Digital Front Ends with Classic AR's

[Steve F]

>Knowing that the Stereophile article would take a long time to

>read, I just wonder what your take on just this page might be:

>

>http://www.stereophile.com//features/282/index2.html

>

>Bret

I have no reason to doubt any of this.

I also can't personally confirm its validity either. Just bear in mind that the "theoretical" difference was known in advance, and that may (or may not) have influenced the perceived results.

In any event, this is precisely the kind of "grossly apparent" difference that often goes away when the listener is not 'on the lookout' for it.

The limits and boundaries of listener perception are often very difficult to nail down. Most people would be amazed (and horrified) if they knew how much THD in the bass needed to be present before the sound became "objectionable."

This whole area is one of never-ending fascination, with only a few truly clear-cut certainties.

Steve F.

[Guest OldRelayer]

Ok, what is SACD. I guess it is more CD. I found players from $150 to infinity, a Marantz for over $3,000. Ok the lower end I can afford, I am assuming you just plug it into an aux input, but after Bret's book, I am not really sure, what you plug into what. Ok, let's say that all works, what is available on this better quality CD. I find a site that sells them and apparently there are a few different varieties. I weed through that and find a Dave Brubeck album, now I am interested. It is $17, ok, that isn't so bad, plus shipping of course. I read the reviews and they seem favorable, not of the album but of how it was presented with this new technology. Then I get to the last review that pretty much says, it has the same feel as the LP, I take that as a good thing. Now I think, I would really like this album, I had it once and don't remember why I don't have it any longer. So I go off to Ebay and find a sealed LP for $18.25 with shipping and I don't need to buy a player to play it on, I have a turntable, I click the buy now and it should be on its way. It reminds me of a similar thing that happens every time I think I want a new guitar. I go off to the music store, I play all the latest Nylon string guitars and they don't seem to have the same feel as my Epiphone, intonation isn't quite right and of course it isn't broken in, wood was cut last week, yuck. I walk over pick out a set of strings, take them home and I have my new guitar, all I really needed was strings, not a whole new guitar. I have done this so many times that I don't do it anymore, whenever I think I want a new guitar, I walk right to the strings, buy them and leave.

[rrcrain]

I bought the 30 year reissued "Dark Side of the Moon" on LP and it's my opinion that it is remastered. Compared to the old CD I own, the increased clarity is stunning. I was never quite able to understand some of the lyrics on the CD, and was stunned that I could actually understand the lyrics on the LP.

[Rlowe]

Here's a review of the SACD - Pink Floyd. may interest you.

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/reviews/...number=19939611

[Guest OldRelayer]

Now I am excited, I wasn't sure if I was going to open it or not, but now you have me really interested. I will have my amp back this time tomorrow, I think the first thing I shall try is DSOM. It is going to be a good day.

Thanks

Barry

[Guest Bret]

>So maybe you can give us a little primer on what it is(ever so briefly)<

C'mon. . . you know better than that. :-)

http://www.superaudio-cd.com/technology_ex...ish/pagina4.php

>and how you would go about setting up a cost effective system <

Oh hohohonooooononono. No. Nope. Uhuh.

Seriously, I can't. I could take only a stab in the dark. I find that my el-cheapo Sony DVD/CD/SACD players sound much better than I would ever have imagined, but that's as far as I can go. I don't even know if they sound good as SACD players go. I don't know if Sony's SACD changer (about $150) sounds good. I don't know if the Pioneer DVD/SACD/CD units sound good. I haven't heard the highly acclaimed Marantz unit. And I sure haven't heard one of the more expensive ones. I have no idea what you get for your money, if anything.

>and of course where do you get good material.<

Of the labels I've heard the Telarc and Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs have trounced the EMI. Past that, I can't say. I've only recently started buying SACD.

I have to wonder what I would be buying to get Sony's $3,000 SACD player over their $150 player.

Bret

[Robert_S]

For some background information (dating from 1998), relating to SACD, the following article may be of some interest:

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue1/MoFiDSD.htm

Tim de Paravicini, as always, offers fascinating insight . . . .

