Q for Steve - master vs. lp/cd/sacd

While driving towards work today (school is back in session, commuter Mike hits the road again) and pondered this question for Steve: You have the Ampex rolling, the tape is threaded up, decisions have been made on how to twiddle the sonic gizmos that are top secret, the tape rolls and masters are made for lp's, cd's, and now SACD's (not all at once, I have been paying attention!); the software gets cut and off to market it goes - my question is, which medium sounds most like the master tape (tonewise)? I don't wanna get into which "sounds better" (reopening the lp vs. cd can o' worms, so folks, don't start that one up puhleeze) - I wanna know which one sounds most like the tape you (Steve) started with...

 

Hey now...answering questions with questions is my job...

 

Well, I'm screwed as far as trying a comparison myself - my T-table is not what I'd wanna use in a shoot 'em out match, and getting the software all in one spot is another problemo - CCR would be my best shot at actually doing it myself sometime, and the thought of buying vinyl and SACD's is icky. I'm also biased - I probably have 4 or 5 hundred lp's, and while I religiously scrubbed them with a Discwasher and kept the stylus clean and changed, pops and clicks drove me insane - I always wanted a Burwen tick and pop eliminator - am I showing my age???; digital harshness has me gritting my teeth these days instead of clicks/pops - needle drops on cd's really set me off!!! The wild card here is SACD, and I've got my fingers crossed that those CCR discs are what will be the truest tonal representation of the master tape. Have I honked off both vinyl and cd camps yet???

 

Hey, since I'm a teacher I should be answering questions with questions!

And, good point Gary - I'd say dollar wise my Sony DVD/SACD/CD player is in the ballpark with my old Denon/Grado combination; however, the stylus probably needs replacement, and definitely the patch cords - yikes, why do I ax questions like this????

 

Mono Mike,..........I do recall Steve saying that he can match them all up tonally......The only thing that can't match up......Is the resolution......The fine details in the music.......Like the decay of a cymbol crash will probably have a better ring to it than the cd counterpart.....

-Wes

 

woops sorry, I meant Indy Mike.......

 

Hi - I think Mono Mike slips out from Steve when I need to go to the woodshed for axing irritating questions that are pretty much impossible to answer without annoying a good chunk of our posting pals! I almost used Mono Mike for a name (I'm a stereo lovin' pest, so it's ranks in the sorta ironic department).

Let me rephrase the question a bit - Steve, Wes and Mono/Indy Mike are at Steve's pad ready for a listening session - Steve's finally remastering the Nuggets boxed set from Why-No-Stereo-Rhino Records; we have all the formats ready to review on components of equally high caliber. We're putting aside personal preferences and have vowed to think only about the master tape we can refer to and want to see which format comes closest to the master tape sonically/tonally (NOT which one sounds "best") - now what happens, boys and girls??? And NO axing questions to prod me further into deeper philosphical realms - grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!

 

I couldn't have put it better myself, well said Gary, but like I say, Steve can get cd/Lp/SACD to match up tonally....Just not resolution....An SACD/LP will be higher rez.....The Cymbols will have more of a ring to em, and you can hear more of the room.....

-Wes

 

Lots of assumptions here (not just this post, the whole thread), lots of vague use of words like 'resolution'. In scientific terms, digital formats tend to have higher resolution than LPs.

But the initial question was which one sounds most like the master tape (to Steve Hoffman)?

If the queston was asked of me instead of SH, first, I'd want to A/B each one blind and level-matched, to the master tape, see if I can really tell a difference. If I couldn't for any pair, that one would of course sound 'most like' the master tape...to me.

If none of them were identical to the master under controlled listening conditions, it's a matter of preference. Different people might find that different formats sound 'most like' the master tape. I think that to avoid bias, it would be important for the listener not to know whether the version he was hearing was analog, SACD, or CD. Because of course some of us 'know ' that SACD 'should' sound better than CD, and LP 'should' sound better than both.

 

I hope that was saracasm...

 

Excellent points.

Imagine the Pepsi Challenge with uncovered cans of soda.

 

Exactly! Bias.

 

Well, when I say more rez I mean to say that analog isn't just a flat 1's and 0's code. Music aint just rounded off numbers. It's more complex than that. Unlike cd, analog is a 1.182374875747262 and 0.1213343455653324 that captures a little extra rather than the codes all rounded up to a one or a zero.


-Wes

 

Wes, it is clear that you do not understand digital.

 

Really? Give me a lesson..........

-Wes

 

Isn't PCM digital just codes of 1' and 0's?

-Wes

 

Wes,

Using your number example of analog representation, one's and zero's can give an exact replication of the "number example" you described.

Let use DSD and your numbers:


"182374875......"

Ok, that's a 1 for the "1"
Add 7 more 1s to get to "8"
Subtract 6 1s to get to "2"
Add 1 to get to "3", and so on

Do this process at BILLIONS of times a second and you have DSD encoding.

Note other DSD experts out there: This may not be the best way to describe DSD, I know how it works, but this may not have been the best example to demontrate DSD encoding with.

PCM is also ones and zeros, but it samples a given analog wave form at anywhere from 44,100 times a second (and faster/slower) and assigns each of those samples or little slices of music a bit value from 0 to 16 (or more).

 

Actually, Wes is correct, as far as he goes. Redbook digital is a sort of connect-the-dots simulation against analogs continuous waveform. This could be one of the reasons why some find digital irritating and non musical because it is constantly taking you in and out of the music, in theory. Some can tune this out, especially if they know nothing other than digital, they are perfectly content. A good mastering engineer who knows the limitations of each format will be able to compensate so that they both sound good.

Then we can sit back and enjoy the music instead of debating about it.

 

Hey thanks Sam............Your explanation actually makes sense......

I'm not very knowledgeable w/ DSD.......It's a 1 bit system that just samples extremely fast right?

Redbook is 16 bit that samples much slower......From what I understand....

Grant? You can chime in too buddy......

-Wes

 

Well, that's assuming that you're connecting the dots with straight lines, which isn't the case. The output of digital *is* a continuous waveform. It's just that what's between the "dots" might not exactly match up with what was there in the first place.

 

Wow!........Well, I'm off for work. This thread'll probably be really interesting when I get back........Remember no rabbit punches.....





-Wes