The Value Of Listing Systems In Profile When Passing Judgement On Recordings.

Just an observation here.

I was going over a thread discussing the merits of an SACD release vs an earlier CD release and the vinyl also popped up in the discussion. In many cases, checking the members systems in profile provided an insight as to maybe why they reached the conclusions they did about the sound.

If you were to have equivalent front ends for both vinyl, CD and SACD (they don't necessarily have to be super expensive just somewhat equivalent) then, you might have a good chance of forming a valid judgment as to one format vs the other with the same title on your system. Others, with systems 'weighted in different directions' might draw a completely different conclusion.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't a "who has a better system thing". It is about giving us the capability in assessing the info presented about the sound quality of the releases and formats that we are discussing.

We are dealing with sound REPRODUCTION here and that is obviously VERY DEPENDENT upon what is being used to reproduce that sound. I think that is why there will continue to be wide variations in the conclusions reached by all of us concerning various titles reviewed.

Most of us LOVE our systems and some take it as a personal attack if others say anything about them. We shouldn't feel that way. I don't think we want to "pass judgment" on each others system choices unless we are asked to, but, it helps a lot when reading your evaluations as to the sound quality of recordings, to have some idea of where you are coming from.

Then of course there's that guy sitting on a beach somewhere with a transistor radio that thinks we're all nuts 'cause obviously everything sounds the just great'! (maybe he's the smart one )

 

Not only smart but lucky. Hope nobody opens his ears someday and loses his innocence.

 

This is a purely personal thing for me - but I have found that the differences experienced in alternative mastering greatly outweigh the differences arising from changes in hardware. I can easily imagine that the DCC of Band on the run through any CD player that anyone on the forum has will sound better (to me at least) than the 25th anniversary through a state of the art player.

I'm critical in my listening - but at the same time if one version of a recording is all that I have and it gets panned by others it still doesn't stop me enjoying the music.

Keep up the good work keeping us informed about SACD Khorn, I find the feedback that is generated very interesting

All the best - Andrew

 

It looks like you might be the resident expert on SACD sound. I have a real good cd player and an older midfi lp turntable. I just purchased a used vinyl copy of Jethro Tull's Benefit. The lp copy sounds better than any of the cd copies I can throw up against it. According to your argument the cd's should sound better.

 

It's not just the front ends but the whole system that can skew the opinion. As time goes on most people learn that system synergy is of utmost importance in maximizing the final result. I have heard what I know for a fact to be superb recordings sound absolutly HORRID on poor or poorly matched equipment. Believe it or not I once walked into a place and 'The Railroad Trilogy' was playing. I said "hey, that's a great Lightfoot song, I wonder who that is singing it" It WAS Lightfoot!! That's how bad some systems can sound.

I am becoming 'obsessed' . with SACD and finding new titles to buy so I'll keep reporting what I find

 

I know that when I first switched to CD from a great turntable setup back in about '84 I felt that there was a certain resolution that CD provided that vinyl lacked.The 'ambient fullness' (that some attribute to resonances in the vinyl playback chain) of vinyl was missing though. CD sounded "sterile, sort of deadening and uninvolving". As time went on CD sounded better and better with the advancement in the technology but never quite recaptured that fullness of sound.
From my initial impressions of SACD I really believe that it can and does recapture the emotional involvement and will only improve as time goes on and masterers gain experience with the format.

 

I love 'Canadian Railroad Trilogy' (to be pedantic). One of my very favourite Gordon Lightfoot songs; an unusual three-part format (obviously) in a long 6+ minute song.

Regards,
Geoff

 

That's a double edged razor, so to speak. I think I have a half decent system, but my previous CD player made sooo many of my CDs sound like total crap--even my DCCs. Things are much better now with the new player. There are too many variables involved with equipment considerations.

The best method of assessing another's sonic judgements probably comes after numerous comparisons with your own.

 

Khorn,

Listing one's equipment does little to illuminate one's ability to assess recordings and equipment objectively. I don't recall listing mine, if I did, it's there for everyone to see, if not, all the better since my system is comprised of numerous components that never made the bif time.

Heading the list is a 19 year old amp that was limited to a production run of fewer than 125. The chances that anyone here has ever heard of one, much less seen one, are slim and none. The builder stopped at that number because his OEM supplier ceased production on the output transformers he used; he built a subsequent model (less than 30) of that unit with transformers that even he felt didn't hold a candle to the original, so he moved on to other designs.

