No, actually I absolutely believe you, John. You have never exaggerated the degree of control or the circumstances of any listening "test" you've ever done. You've reported them with total honesty, which is more than I can say for most people.
"audio845
Just to fan the flames - at the dawn of the digital age - remember - "perfect sound forever" Glenn Gould made his second recording of the Goldberg Variations. At the time of the recording they used two different digital recorders and the engineers were astounded when Gould could reliably and repeatedly identify which recorder had made the recording. The engineers couldn't hear a difference. Now digital has come a long way since then and many of the original problems have been identified and solved but that is a long way from saying that all of the problems have been solved."
The comparisons were made between early digital and analog recordings. The album is "Glenn Gould - A State of Wonder"
Even my humble ears can hear the difference between the digital and analog versions.
See this from the liner notes:
Cheers.
ZAP
Just to fan the flames - at the dawn of the digital age - remember - "perfect sound forever" Glenn Gould made his second recording of the Goldberg Variations. At the time of the recording they used two different digital recorders and the engineers were astounded when Gould could reliably and repeatedly identify which recorder had made the recording. The engineers couldn't hear a difference. Now digital has come a long way since then and many of the original problems have been identified and solved but that is a long way from saying that all of the problems have been solved."
The comparisons were made between early digital and analog recordings. The album is "Glenn Gould - A State of Wonder"
Even my humble ears can hear the difference between the digital and analog versions.
See this from the liner notes:
Cheers.
ZAP
Why don't we all do some blind testing a settle this. 🙂 This talk about SACD sound no different than CD is just wrong IMO. When I compare the difference of a CD layer to SACD layer on our CD player it's clearly audible. If quit listening to CDs for an extended period of time and just listen to LPs and SACDs, It's somewhat difficult to try to start listening to CDs again. It's partly because of this ear sensitivity problem I have. But, many people complain of the brightness of CD sound. Sam Tellig even likes it (Sam's Space in last issue of Stereophile). Experience matters.
I've been thinking of building a blind tester box and send it to people to conduct extended listening tests. And those who wanted could even build one. Probably won't happen for quite awhile since I've got to finish some other projects first. But I think some people on DIY audio might be interested in conducting some valid extended listening blind testing. Or maybe not.
Personally I have no qualms with the testing Charles Hansen did. He seems to pay great attention to detail. But, I am kind of interested in knowing what I can and can't hear for myself.
I've been thinking of building a blind tester box and send it to people to conduct extended listening tests. And those who wanted could even build one. Probably won't happen for quite awhile since I've got to finish some other projects first. But I think some people on DIY audio might be interested in conducting some valid extended listening blind testing. Or maybe not.
Personally I have no qualms with the testing Charles Hansen did. He seems to pay great attention to detail. But, I am kind of interested in knowing what I can and can't hear for myself.
Actually the story I told was from a different set of liner notes - I hadn't seen this set. If they had an analogue tape from the session I wish they had used it for the vinyl release, I have the original and a recent redo and they both sound horribly digital. Oh well, can't have everything. I'll look to find the original notes that I was talking about. They talked about Gould comparing versions on digital recorders, not the reissue producer realizing that 1981 digital just didn't cut it.
Charlie
Charlie
Slamming 1981 vintage digital audio is a little disingenuous. The first serious 16 bit recordings were made in 1976 IIRC, the equivalent for analog would be say 1926 or so. So why not compare 1981 digital to 1931 analog? Yes, nothing changes in more ways than one.
I noticed the Sony folks were happy with the 16/44.1 result, "with great success".
I noticed the Sony folks were happy with the 16/44.1 result, "with great success".
Johnloudb said:
I respectfully disagree.
I did not hear the difference between SACD and CD when the happy owner bragged, but heard well the difference between 20 KHz and 50 KHz microphone on a Earthworks' demo CD. It is an ordinary CD, and differences between microphones are well audible on percussions.
Why?
If you listen to majority of recordings on today's market you can understand why. No digital media can help them. It is like to pack the same candies in the more expensive box. They will taste still the same. The box is not the limiting factor.
Also, I could not force myself to listen to Diana Krall's DVD recording, though I love her CDs.
Why?
Because "Normal American Professionals" recorded the DVD. That means, used "prescribed brands" of equipment, including gates/compressors by default.
scott wurcer said:
Sure CD can sound good. But why do we have to put up with 24/192kHz movie sound on Blu-Ray movies and still settle for 16bit sound for music. This is just Wrong, wrong, wrong! Sony put almost no marketing power or products out to support the SACD format when it was released. Sad.
Wavebourn said:
Well, everyone's ears are different, this issue will probably never be resolved. Objectivist vs. Subjectivist, Republican vs. Democrat .... my republican cousin thinks global warming isn't real and he said something about quitting his job and fighting for pollution, so to speak. Beliefs can and do affect how we hear. And the lines aren't drawn in the sand.
I DO respect your opinion and we all have different experiences. That's why blind testing is needed and it needs to be an extended listening test.
Johnloudb said:
No, thanks. 😀 I'm not going to quit my job and stop designing of an audio equipment to start fighting for pollution of recording equipment. 😀
I just tried to explain why works of majority of modern audio engineers (I don't mean all of us who are recording, there are exceptions) will sound the same, no matter how high is resolution of the media used to store the end product.
Interesting.
We argue about the sound (obj. vs subj. vs rationalist etc) but the bigges t differences in sound are from the recordings themselves. So, I can quite believe there are many CD's that sound better than SACD, or, if the same master recording, there will not be a good enough improvement of SACD of CD.
All this of course makes a mockery (in engineering terms) of claims about the last step in the audio chain having huge effects on the sound - within reason.
