assume that there are all sorts of scientific instruments that could assist in the determination of a number of things. I'll bet there are even devices that could determine the composition of a bottle of wine. But could they distinguish between a Lafite-Rothschild and a Margaux, or would Boone's Farm Strawberry Hill come across just a splendid?