My speakers are, likewise, unusual, although the now-defunct Fi magazine did write their only review raving about their prowess to do more than a few things right. On the strength of hearing them at the CES in 1996, I bought a pair, and have never looked back. These too were in limited production, and the chances are, again, that most members' lack of familiarity with the name could cause some bias.

We all hear differently; that's a fact that those who refuse to consider the merits of a brand they've not seen reviewed in a magazine often overlook. I bought the SA-14 in preference to the SCD-1 after having both in my listening room, although the former has never been reviewed by TAS or Stereophile. What could I possibly know?

 

OK probability is that in your particular case, as atypical as it is, we can assume that you have a good reproduction chain based on our familiarity with the expertise that you have exhibited in your postings over time. But again your situation is atypical. Most here, though not all, are more main stream in their equipment choices.

BTW I bought the SCD-1 because:

1) It is ONE of the best players available.

2) I paid a ridiculously low price that probably anyone here in the market for that level of machine would have jumped at given the chance.

 

I find it hard to say one aspect of the reproduction chain is more or less important than any other. i know most of the people on this forum are very much into mastering and it is unquestionably important. I've always considered the original recording the most important thing. You cannot get blood from a stone so they say. i do think however in any given situation it is the weakest link in the chain that inevitably becomes the most important link. That varies from system to system and recording to recording. Recently Tom Port said he felt one of my favorite reissues< Shelly Mann's Sounds unheard of was inferior to the original and less than ideal. Yet it sounds as close to live music as anything on my system. May be he is right and the original would sound even better to me. But I would have to say this one must be given credit on the recording end for sounding so good.

 

There are just no absolutes in this When Tom Port said he felt that... well that is the end of the validity - it's just what Tom feels no more no less no absolute statement on anything (other than his feelings). Tom is a great guy with a heap more knowledge and experience about the various pros and cons of recordings than I will ever have - but he will never be able to say which version I will prefer. I will take Tom's advice most any time as I will anyone on the forum - but at the end of the day it is just personal preference no more no less.

Scott - I totally agree that a holistic view of the whole chain is needed - maybe in my simplicity I ascribe this to the mastering and am wrong. The essence of what I experienced was that two CDs of the same piece with a different production chain varied so greatly in reporoduction when only the CD Player was altered.

All the best - Andrew

 

Interesting point Khorn, about system synergy. It is totally truth that you speak.

When I first took the audiophile equipment plunge I had a system that was rated quite high in the Hi-Fi mag (Stereo Review). It absolutely sounded like crap! When I decided to scrap it and buy another, was I ever shocked at the night & day differences!

So for those who don't think that equipment plays much of or any part in your listening experience...stop kidding yourself. The equipment is only secondary to the mastering.

 

Not really, let's take you as an example. If you were to post an opinion as to the sound quality of a particular disc and you raved about the midrange and especially vocal qualities I would sit up and take notice. Why, because I know even without me ever hearing it , that your system is capable of killer midrange and vocal reproduction. I am familiar with the speakers that you use and know enough about the rest of the chain that I can appreciate that you have the tools to make a valued judgment. That is of course assuming that you don't have cloth ears

True enough, that's probably the best way to decide if we can rely on the majority of published music and movie reviews.

 

Andrew

Your observations sound reasonable to me. Sounds like the difference in the mastering was so severe that in your comparison one of them became the weakest link in the chain. Even if Tom is right that the AP mastering is inferior to the original, I suspect that it is not so inferior as to be a major problem. It's the major problems where ever they happen that get under our skins I think.

 

Scott I totally agree

 

You may be overlooking the fact that some Vinylmaniacs are biased and the same goes for Cd-Holics. Sometimes we hear what we want to hear and have preferences for that certain sound..Bass,treble,midrange, To hiss or not to hiss, groove noise, ticks, snaps, crackle, pops, no-noise all add to our evaluations and enjoyment.

 

A person raving about midrange tells me nothing about the quality of his gear. It could mean that his system is hyped in the mids and the listener focuses on nothing else. Maybe the listener has bad hearing in the middle frequencies so he/she tends to think the midrange is right, when it could actually be overbloated.


Again, it's all in the ear of the listener. There is no sure way to tell with the written word if the sound one hears on his system holds any more validity to a claim of sonic accuracy than another persons opinion based on this fact of how each person hears. There are just too many variables to consider.

