Audibility of SACD or 24/96 in DBT?
Blandp1
Hash: SHA1
Has anyone conducted a DBT test of SACD/SDS and/or 24bit/96K
digital recordings to properly resampled (i.e. noise shaped,
dithered, etc.) 16/44 versions of those same recordings to see
if the higher resolution formats are a) audible and b) prefered?
I am not interested in knowing if a difference was heard in a
uncontrolled test (although it's a free newsgroup and I'm sure
this thread will attract many such anaecdotes!).
The reason I'm asking is that I have been and remain extremely
pleased with my current CD setup and library and unless there is
compelling scientific evidence of the superiority of the new
formats for an end user, I will not be upgrading either my
hardware or software.
Philip J. Blanda III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOLBWLMqM3UPhf8W7EQKiTACgltsf2VyX49ewOvBrkKo4G7+tbI4AoKER
ZvE5A7Q/Y3nDUgjw/dGyEV9T
=nHZU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
PGP Public key available
James Boyk
>
> ...Has anyone conducted a DBT test of SACD/SDS and/or 24bit/96K
> digital recordings to properly resampled (i.e. noise shaped,
> dithered, etc.) 16/44 versions of those same recordings to see
The Caltech Music Lab, which I direct, will be happy to conduct such a
test if funding is forthcoming. However, it would be costly!
James Boyk
Tom Ascher
contribute $1 I bet that would be over $1,000! Should be enough! Right? :)
Tom Ascher
In article <sb69a9l...@corp.supernews.com>, jb...@earthlink.net says...
James Boyk
>
> Maybe RAHE should endow a research trust? If each viewer/poster would
> contribute $1 I bet that would be over $1,000! Should be enough! Right? :)
No, not even in the ballpark. $1,000 wouldn't even pay the professional
musicians for such a test.
James Boyk
Richard D Pierce
Nope, not only is it not even in the right ballpark, it's not
even the right sport. Conducting these sorts of tsts is a VERY
long, difficult and expensive process. I would envision a
competent practitioner in this sort of field spending a
person-month or two just designing the test to begin with. That
rght there would easily chew up $25k+. And you haven't even
gotten any data at that stage. You're now talking about
reqcruiting and training test subjects (without the training,
your data is likely to be so noisy and poor as to be unusable),
finding and employing the "equipment" (which might include
musicians inded, and how do you ensure consistant performance
below the test sensitivity on their part?) the actual measuring
and then the analysis phase.
You want to put up a couple of hundred kbucks, then you got a
shot at a comprehensive test that will mean something.
Otherwise, forget it.
And this is why the "tests" conducted by the magazines are so
ludicrous in their claims.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| DPi...@world.std.com |
Roman Pelek
[DBT SACD/DVD-A vs. CD]
> The reason I'm asking is that I have been and remain extremely
> pleased with my current CD setup and library and unless there is
> compelling scientific evidence of the superiority of the new
> formats for an end user, I will not be upgrading either my
> hardware or software.
> Philip J. Blanda III
If you're interested, why don't you just go out and lend yourself a
DVD-A/SACD-player in your price-range and listen at home for
yourself? Anyway, it's always a mystery to me people wanting
"scientific evidence" in music when they've got two ears. Consider:
every "evidence" is worthless if it doesn't suit YOUR listening,
taste or whatever. Even if there's scientific difference, and you
can't hear it, so what the fuzz about? So go and find out yourself.
P.S.: I myself have tried and found DVD-A superior to CD (SACD I
haven't tried). But I also found out that, at the moment, the prices
of DVD-Players don't make upgrading a sensible thing to do for me.
That also has to do with the minor sound of DVD-players when playing
CDs - at least in my ears.
So, anyway, I'm sorry for posting unscientific personal views, but
your description of "upgrading reasons" just made me interested in
why you think this way, and not the other way around ;-)
Nevertheless, if you're pleased with CD, there's nothing all too
wrong with that and can save you a lot of money...
