Yes, but IMO there is really no such thing as a true 'black background'. There is always some noise. All we can hope for is to minimize it to the point where we aren't bothered by it. I keep hearing people talking about this black background when listening to vinyl. IMO, this is absolutely impossible. You will always hear the groove walls if you listen close enough, no matter how good your setup is, with the possible exception being a laser turntable. When I was working in the studios, I was always trying to lower the noise floor of our signal paths. It was a never ending task. As soon as you remove the most offensive noise source, the next offensives source seems to show up. This goes on and on endlessly. No matter how far you take this, there will always be some noise present. Btw, the noise floor can have all kinds of different noises present. Some will be hums, some hiss, some hash, etc.
That was my first guess. It's not uncommon that a digital input (cd) will be processed so it's in 2.1 channels (the main speakers and the subwoofer), but a stereo SACD in most set ups will only play back using the two main speakers. Maybe it's just the presence of the sub that makes the bass on cds sound more full to some people.
My thoughts about Avalon and Sea Change are based only on listening to the 5.1 mix. I'm not sure how the 2CH SACD or the CD layer sound. I also have both Sea Change and Avalon RBCDs with a HDCD layer and they sound very good. I have read here that the Sea Change MOFI Gold CD sounds excellent when compared to the 2CH layer of the SACD. Bill
Again, you are on an audiophile forum. I respect your opinion, but it would be akin to me going on a video game forum and saying how childish it is to play video games. Personally, I don't agree with your wine analogy at all. If you don't know what to look for, then of course you can't really tell the difference between an expensive wine and a cheap wine. It's similar to someone who only listens to jazz saying the Beatles are just like any other rock band. Of course, people who listen closely to the Beatles and rock and roll knows this is not true. But to someone who doesn't listen to rock and roll, then they think it all sounds the same. See what I mean?
It's difficult to know what kind of system you think is adequate since you haven't filled out your profile here at all. For all I know, you have a fairly impressive though not monster-buck system that certainly does sound impressive. Or maybe you're listening to a boombox and think it's good enough. Or an iPod hooked up to some speaker dock. For some people, that's good enough. I've never owned truly high end equipment, but I have auditioned some a few times in my life. Some of it left me feeling very much like you're describing -- maybe some minute differences, but nothing to get all worked up over. I'll always remember one demo, though: I was so stunned by how realistic the playback was (and this was a "lowly" cd) that I thought Art Pepper, Hampton Hawes, Charlie Haden and Shelly Manne were playing their instruments right in front of me. Spooky, spooky realism. (The cd was the early Japanese issue of Art Pepper's "Living Legend" album.) I could kick myself today, but I didn't even ask what equipment was being used because I knew I couldn't afford anything the shop was selling at that time. I was just there auditioning speakers with a friend, so I do at least remember which speakers they were: Celestion SL6si. I don't remember the sub used in the demo, but it was switched in and out. The SL6sis were incredible on certain types of music on their own, but anything requiring bass below, say, 100 Hz definitely needed the sub engaged. I'm only retelling this story here because you may have never had a similar experience and thus you may be thinking that there is no merit to people seeing out excellence in audio equipment.
Actually I think it's a good analogy. If you don't know what to look for then you can't tell the difference, surely applies to audio. In fact, that is my point. I can't tell you how many people I've tought how to listen for specific things. They said they'd never be able to hear them, but once I pointed them out they could. It's not so much the gear or the program material, as much as people not knowing what to listen for. I surely know what to listen for, though it can take time. I'm constantly called upon to evaluate various minute changes to a recording, and sometimes it takes time to key in. For example, when I first listen to a song, do I right away listen for the three dimensional component, or do I listen for cartridge mistracking? If you are looking or listening for one thing you may miss other things. When you listen for pleasure, if you listen over and over again, you will eventually pick up on most of these things. But when you're listening for work, and don't have the luxury of time and unlimited listens, it's sometimes hard to know what to listen for. Usually with my partner, when he sends me something to evalutate, he may give me a clue as to what he's keying on. Without that info, I'll get there eventually, but knowing what to listen for is half of the battle. Music as played back on a good playback system can be very complex and there are a lot of things to listen to. That is part of the beauty. We've all seen how we can make a slight change and all of a sudden we hear a new detail in a recording that we've missed for years.
