SH Spotlight What sounds just like the analog master tape: CD, Vinyl, SACD or a 1:1 analog Reel tape copy?

I'm very grateful that I am able to hear differences but I also understand why some people don't or can't. Hearing is a sense that can vary much like sight or taste. I feel lucky I was able to enjoy my luck at a young age.

 

Well, I can never understand why some people can't hear differences because I do. Maybe it's something about how each of our brains are wired.

 

I am all about recorded coherence
I record @ 88.2kHz /24 bit and then process and produce a cd to Red Book standard
Rarely do they sound different
When I mail a track to a friend or artist, it is data reduced drastically, and sometimes they sound very good
Its all about ,as Tony Faulkner says 'when pissing in the soup,when does the customer complain' ,ie when does one stop
One stops at 320 Kbs or lossless, this can be imperceptable SQ to the majority of listeners.
It is fabulously convient to email music in shorthand form but this should not be the normal format.
Neither do we need the full 88.2kHz file.
Just like the lacquer and the pressing

 

Bumping this cuz of this ...

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/can-cd-truly-sound-as-good-as-vinyl.327633/

 

The CD will be the "gold standard" of audio forever, IMO (all things considered). Yes, I do know that SACD is higher resolution, but I still believe CD to be the gold standard of digital audio and indeed all audio.

 

I'm a try it right now...lucky enough to have said disc.

 

Using headphones, yes, the drum hit goes "deeper"...further back into my head if that makes sense.
Another fun test, like the speaker placement one using Waterloo Sunset.

 

Another example like this is with the track "Sky saw" from the Brian Eno " Another Green World" Album. The drums reverb and ambient is a lot better on the ISLAND UK LP

 

That's a great description of increased resolution with SACD vs. CD! I remember back when I was first checking out SACD and something like that (on some Hoffman disc, although I don't remember which - maybe Bill Evans "Waltz for Debbie"?) was the first thing I noticed. Great description.

 

I wonder what Debby thinks about all this.

 

Hey there. I bought a copy of that SACD by chance a few years back, I figured I'd test this out (and make an account after lurking all these years..). I have a first-generation Sony Playstation 3 with which I rip my SACDs for listening on the PC and the ipod, after downsampling etc. With Analogue Productions disks there's a redbook layer so all the work is done for me, just rip the redbook layer.. but this isn't the case with most other labels, unfortunately.

Anyway, I originally ripped the .iso and converted to 24-bit/96kHz PCM when I first bought the disk. After ripping the redbook layer for comparison, I dug up the the flac files converted from the DSD (converted with Weiss Saracon-DSD, compressed to FLAC) to test. Weiss Saracon is the industry standard for DSD-PCM conversion so I do not expect it to alter the audio in any audible way, you can refer to their website for technical specs:

I also upsampled/upconverted the redbook track to 24-bit/96kHz to eliminate any artifacts arising from differences between the way my DAC handles different sample rates. After marking the starting point of Fortunate Son in the single SACD flac file I attempted to ABX the redbook from the SACD file with Foobar's ABX tool. Result after 50 trials.. 48% accuracy. My setup is bit-perfect, using ASIO drivers, 100% digital volume, no EQ or anything applied to the digital signal chain. I listen with a Benchmark DAC1 + Schiit Lyr amp, feeding a pair of Denon D2000 cans.. I wouldn't call this a low-end setup.

The files possessed identical tonality and identical echo trails to my ears, according to the results of the blind test. I suggest the difference you hear between the high-resolution and redbook-resolution playback is down to confirmation bias. When I played the files without masking their file names I swear I heard a clear difference between the echo trails of the drum kit.. the ABX proved this was not so. I don't trust my memory to remember the quality of audio playing the SACD through my player then switching over to the redbook side and comparing.. the method I used eliminates this issue. I'm a big fan of your work, Steve, but the suggestion that high res files possess distinct tonal characteristics sounds ridiculous to me.

 

Actually drawing universal conclusions based on one test with one listener on one system strikes me as a bit ridiculous. I accept that *you* could not hear differences in *this test* on *your setup*. I don't accept drawing a broader conclusion based on one test. Be careful when drawing conclusions about other peoples' experiences. That is thin ice on this forum.

 

So you can't hear it and your conclusion from that is it's ridiculous if someone claims to hear it? That's a pretty strong assertion.

 

FWIW, I wouldn't assume that the redbook layer of hybrid CDs are the same mastering as the 2ch DSD layer. Some are, some aren't.

 

The very fact that he heard a difference means that it wasn't imagined.

 

On the other hand, if we accept his single data-point conclusion, we get to eliminate hundreds of forum threads, and formally retitle the site Steve Hoffman Beatles Music Forum Beatles.

 

If I may...... why does this topic continue to come up time and again? What drives people to want to have their opinion be definitive on the matter? Are they just looking to reinforce their decision and feel good about themselves, or what?

I've read, and participated, in several threads on this site on this topic, and there's more mis-information and fact mangled with opinion, to fill a rather large quarry. Isn't the truth that a) In the end the only opinion that matters is the one made by your ears; b) All formats can do better than they often achieve; c) Sometimes record companies screw up a release or two (or three); d) Most of the music people are listening to is rubbish anyway, so why do you care?

The lasting impression I get of these topics is that they're all about bobbing in the middle of an ocean while splashing to attract the maximum number of sharks.

 

Well, it passes the time on a wet afternoon...

 

So, what music do you consider is not rubbish? Stuff you like?

 

Heh heh. I was being mischievous, just to see if anyone was reading.

 

I agree totally with the folks who say it has all to do with the source materials and how they were mastered into a particular medium, and not the medium itself. In the case of Blu Ray, If I look at the Blu ray of King of Kings I'm gonna go WOW, beautiful, great job!!!.......but looking at Night of the Living Dead I'm gonna say "What's the point?" Same medium......This is something Robert A Harris has been saying for years. It's like don't shoot the messenger. The messenger in this case is Bluray, C.D. or vinyl. The message is where the problems lie.

 

Princesskiki,

You seem pretty knowledgeable about the various releases of Thriller, so I'd like to ask a quick question.

My edition of Michael Jackson's Thriller doesn't seem to match any of the ones I've seen discussed in this forum. Let me describe it:

The spine reads "EK38112 Michael Jackson-Thriller Epic" all in red lettering.

The back says "Now Made in the USA" and the bar code says 7464-38112-2. The Epic logo is in the old style.

The CD itself says "EK38112" on the right hand side, with no other number. At the bottom it reads "Epic Reg. US Pat & TM Off Marca Registrada" The plastic ring in the middle has the code "2A EK38112 42 B".

It's close to some I've seen described but not exact. I've never seen anyone else mention this exact code on the plastic ring, and never seen one that said "Marca Registrada".

Do you know anything about this version?