Bye,
Roman Pelek
mcn...@my-deja.com
world!DPi...@uunet.uu.net (Richard D Pierce) wrote:
> Nope, not only is it not even in the right ballpark, it's not
> even the right sport. Conducting these sorts of tsts is a VERY
> long, difficult and expensive process. I would envision a
> competent practitioner in this sort of field spending a
> person-month or two just designing the test to begin with. That
> rght there would easily chew up $25k+. And you haven't even
> gotten any data at that stage. You're now talking about
> reqcruiting and training test subjects (without the training,
> your data is likely to be so noisy and poor as to be unusable),
> finding and employing the "equipment" (which might include
> musicians inded, and how do you ensure consistant performance
> below the test sensitivity on their part?) the actual measuring
> and then the analysis phase.
>
> You want to put up a couple of hundred kbucks, then you got a
> shot at a comprehensive test that will mean something.
> Otherwise, forget it.
>
> And this is why the "tests" conducted by the magazines are so
> ludicrous in their claims.
True, but I think the original poster had something much less
elaborate in mind, and assumed it would be easy to pull off. Since
all SACDs have a CD layer, one could fairly simply do a double-blind
test to determine whether listeners can tell the difference between
the two. Even done right, that wouldn't tell you much, and I'll leave
it to the experts on this board to explain why.
But if the so-called golden ears COULDN'T tell the difference between
the DSD version and the same recording downsampled to 16/44.1, there
would be no need for the much more elaborate test you describe. And
I'm guessing at least a few of the RAHE regulars would be betting
against the golden ears.
bob
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Russell Lichter
> your description of "upgrading reasons" just made me interested in
> why you think this way, and not the other way around ;-)
There is at least one good reason for wanting the know the results of a
*controlled* comparison between CDs and SACDs: money. Only a lucky few
of us can afford to spend several thousand dollars to experiment with a
handful of currently available SACD discs. The rest look to the
reviewers, whose claims about SACDs are very reminiscent of that earlier
dark period in audiophilia when some people, at least, were stating how
wonderful CDs sounded compared to vinyl.
It would behoove Sony to fund Jim Boyk's experiment to the hilt: if
controlled testing proved SACDs audibly superior to CDs (including the
downsampled CD layer on SACD discs) there would be a rush to buy Sony
players. Of course, audiophiles would also require assurance that the
Sony boxes, when playing standard CDs, were also up to snuff.
ROBERT C. LANG
>
> >
> Only a lucky few
> of us can afford to spend several thousand dollars to experiment with a
> handful of currently available SACD discs. The rest look to the
> reviewers, whose claims about SACDs are very reminiscent of that earlier
> dark period in audiophilia when some people, at least, were stating how
> wonderful CDs sounded compared to vinyl.
I believe you are correct, there were some people, in fact many
people in audiophila who believed CDs sounded wonderful compared
to vinyl. But, if I recall correctly (and I admit my longterm
memory for specific details is not keenly accurate), the
audio press was sharply divided on the issue. For the most part
mags such as Stereo Review and Hi Fidelity quickly embraced
CD as being superior to vinyl, from the earliest releases. But
the "underground" press, such as "The Absolute Sound",
"Stereophile" and "IAR" tended to be *very* wary of CDs and
remained (remain?) so for many years. And with good reason,
many, if not most, of those early CDs, (AAD, ADD, DDD) were
not very good. Many people believed that Telarc was producing
some of the best early CD, but even Telarcs engineering
efforts often disfigured the music with bass heavy antics. It
took them and others, couple with better hardware development
to begin to get things in the right direction. I, for one,
embraced CD very early first discs (from Denon) purchased
in 1982. But as I became a more experienced listener I
realized(subjectively) that vinyl was able to more rountinely
capture some aspects of the music that CD only rarely captures
in the form of audiophile recordings with expensive gear.
Although, there is no question that you need (often) even more
expensive analog (turntable/cartridge) set up to good great
sound from vinyl.
So a big difference, as I see it with respect to the audio
press, is their near absolute unanimity, that SACDs and the
DTS, technology sounds vastly superior to either CDs or
the very best analog technology. I don't recall such a
pervasive consensus, with respect to sound, as having
existed previously on a new technology or format.