Come on guys, think about it...if the masterings are different on the SACD side and the CD side, it was obviously done as a marketing gimmick. Of course they're going to make the CD layer sound worse in some cases, because it tricks people (including apparently a lot of misinformed people on this thread) into thinking that the huge difference in sound quality due to different masterings is due to the format itself. That being said, I would expect audiophile remasterings to have the same mastering on both sides.
Good observations. My biggest problem by far is room noise...my system is down in the basement so I've got a refrigerator that's periodically running behind me, the furnace/air conditioner, and then the noise of the furnace/air conditioner blowing out the vent above my head, also I have a cooling fan on my amp...etc. Trying to minimize room noise in of itself can be a path to madness.
I have an Esoteric sa50 a great machine-big deal- and noticed that the bass does show a slight difference or improvenment as compared to the higher registers. CDs do seem at times to have more "Punch" but SACDs seem to be smoother. Whats better is anybodys guess. Their are to many veritables to make a good decision. If you had a DVD-Audio, SACD and Redbook recording an orchestra live on the best recorders and then compared them maybe a solid proof can be made. The mastering, mixing and futzing around make a comparison very difficult with Pop recordings especially with all the "top many cooks in the kitchen" problem. SACDs have smooth Bass and great extended highs, DVD-Audios sound like CDs aught to sound like, everything great and CDs sound very good at times and enemic at others. Thats all I can hear, Take care, John M.
Studio Six Digital has a free SPL meter App for iDevices. It's actually pretty cool.They have a whole suite of apps for recording, audiophiles, etc. http://www.studiosixdigital.com/
Another blabbing post from a soapbox here, no need to read. Another curious point about that AES study concluding one can't hear high-res is that the music industry adopted it for themselves in their own use soon as it came around. Oh they may say it's so they can manipulate the data with less audible loss then downres it for CD, but at what point then do they start hearing data loss? Is it actually 16/44.1? Less? More? No study. Engineers developed it, in all cases deciding on a lot more than 16bit. When a consumer product, SACD, finally shows up saying there is something better than the CD, some in the industry, 99% invested in and oriented to the production and sales of CD, do a study. It just happens to support their standard operating procedure, eliminating the doubt SACD raised about their claims of the 'perfect sound' of their current CD products. You won't benefit from this new thing consumers, just buy the existing product with confidence. Quite a lot of the music industry believed stereo was a gimmick consumers wouldn't benefit from and were reluctant to embrace it. Mostly the resistance stemmed from it changing the standard operating procedures. It wasn't easy to "up their game" in the relevant respects. Many used stereo as multi-tracks from which to downmix to mono for years. High res formats could (and many SACDs can) likewise reveal a lot of the industry's work, especially that of most of the "big players," has for some time been at a level easily served by the old CD. That the majority of the industry was willing to upgrade consumer formats in the past but the majority resists it this time is just another example of how a lot of attitudes have changed in the time since. Same mindsets seen in the industry responses to the unplanned-for emergence of the internet. Arguably it's reflected in stagnation of some music genres in the mass market. Defending one's choice of status quo is an unfortunate mindset but has become more common in business, IMH. All progress happens in spite of it, from more open and/or flexible people. Again, just talkin', carry on folks...
Interesting take Cole. I spoke to a couple of audiophile recording engineers at RMAF and they both mentioned that they feel DSD gets so close to the live mic feed that it is indistinguishable. I have heard really amazing hirez PCM but DSD has more of an analog sound to my ears. Todd Garfinkle (ma Recordings) was playing a Korg MR2000 of DSD recordings at 5.8mhz (2 X normal DSD) at RMAF and they sounded so natural and real.