Robert_S

[Wally]

Oh great......... now I have to get an SACD player.. LOL

Thanks a lot Bret!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

great detailed review.... little long....... ha ..... LOL

Do you think in 20 years old audiophiles will be saying how much more real their 44.1/16 cd's sound compared to the latest 1ghz/264 bit media...... and we'll have the same arguments as digital vs vinyl??.... LOL

Looking forward to your comparison of all three media....

[Guest Bret]

>Tim de Paravicini, as always, offers fascinating insight . . . .<

Thank you for that link. What a great write-up. So I was wrong. It wasn't a 16-Track TASCAM I was hearing, but a highly modified Studor.

It is astoundingly better than anything I've ever experienced before.

Bret

[roundhome]

>Oh great......... now I have to get an SACD player.. LOL

>

>Thanks a lot Bret!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

>

>great detailed review.... little long....... ha ..... LOL

>

>Do you think in 20 years old audiophiles will be saying how

>much more real their 44.1/16 cd's sound compared to the latest

>1ghz/264 bit media...... and we'll have the same arguments as

>digital vs vinyl??.... LOL

>

>Looking forward to your comparison of all three media....

Sorry to tell you we have jumped to continues bit stream recording allready.

Jim

[Guest Bret]

Interesting, isn't it?

We can listen-to and hear differences in recording methods, electronics, and everything else, in 2006, on speakers (often regarded as the weakest link in the chain) which were designed and built almost 40 years ago? Maybe that should be 50 years ago, but I don't have any that old to swear-by.

Could it be that maybe the speakers never were the weak link?

Bret

[Guest OldRelayer]

>I bought the 30 year reissued "Dark Side of the

>Moon" on LP and it's my opinion that it is remastered.

>Compared to the old CD I own, the increased clarity is

>stunning. I was never quite able to understand some of the

>lyrics on the CD, and was stunned that I could actually

>understand the lyrics on the LP.

I just opened the package, I don't want to play it until I get my amp, with the weather it might not be today, not sure yet.

But the package is very nice and the Vinyl, I don't know what grade it is but it is quite thick, 160 or maybe even 200? Franky I don't know how you tell, or what real difference it makes, maybe the heavier it is the less prone it is to slipping, I really haven't a clue. I have been seeing these hockey puck thingmes on top of the record while its being played, never heard any comments on whether that is good or not. Seems like a bit of a strain on the motor. But I suppose no worse than preening record, which must cause havoic with the moter.

Thanks

Barry

[Guest David in MA]

>Toshiba DVD players used as

>CDP's.

Have you tested a CD player that is meant to only play CD? I purchased an older NAD 5220 CD player for really cheap price and it sounds much nicer than Toshiba DVD/CD player I was using. If you have a higher-end DVD/CD player, it may not make much difference, however. My Toshiba was a $250 unit.

[ninohernes]

>I bought the 30 year reissued "Dark Side of the

>Moon" on LP and it's my opinion that it is remastered.

>Compared to the old CD I own, the increased clarity is

>stunning. I was never quite able to understand some of the

>lyrics on the CD, and was stunned that I could actually

>understand the lyrics on the LP.

It was indeed remastered. It was remastered at Analog Productions. It was half speed mastered using the original master tape, which for the first time EVER, was played back properly. It was recorded using Dolby A noise reduction. However, tones were not present on the actual master tape, they were on a seperate reel which up until this remaster, had been lost.

[Guest postjob62]

>>Toshiba DVD players used as

>>CDP's.

>

>Have you tested a CD player that is meant to only play CD? I

>purchased an older NAD 5220 CD player for really cheap price

>and it sounds much nicer than Toshiba DVD/CD player I was

>using. If you have a higher-end DVD/CD player, it may not

>make much difference, however. My Toshiba was a $250 unit.

David,

I have tested dedicated CD players and used them, although not necessarily high-end ones. In this case I don't think it's the price of the Toshiba DVD player- it's all about the 24 bit/192khz chip they feature. I'm sure they are not the only ones now. I think it may have started with the 3960 model-mine are all 3980's. 50 bucks new at your local friendly big box.

