What is SACD?

[Daverz]

      You're absolutely right. The brain does adjust and that's why the test should be short. Remember, "adequate for testing" doesn't mean adequate to achieve a particular result, like hearing a difference. And the brains ability to adjust will tend to obscure rather than clarify. That adjustment is what the test must eliminate, since the brains ability to adjust can create or eliminate the very differences we're trying to find.   

What I'm saying is that for me differences are most noticeable when switching to another component after a long period of listening to one component.  One might sound OK, but then switching in the other will reveal more bass detail or a more coherent soundstage that I didn't realize I was missing.   I don't have any practical way to do level matched AB tests let alone double blind tests.

[drogulus]

What I'm saying is that for me differences are most noticeable when switching to another component after a long period of listening to one component.  One might sound OK, but then switching in the other will reveal more bass detail or a more coherent soundstage that I didn't realize I was missing.   I don't have any practical way to do level matched AB tests let alone double blind tests.

     This is true for me, too. I hear differences when I change gear. I also hear them when I mistakenly think I'm listening to the new player and then oops! I see it's the old one! The question is what to make of these usually rather vague impressions. Also, what should I make of the information discussed here about their, ah, evanescent character when examined closely? What I take from it is that we're impressionable and all sorts of value judgments color our factual determinations. The way I deal with the disappearing difference is to doubt it was there in the first place. I'll stick with that until something gives me good reason to change my mind.

     I don't think the discussion about testing is for the purpose of getting everyone to test. I think it's to make everyone think about what the tests reveal. So, do you think the greater bass detail is really there? How would you determine that? Or would this greater bass detail, however hard to pin down, just have to be there if you once heard it, even if you can't quite hear it all the time?

     

[DavidW]

   
      No, no, no.....you must prove they don't exist, otherwise I'll all have to live with this terrible doubt hanging over me. That could mess up my whole (after)life. 

hehehe

[Gurn Blanston]

     This is true for me, too. I hear differences when I change gear. I also hear them when I mistakenly think I'm listening to the new player and then oops! I see it's the old one! The question is what to make of these usually rather vague impressions. Also, what should I make of the information discussed here about their, ah, evanescent character when examined closely? What I take from it is that we're impressionable and all sorts of value judgments color our factual determinations. The way I deal with the disappearing difference is to doubt it was there in the first place. I'll stick with that until something gives me good reason to change my mind.

     I don't think the discussion about testing is for the purpose of getting everyone to test. I think it's to make everyone think about what the tests reveal. So, do you think the greater bass detail is really there? How would you determine that? Or would this greater bass detail, however hard to pin down, just have to be there if you once heard it, even if you can't quite hear it all the time?

     

It's a classic placebo effect. Holds true with many other items as well. As a golfer, I have often tried out a new driver or putter and had spectacular results the first couple of rounds, only to discover that I was playing my same old game 2 weeks later. Many of my golf friends have reported the exact same phenomenon.



----------------
Listening to:
Kodaly Quartet - Haydn Quartet in f for Strings No 23 Op 20 5 2nd mvmt

[DavidW]

It's a classic placebo effect. Holds true with many other items as well. As a golfer, I have often tried out a new driver or putter and had spectacular results the first couple of rounds, only to discover that I was playing my same old game 2 weeks later. Many of my golf friends have reported the exact same phenomenon.



----------------
Listening to:
Kodaly Quartet - Haydn Quartet in f for Strings No 23 Op 20 5 2nd mvmt

That reminds me of an episode of Jeeves and Wooster where Wooster is using this mechanical contraption to play golf and he's convinced that it he'll make him great at it, but instead he's absolutely dreadful!!   Well it's funny when watching it anyway... you can't beat Hugh Laurie..

Anyway I had that effect when I auditioned a bargain plasma tv that had nothing but rave reviews from people who bought it, and I started thinking this is amazing pq, finally I get great black levels again!  Well after awhile I admitted that actually the black levels were terrible and the pq wasn't terrific and I returned it.

[Daverz]

     This is true for me, too. I hear differences when I change gear. I also hear them when I mistakenly think I'm listening to the new player and then oops! I see it's the old one!   

I'm quite aware of these effects, and I'm wary of them.  What I hear are consistent differences.  And some of these differences are not subtle.