In many many years of listening to lp's, cd's (from the beginning in the mid 80's), and sacd's, three things have always been apparent to me comparing the best of the sacd's to best of cd's: 1. Transients: musical transients like the pluck of an acoustic guitar string always sounded more natural on sacd. Many times been listening casually to an sacd where I suddenly took notice in a 'wow, that sounded real!' moment. 2. Detail and involvement: I am able to listen 'further in' to a recording on sacd - good example is the recent 'Sticky Fingers' shm-sacd. Amazing to close my eyes and visualize each instrument and the space around each. 3. Timbral naturalness: instruments just sound more natural on the best sacd's, from complex bass overtones, overdriven guitar midrange (eg the guitar on Who's Next shm-sacd), to the shimmer of cymbals. All of these just add up to a more satisfying listening experience - I listen to the performance and not the recording... Mike
Sure. IMH non-intrusive mild noise isn't worth bothering with and isn't relevant. What I perceive in "standard" vs "high res" is heard in the music at any normal level on less-than-super-expensive gear in environments that aren't dead quiet. The sound of our electronic gear can be influenced by characteristics of its power supply though.
Funny, but it almost sounds like you're talking about 1/2 speed cut LP's. That's why I liked them so much and why I like Hi-Res music files. They both share many of these attributes.
Yes exactly, it gives the impression of being more like the feed, mic feed, quality analog tape etc, in most or all respects, even hard to distinguish. I can't comment as to DSD vs PCM, but speak of both generically as "high res." Both are very impressive. Both provide the same key differences over lower res PCM. 16bit really is a quality sound and sure it serves more than well enough in most respects. It's more than enough as far as most people will (consciously) care. But that's not a reason to stick everyone with it forever when you could just as well do better.
In a perfect world, yes. But you're assuming that whoever is the mastering engineer (doing a reissue of an analog recording) isn't compromising the sound in any way. That's a really BIGGGG assumption..
Yes, absolutely! I think my first exposure to 1/2 speed mastering were the two Petty albums that he pushed to have better quality (damn the torpedoes and hard promises), then began collecting mofi's and some of the hit and miss columbia's.... Mike
This! ^ I have a very modest system and I can hear the difference. That's all I need to know that SACD is superior over CD. One might say that it's all in the mastering, because I have heard, and own some pretty plain-sounding SACDs.
Well, I noticed a difference when I switched to playing SACDs. To me, the most noticeable difference on my system is with the drums. The separation is more distinct. I think, at least on my system, I could tell whether one was playing the CD or SACD layer of a recording from the drum sound if nothing else.
Do you think the industry's adoption of the study suggests it (the study) may have been in some way corrupt or illegitimate? I would have thought the economics argue in the other direction, and that if anything the study's results are more credible for that reason: Investment in a new format, the money to be made from selling old wine in new bottles, and the general impression one gets that as time goes on the rate of change in technology and excitement over "the new" only increases. Anyhow, on a personal level, I suspect I'd not be able to discern SACD resolution from standard CD if put to the test. Still, I buy SACD's for some of the other reasons given in the article linked to in the OP -- releases on the format usually get the kind of attention that results in a more satisfying product. And, irrespective of how I feel about others' claims that they can discern a difference between SACD and CD resolution, as a pragmatist I am pleased there are professionals who would make such a claim, and hold that belief, and similar beliefs -- it is at least partly on account of such beliefs that they lavish attention on fine details which results in a more satisfying product. By the way, wasn't there a study/test published not too long ago suggesting that standard resolution files were recognizably distinct from, and preferred to, standard resolution files created from higher resolution files? I wish I could remember more about it (assuming I'm not just making it up) and come up with a link. Certainly would be an interesting finding if that was the case.