 

"The best method of assessing someone else's sonic judgements probably comes with numerous comparisons with you own"


Indeed! And when you find some one who's ears you trust you instantly increase your resources for valuable evaluations.

 

It can also initiate a spending spree, and the need for more CD storage space.

 

That's quite an odd thing to say. Usually it's the frequency extremes that are singled out for attention - too bright a top end, too much bass energy due to excitation of room nodes. Most systems get the midrange right.

Bad hearing in the middle frequencies is not normal. An "overbloated" midrange? Unusual choice of words, Grant.

You are quite a pessimist.

Regards,
Geoff

 

I don't think we are discussing sonic accuracy, as much as we are discussing sonic characteristics. At least for me anyway. I agree with khorn that the system can be an important factor, but it is just one among many.

 

Further thoughts on this...

Unlike many members of this board, I don't base my decision to buy or not buy a recording based on the label that produced it or the engineer who mastered it or the sound quality it is reputed to have. If I've heard something on the radio that appeals to my musical senses enough I'll buy it. If it sounds good when I open and play it that's great, but if its sound is only average that doesn't mean that I'll toss it in the dumpster. OTOH, if I consider it a sonic disaster, it goes into the stack that I'll trade in at the used CD store.

Take Sade's album with Smooth Operator on it for example. I'll openly confess that the ONLY song on this album that I liked is the one I just mentioned. The grocery store where my wife and I shop has this song playing on its in-store sound system frequently, and I found it catchy. I would ask store employees if they knew who was singing that song every time I heard it and finally found out. I then did a little research on it and found that there was a 180 gram audiophile pressing of it, so I figured it must sound pretty good, right? This was somewhat reinforced by comments that I'd seen at various web sites, so I decided I'd spring for the CD... boy, is this ever a sonic piece of $h1t! I wouldn't wish this one on my worst enemy.

Well, I hope I didn't gore anyone's sacred cow there, but I suppose that as much as one might be able to come to some conclusions about one's hearing abilities based on his home audio gear, there's as much to be said about the concurrent issues of knowing what that person's listening preferences are (in terms of the KIND of music they listen to most frequently). While I can appreciate that the DCC Aqualung (on either vinyl or CD, I have both) is a quantum leap forward from those wretched things that WEA put out in the early days of CD, I can't imagine basing my decision to buy a CD, SACD or vinyl LP on the comments of those who claim this to be one of the three best sounding DCC releases (see that thread). My question to them would be, "Compared to what?"

It certainly doesn't approach the sonic majesty of some of Steve's awesome remasters of the classical stuff; nor does it come close to some of the better jazz or Nat Cole reissues he did (in terms of natural sound quality), but if the assessments and recommendations are made using these kinds of recordings as examples of audiophile quality sound then we're not on the same page. If OTOH, the assessments are made relative to the original WEA CDs, I can fully appreciate this.

In the end, it comes down to what each of us likes and dislikes about the sound of audio recordings. If we can convey this information with some articulation to another member of this forum who benefits from it then that's terrific.

 

Great sound starts with a good Mastering job. The most expensive rig
in the world will sound bad if the mastering was poorly done. In fact
a good rig will bring out all the flaws even more.
That's why if you play a DCC CD on almost any equipment it should sound
really good.
Those of you who are lucky enough to own tube based equipment or really
good solid state equipement also know that a good mastering job will
sound even better if the equipment is good.

I do not have a Vinyl equipment any longer, but in the 60's and 70's I
had some of the best tube and turntable equipment available.

I still remember how superior the sound of my rig of yesteryear was compared to my equipment of today.

If my Sony $2000 XA77ES SACD player had just a few output tubes added to it, maybe with a DCC $30 disc it would sound close to my $5 Vinyl record
of yesteryear playing off of my $150 1970 Thorens Turntable.

As far as SACD itself is concerned, Although I made the SACD investment, I am still skeptical. There are lots of problems that need to be ironed out.
Time alignment and frequency wave form issues that must be resolved.

Hope I'm not totally off topic here. Its been a long day.

BEst Regards,

GAry S. Freed
Elkins Park, PA



Have a good night.

 

At the risk of sounding combative I must disagree with a few comments. Great sound starts with a great recordings. All the mastering tricks in the world can' make magic out of doo doo.

Midrange is hard to get right. That is where most of the music is and that is where most of the flaws that matter in reproduction lurk.


Just my opinion, I could be wrong