At some point on the continuum from transducers to interconnects and cables hearing differences does make no sense.  There's just no room physically for there to be differences between electrically adequate interconnects and cables, for example.   But I think placing that cutoff point at differences between all CD players (excepting incompetent designs), with so many different designs of DACs and analog circuitry, is IMO too extreme a skepticism that is not backed up by any evidence I've found convincing.  At least it seems embarassingly scant when I've gone out looking on the web.

[71 dB]

Hate to tell you, but a lot of 1960's recordings sound a lot better than digital recordings, and I'm not even mentioning multichannel crap.

There is much more into recordings than whether it's analog or digital. I bet you prefer 1960's recordings because you have learned to like the way they made recordings back then.

It's a shame Barbirolli's Gerontius has so poor sound (noisy, dirty and coloured) as the performance itself is so good. I am sure the sound would be much better if they had the digital techniques of today back in those days. Somehow analog wasn't that good for large choral works.

Have you heard SACDs of BIS? Hardly crap. Superb!

I know this doesn't accord with your "every technical revolution is better" theory, but if you'd just listen to a Artur Rubinstein RCA recording  -  it's very hard to beat.

I haven't heard then, unfortunately.

A lot of people prefer analogue to digital  -  how's that for progress?

Have you ever thought about why? I prefer good sound, analog or digital. Early digital recordings were not that great since the technique was in it's infancy but today digital rules (24 bits allow dynamics of 140 dB. For analog recorders that is quate impossible).

[Herman]

I bet you prefer 1960's recordings because you have learned to like the way they made recordings back then.

I'm not that old. I went back and was struck by the richness of the sound. It's actually too rich for my taste.

However I do think analogue recordings, digitally reproduced are the best.

[Kuhlau]

However I do think analogue recordings, digitally reproduced are the best.

I'm inclined to agree with this to some extent. Many late-60s recordings that have made it to CD seem to possess a depth and 'warmth' that's noticeably lacking in some more modern, perhaps more 'clinical' recordings.

FK

[drogulus]

I'm quite aware of these effects, and I'm wary of them.  What I hear are consistent differences.  And some of these differences are not subtle.

At some point on the continuum from transducers to interconnects and cables hearing differences does make no sense.  There's just no room physically for there to be differences between electrically adequate interconnects and cables, for example.   But I think placing that cutoff point at differences between all CD players (excepting incompetent designs), with so many different designs of DACs and analog circuitry, is IMO too extreme a skepticism that is not backed up by any evidence I've found convincing.  At least it seems embarassingly scant when I've gone out looking on the web.

     These different designs produce the same signals. That is, the differences between the signals should not be heard. If distortion is low, frequency response is flat, and the noise floor is where it's supposed to be any differences should be below audibility, and testing suggests that they are. These various designs are all legitimate ways to meet the CD standard. I don't know where the idea comes from that different circuitry should mean different sound, since it's being used means the opposite.

     So for me the interesting question is how did this new ideology of audio impressionism take the place of established scientific/engineering paradigms? It can be traced back to the 1970's, when articles in hi-fi magazines began showing up that stated or implied that subjective impressions were actually more accurate than objective descriptions. This flies in the face of previous wisdom on the subject, and doesn't appear to have been the result of any scientific result or new theoretical postulate. One day it seems to have become acceptable to publish articles making claims no one could verify, and then it became widespread. The obvious connection to other countercultural phenomena comes to mind. I once read a short history of the change but now I can't find it.

      Here's my short explanation of what happened: We started from the position that subjective tests don't conform to objective measurements, which invalidated the former, and moved to the position that it invalidated the latter. This was a time when all traditional institutional arrangements were under attack, and though scientific and engineering authority within their exclusive sphere remained largely untouched, in the gray zone where aesthetics and technology intersect, there was a blurring of causal relations and the autonomous aesthetic view gained the upper hand. Nothing would be allowed to countermand my sacred right to proclaim the truth, certainly not the established institutions that had been discredited by war, racism and class oppression. It sounds far-fetched put like this, I know, but having lived through it it certainly tells an important part of the story.

[71 dB]

I'm inclined to agree with this to some extent. Many late-60s recordings that have made it to CD seem to possess a depth and 'warmth' that's noticeably lacking in some more modern, perhaps more 'clinical' recordings.