If you want to hear a really good CD recording (extended frequency response, 3D imaging etc) you should go out and get a copy of Yo-Yo Ma's latest recording - I can't remember the name right now but he's got a lot of different artists on the CD. I never new my system could sound so good - and it only cost me th e price of a well recorded CD.
We argue about the sound (obj. vs subj. vs rationalist etc) but the bigges t differences in sound are from the recordings themselves. So, I can quite believe there are many CD's that sound better than SACD, or, if the same master recording, there will not be a good enough improvement of SACD of CD.
All this of course makes a mockery (in engineering terms) of claims about the last step in the audio chain having huge effects on the sound - within reason.
If you want to hear a really good CD recording (extended frequency response, 3D imaging etc) you should go out and get a copy of Yo-Yo Ma's latest recording - I can't remember the name right now but he's got a lot of different artists on the CD. I never new my system could sound so good - and it only cost me th e price of a well recorded CD.
It is sad that people need a double blind test to trust what they hear.
Never, in my life, have I found double blind tests, useful or fair. It is all to tell everyone that little, if anything matters.
Kind of like double blind testing Coke vs Pepsi, you can tell the difference or you can't. Case closed. Of course, the fast food version of colas is a joke, and truly, I may not tell the difference in many establishments.
What people lose track of, is that double blind testing is unnatural. Almost all results are null results.
Listen for yourself.
Never, in my life, have I found double blind tests, useful or fair. It is all to tell everyone that little, if anything matters.
Kind of like double blind testing Coke vs Pepsi, you can tell the difference or you can't. Case closed. Of course, the fast food version of colas is a joke, and truly, I may not tell the difference in many establishments.
What people lose track of, is that double blind testing is unnatural. Almost all results are null results.
Listen for yourself.
Now that we are on the subject of hearing reliability: I had an interesting experience last week at the AES.
We of course all know that the perception of sound has not necessarily any link to reality - just close your eyes and 'recall' some sound, any sound, and you will 'hear' something that isn't really there, a figment of your imagination if there ever was one.
Anyway, in this presentation they proposed a new test signal that might correlate better with listening preferences, a 'Silence Sweep'.
Imagine a signal consisting of white (or pink) noise with just one very narrow freq band missing. For example, it would have any freq between 20Hz and 20kHz except, say, 933Hz. So any distortion from all those many tones and intermodulations are all over the place, but since the band around 933Hz is empty of signal, that is where you find those distortion products clean of anything else, and you can analyse them. So, you can measure distortion with a music-like signal.
Now you sweep this signal so that the 'empty' slot moves from 20Hz up to 20kHz, and you collect all those distortion products during the sweep.
What I found weird is that when they played that sweep, you didn't hear noise. You clearly heard the missing tone being swept from low to high! Isn't that interesting? Your hearing apparatus filled in the blanks to the extend that that was pretty much all you 'heard'! Fascinating.
Jan Didden
We of course all know that the perception of sound has not necessarily any link to reality - just close your eyes and 'recall' some sound, any sound, and you will 'hear' something that isn't really there, a figment of your imagination if there ever was one.
Anyway, in this presentation they proposed a new test signal that might correlate better with listening preferences, a 'Silence Sweep'.
Imagine a signal consisting of white (or pink) noise with just one very narrow freq band missing. For example, it would have any freq between 20Hz and 20kHz except, say, 933Hz. So any distortion from all those many tones and intermodulations are all over the place, but since the band around 933Hz is empty of signal, that is where you find those distortion products clean of anything else, and you can analyse them. So, you can measure distortion with a music-like signal.
Now you sweep this signal so that the 'empty' slot moves from 20Hz up to 20kHz, and you collect all those distortion products during the sweep.
What I found weird is that when they played that sweep, you didn't hear noise. You clearly heard the missing tone being swept from low to high! Isn't that interesting? Your hearing apparatus filled in the blanks to the extend that that was pretty much all you 'heard'! Fascinating.
Jan Didden
That is a very interesting test, and I'm sure a very interesting listening experience.
I would love to know more. Its similar to some testing for developing HDradio (ibiquity). Keeping the notch clear is very difficult. Especially when its moving. is there software for this? Patents?
I would love to know more. Its similar to some testing for developing HDradio (ibiquity). Keeping the notch clear is very difficult. Especially when its moving. is there software for this? Patents?
FrankWW said:
If you have access to AES papers, it is paper # 7700 of the last (126th) convention. The author was a guy called Farina from I believe the U of Milan in Italy.
I was not impressed by the test itself - I believe that the ISO-31 multitone as used by AP is easier to use and more powerfull. There, you space 31 tones carefully so as to leave some FFT 'bins' open where the HD and IM products and noise fall, so you can analyse those later. I think 31 tones is pretty much equivalent to a music signal also.
The silence sweep is pretty difficult to generate, and involves a lot of MLS filtering, convolution and sophisticated digital processing. As I said, what impressed me was my (and others) ability to actually hear the missing tone!
Jan Didden
Wavebourn said:
Okay, Sorry, I misunderstood what you were getting at. But SACD discs for the most part are done very well. On occasion I run into one that sounds about the same or worse that the CD. Some SACDs are just taken from the PCM data and then there is nothing gained. But, especially with classical I find the timbers much more real on SACD. I can just relax and enjoy the music without my ears occasionally being pinned against the wall. I just don't like the brightness.
Johnloudb said:
On possible diference is that with SACD the recording is often much better preserved, less compression and 'over-engineering', while on CD it needs to sound loud and agressive and everything gets compressed in the top 25dB. So it's often not the medium that makes the difference but the production.
That is also the reason that pre-1990-CDs often sound much better than later ones, even the same music, in spite of better equipment available later.
Jan Didden
Why is that sad? I'd say quite the opposite. The way human brains work is fascinating. Otherwise, we'd never be entertained by conjurers or enjoy the illusion of stereo.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.