They have received almost unanimous positive reviews from self-styled insider boards and tweakers. If you try one, be sure to stabilize the chassis with a heavy book or something on top-they're light.

Ed

[Pete B]

Redbook or 44.1K and 16 bits is just enough, in most cases, for the final compressed distribution medium, but not when it's misused. Any of the popular formats can be misused:

http://members.aol.com/basconsultants/spkrs.htm

Note that the early equipment, due to implementation difficulties, even pro equipment, was mostly only good to 14 bits and therefore early recordings cannot be considered representative of the capability of the format.

Read here where those with untested claims/assertions about analog versus digital are proven wrong once again. It shows that the 44.1/16 Bit A/D -D/A process could not be detected by golden ears types who claimed they could:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_spea...bx_testing2.htm

Quote from the article:

"Tiefenbrun has been quite outspoken about the inadequacies of digital audio recordings and the systems on which they are made, and his organization, Linn Products Ltd., was instrumental in publishing an analysis of the Sony consumer PCM-F1 digital audio adapter [5] outlining their objections. I, on the other hand, have been using this very system for a number of years now and have made close to one hundred recordings with it with superb results and not the "execrable results" reported by Tiefenbrun. I and my colleague John Vanderkooy have moreover conducted blind listening comparisons between the PCM-F1's input and its reconstructed output signals, and had yet to find anyone who can reliably distinguish between them on musical program material."

---------------------------

Note that it has been stated that Redbook CD and SACDs are often and deliberately made from different master recordings in order to differentiate the products. I don't know if this is true but it makes sense from a marketing and bottom line perspective. It should be kept in mind when making comparisons.

Pete B.

[Guest Bret]

>Read here where those with untested claims/assertions are proven wrong once again<

Which claim or assertion would that be?

Bret

[Guest Bret]

>Looking forward to your comparison of all three media....<

I'm not going to turn TCSP into a recording review site, but I've just had my first real SACD disappointment and wanted to relate it.

Sting's "Brand New Day" SACD - Very stark. Reminds me of my DVD-As. Sounds "good" but not analog like the BS&T or a Clapton I bought.

Could it be the original digital recording / recorder ? Could it be PCM snuck into the process? Could it be too good? Could it be the skill of the engineer? (doubtful - he's a multiple award winner) Bass heavy. Percussion sounds electronic.

I'm getting the suspicion that maybe this was a multi-channel "dramatic" digital recording stuck on a DSD recorder to release it in SACD. I think I like the music, but the recording is annoying.

Bret

[Guest Bret]

>I don't know if this is true but it makes sense from a marketing and bottom line perspective. It should be kept in mind when making comparisons.<

I know that for some labels this isn't true - that they do all the work in DSD and down-sample only.

I suspect that what you say is true for other labels. And I have no doubt that the selection of masters and care with-which they are laid-down as SACD is probably much more involved at "audiophile" labels. Other labels may just feel the need to "get something on SACD and get it shipped" taking whatever's on-hand and running it through a converter. I think I own one of those.

One must be careful *not* to assert that what they are hearing is *caused* by the medium. I'm just asserting that one medium, for whatever reason, is impressing me.

And it may very well have to do with the hardware - the DAC; not the theoretical DAC, but the actual DAC.

One of the assertions you quoted in the article is directly contradicted by one of the URL links given by another member, however.

So which source is correct and why are there these differences of experience amongst those who should have identical experiences?

I guess we'll never know anything until its been replicated by experiment over and over. The Stereophile article that ends by saying, the engineer knows he shouldn't be hearing a difference, but does, is particularly interesting. The opposite of the placebo effect strikes again.

The other thing that I worry about is how much SACD media is being "thrown out there" so that a title is in SACD. I have a CD here that is in SACD, yet only some of the recordings were DSD from start to finish, others were PCM and converted. Fortunately, I don't remember which is which. That's going to tell me a lot about my perceptions when I get around to listening carefully and trying to find the one or two DSD-only tracks just by listening. To give myself every chance of success I'm waiting for the right opportunity.