>
> It would behoove Sony to fund Jim Boyk's experiment to the hilt: if
> controlled testing proved SACDs audibly superior to CDs (including the
> downsampled CD layer on SACD discs) there would be a rush to buy Sony
> players. Of course, audiophiles would also require assurance that the
> Sony boxes, when playing standard CDs, were also up to snuff.
A Telarc representative (admittedly a sales representative) told
me that Sony has done exactly such testing already and the
results of that testing was used to sale the 9 or 10 audiophile
labels which are pioneering SACD. I have sent emails to Telarc
and to Audioquest Music to try to obtain some sort of specific
verification of this. But it would make sense that audiophile
labels would demand, at minimum, this type of proof before
making the substantial investments in time and money in the
new digital technology (perhaps Sony has subsidized these
investments?). But even if SACD does sound vastly superior to
CDs and even if this was "proven" without a shadow of a
doubt, there would not necessarily be, in my opinion, "a rush
to buy Sony players". Superior sound (or technolgy of any kind)
probably comes a distant third or fourth as reasons for a
success of a format. Economics, practicality, etc., are probably
far more important. The ease and convenience of CDs compared to
vinyl played as much as a factor, in my opinion, as sound quality
in bringing about the fast penetration of CDs. (I don't recall
demands for "proof" that CDs were superior. The sound was
good enough coupled with CDs convenience).
But I believe the sound of SACD is superior enough (compared
to CDs) that SACDs will be around for a good while, but perhaps
as an "audiophile" format, if not as a "mass market" format.
One thing is definite, right now SACD is *not* being
marketed at the mass market.
Robert C. Lang
Bob Olhsson
<lfro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>It would behoove Sony to fund Jim Boyk's experiment to the hilt: if
>controlled testing proved SACDs audibly superior to CDs (including the
>downsampled CD layer on SACD discs) there would be a rush to buy Sony
>players. Of course, audiophiles would also require assurance that the
>Sony boxes, when playing standard CDs, were also up to snuff.
I've been told that Sony funded their own controlled testing that
yielded ambiguous results at 96k and positive ones with the DSD system.
Do you really think they are so ignorant as to go it alone on a brand
new format that didn't test any better?
--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 555, Novato CA 94948 Tracking, Mixing and Mastering
415.457.2620 FAX 415.456.1496 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
38 years of making people sound better than they thought possible!
James Boyk
>
> ...It would behoove Sony to fund Jim Boyk's experiment to the hilt....
I won't hold my breath, Russell! Meanwhile, however, we are embarking
on a langorous sort of mike preamp design project, in which a
colleague of mine at a different institution is designing circuitry
and we're doing the listening tests. Who knows? In a year or two, we
may even have something interesting.
Jim Boyk
James Boyk
>
> ...I've been told that Sony funded their own controlled testing that
> yielded ambiguous results at 96k and positive ones with the DSD system.
> Do you really think they are so ignorant as to go it alone on a brand
> new format that didn't test any better?
I would be amazed if any of the companies pushing DVD-A or SACD had
actually done valid listening tests (by which I mean tests from a
direct microphone feed of live music, one listener at a time, levels
& polarities matched, blind or double-blind, etc. etc.). So far as
I'm aware, they never have in the past! (For instance, there were
none I know of with 16/44 digital.) That's simply not what these
companies are "about." To think of them as audiophile-oriented is to
miss the point entirely. Nor are most audiophile labels in a position
to do such testing. It's just too expensive. What actually happens is
that some listening is done--mostly from already stored material,
perhaps informally from a mike feed--until those involved feel
convinced one way or the other. There's nothing wrong with this; but
it's a Big Mistake to think that what goes on in the corridors of
money is what one might oneself Want to go on!
James Boyk
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk
Stewart Pinkerton
>So a big difference, as I see it with respect to the audio
>press, is their near absolute unanimity, that SACDs and the
>DTS, technology sounds vastly superior to either CDs or
>the very best analog technology.