FK

Digital recordings are not clinical or lacking anything except distortions, things that do not exist in real life. Analog is sometimes "warmer" but also wrong. Digital is just right (if done properly, of course). If you prefer analog your preferencies are skewed. If you prefer neutral, pure and truthful sound your preferencies are "right". I think I have very neutral preferencies and thanks to that digital recordings do not sound clinical to me, they sound "right" as long as the sound engineer has got the correct balance. People like ice cream. Why not enjoy cold sounds too? Warmth is overrated.

Transparent media allows us to concentrate on the content (music) instead of how the media itself sounds.

[Herman]

I think I have very neutral preferencies 

Your posts on this topic however show you're a zealot.

You have every right to be so, especially since you seem to be making your money in this business, but please don't tell us you're neutral.

[71 dB]

Your posts on this topic however show you're a zealot.

You have every right to be so, especially since you seem to be making your money in this business, but please don't tell us you're neutral.

Perhaps I am not 100 % neutral but I try/want to be. How does that make me a zealot is byond me. Anyway, I have said pretty much everything I have to say on this issue.

[Kuhlau]

Digital recordings are not clinical ...

Did I claim that they are? What I meant was that some recordings made, let's say, in the 80s, when CD was in its infancy, perhaps sound a bit more clinical than the warmer analogue sound of recordings made in the 60s.

Analog is sometimes "warmer" but also wrong.

I'm not making claims here, either. Whether 'warmth' in recorded sound is right or wrong is a matter of personal taste, IMO.

If you prefer analog your preferencies are skewed. If you prefer neutral, pure and truthful sound your preferencies are "right".

Yeah, preferences can't be 'skewed'. One person likes one thing, another likes something else. What scale could you possibly measure their preferences against? A moral one? An aesthetic one? This sounds like nonsense to me.

Warmth is overrated.

By whom, exactly?

Transparent media allows us to concentrate on the content (music) instead of how the media itself sounds.

Do you really believe that just because an older recording possesses more warmth than a more crystal-clear modern one, this would prevent someone from appreciating the music? If yes, that must mean every music critic reviewing in the pre-digital era was talking tosh. Either that, or you are.

FK

[drogulus]

     I prefer the warmth of Golden Age recordings, though I think there are a number of factors that are responsible for this, and accuracy isn't one of them. Also, if I look at the various CDs that make up my "best sound" list, they come from all eras from the '50s to the present. So from that I get the idea that once a certain level of fidelity is reached, other factors about the sound take over. The techniques used as well as the venue make more of a difference than the limitations of the technology then in use.

     Some old recordings are too muddy, or tinny, or congested on the peaks, and others have a balance that seems right. That balance makes more of a difference than the limitations. I can easily understand how other listeners would make a different choice and find the limitations unacceptable on the older recordings, since that's my reaction too with some of them.

[Daverz]

impressionism take the place of established scientific/engineering paradigms?

Well, I wish it didn't.  I think pure subjectivists have done a lot of damage to the audio industry.   I'm not a subjectivist in the sense of rejecting objective measurement and known physics, but my hearing is one of the only tools available to me in most cases, and has to be the final arbiter.  I do pay attention to measurements when they are available (e.g. in Stereophile), though I'm also quite willing to entertain equipment that I know doesn't measure well if I enjoy their overall sound (I use a tube preamp).   Nobody measures analog gear any more, and many adjustments on an analog rig must be done by ear (e.g. VTA).  If I didn't trust my senses I'd be totally paralyzed when making any adjustments or choosing gear.  And I'm not going to listen to a component I don't enjoy, though it's entirely possible that I'm being influenced by the badge more than the actual sound.  It would be nice if my intellect could convince my ears that everything sounds the same, but so far it hasn't worked.

[drogulus]

If I didn't trust my senses I'd be totally paralyzed when making any adjustments or choosing gear.  And I'm not going to listen to a component I don't enjoy, though it's entirely possible that I'm being influenced by the badge more than the actual sound.  It would be nice if my intellect could convince my ears that everything sounds the same, but so far it hasn't worked.

     I don't see the need to be paralyzed. If things sound different there may be reasons you can discover. And if there aren't big bucks at stake go ahead and buy the one you like better anyway. I'm against making baseless claims, I'm not against getting what you want. And I'm less paralyzed by doubt about equipment choices than I ever was when I had all those metaphysical considerations.* Now it's fairly straightforward. 

     _{*I actually bought a "tube buffer" for my CD player once...I kid you not!}