It'll be fun, but I know if I report that I was able to tell instantly that track 1 and 3 were DSD and the others were PCM somebody would say I cheated or got lucky or any explanation other than to say, "Maybe there is something to this."

Oh, and that Stereophile article had a link to "Letters." In one of those I find an argument for DSD which is persuasive, and disprovable, if undisproven.

I can't prove this, either, but I'm beginning to think that double-blind, or honest single-blind, tests are testing something other than what we think they are. [the Persistence of Memory, perhaps]

Bret

[Guest David in MA]

To all,

At the risk of repeating what everyone is saying, just want to put this up for grabs. I tested NAD 5220 CDP and Samsung DVD/CD Player. I couldn't really tell the difference.

Anyone in Boston area would like to buy my NAD 5220?

[Guest Bret]

>I tested NAD 5220 CDP and Samsung DVD/CD Player. I couldn't really tell the difference.<

Do it again after you put good caps in your speakers.

Bret

[Guest David in MA]

>>I tested NAD 5220 CDP and Samsung DVD/CD Player. I

>couldn't really tell the difference.<

>

>Do it again after you put good caps in your speakers.

>

Of course...I'll be doing that. SInce I can't find 250V solen, I'm leaning towards going with Electolytics. I also thought about using Bennic Polypropylenes...do you think this is better than Bennic Electrolytic?

[Guest Bret]

>I also thought about using Bennic Polypropylenes...do you think this is better than Bennic Electrolytic?<

I wouldn't use Bennics at all.

But there's no shortage of opinion. Although. . . now that I think of it. . . there is a uniformity of opinion about one brand. . . but let's not go there. It makes a few folks who haven't tried it really, really angry.

Everybody's got an opinion.

Just do a forum search (I know YOU know how, since you wrote the software) on "Dayton" and "Solen" and . . .

Hey, here's a really useful one:

"Subjective testing of AR-11 speakers"

Oh, and be sure to read "Capacitor Myths"

Or, maybe you know how to set-up a poll of who uses what?

Bret

[Guest David in MA]

>>I also thought about using Bennic Polypropylenes...do you

>think this is better than Bennic Electrolytic?<

>

>I wouldn't use Bennics at all.

Too late for now. I ordered from madisound - the total cost is around $50, a small fee to test out for myself whether caps to make difference or not. I do plan on checking out other caps in the future and I'll definitely post my experience here.

>

>Everybody's got an opinion.

>

That's what makes this such a great topic. lol...

>Or, maybe you know how to set-up a poll of who uses what?

Only administrator can set up a poll question. Mark???

[soundminded]

"Could it be that maybe the speakers never were the weak link?"

A most important and painful question.

As I see it, the speaker always has been and continues more so than ever the weakest link within the limits of the current recording playbak paradyme. I think there are two main reasons. 1. there is poor correlation between what is measured and what is perceived. The science of speaker measurement as practiced is inadequate to explain or predict why speakers which measure one way sound another. 2. The designs do no permit their performance to be adapted to the environments they are installed in negating the effects of those environments. Therefore, a speaker which performs well in one environment may perform poorly in another and the designer has not provided means to compensate for the difference.

Far more limiting however IMO is the paradyme itself. If there was only one thing I took away from Dr. Bose's technical white paper worth remembering, it's the measurement that a mere 19 feet from the performing stage at Boston Symphony Hall, 89 percent of the sound is due to the acoustics of the hall itself and as you go further back, his graph shows the percentage increasing. But the paradyme, the method of recording and playback we use, cannot reproduce any but a very small percentage of this sound, in fact the current state of the science doesn't even adequately understand it. This IMO is the major obstacle to accurate sound reproduction in the home. It's my belief that if and when there is a major paradyme shift and a true advance in the technology, radically different sounding equipment will become the norm and much of what is regarded as most important today will be reduced to minor significance in a much greater truth.