Given the *possible* real differences in sound between CD and SACD,
compared to those between CD and vinyl at launch, have you *any* idea
how ludicrous is this proposition?
BTW, DTS is unquestionably *inferior* to CD, apart from the extra
channels, so this is not a sensible argument under any circumstances.
p.s. Have you considered the actual response of the *microphones* used
to record those SACD discs? :-)
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Jason
> >So a big difference, as I see it with respect to the audio
> >press, is their near absolute unanimity, that SACDs and the
> >DTS, technology sounds vastly superior to either CDs or
> >the very best analog technology.
>
> Given the *possible* real differences in sound between CD and SACD,
> compared to those between CD and vinyl at launch, have you *any* idea
> how ludicrous is this proposition?
I'm not certain that I understand... Do you mean that since CDs
sounded so bad at inception and vinyl so good, that the differences
between CD and SACD wouldn't be as great? Or that SACD would sound
better so much better than CD that it would eclipse the miserable
sound of CD compared to vinyl?
Please enlighten.
Thanks in advance,
Jason Thorpe
--
јЄ КА`АКЄј,ИИ,јЄКА`АКЄј,ИИИ,јЄКА
Dirt bikes
Vinyl LPs
Hard Sci-Fi
I am the quiet man next door.
ROBERT C. LANG
(I have emailed a couple of labels to try to get some
clarification) and I have also posted some comments that reflect
his views, I have to say that, in my opinion, James Boyk's
post was full of excellent points. Small independent labels can
only go so far with full blown comparative tests, which other
posts have established can be quite expensive; a lot more
expensive than I ever imagined. The independent labels
may just have to rely on their collective ears and tests of
others like most other consumers. And as Mr. Boyk pointed out,
there is nothing wrong with that.
If Mobile Fidelity is any indication at all, and I hope not,
of the financial fragility of independent labels then the
economics will require that they rely on some abbreviated form
of testing, extensive listening, and/or force Sony and Philips
to perform the bulk of the valid tests. More I think about it
I believe that such tests are their responsibility. (And I have
been reading for the past couple years that they have been
performing such tests)
Robert C. Lang
============================
> Bob Olhsson wrote:
>
> > Do you really think they are so ignorant as to go it alone on a brand
> > new format that didn't test any better?
James Boyk wrote:
>
> I would be amazed if any of the companies pushing DVD-A or SACD had
> actually done valid listening tests (by which I mean tests from a
> direct microphone feed of live music.....), (For instance, there were
> none I know of with 16/44 digital.) To think of them as audiophile- oriented is to
> miss the point entirely. Nor are most audiophile labels in a position
> to do such testing. It's just too expensive. What actually happens is
> that some listening is done-- There's nothing wrong with this
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> >So a big difference, as I see it with respect to the audio
>> >press, is their near absolute unanimity, that SACDs and the
>> >DTS, technology sounds vastly superior to either CDs or
>> >the very best analog technology.
>>
>> Given the *possible* real differences in sound between CD and SACD,
>> compared to those between CD and vinyl at launch, have you *any* idea
>> how ludicrous is this proposition?
>
>I'm not certain that I understand... Do you mean that since CDs
>sounded so bad at inception and vinyl so good, that the differences
>between CD and SACD wouldn't be as great? Or that SACD would sound
>better so much better than CD that it would eclipse the miserable
>sound of CD compared to vinyl?
Yes, very funny...............
What I mean is that the differences between *well made* CD and SACD
are in reality very subtle, whereas those between vinyl and CD are
massive. If you *prefer* the sound of vinyl, that's just peachy, but
in terms of fidelity to the master tape, CD is *vastly* superior, and
the medium always has been, even if it took commercial players a
decade to prove it.
ROBERT C. LANG
>
> >So a big difference, as I see it with respect to the audio
> >press, is their near absolute unanimity, that SACDs and the
> >DTS, technology sounds vastly superior to either CDs or
> >the very best analog technology.
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> Given the *possible* real differences in sound between CD and SACD,
> compared to those between CD and vinyl at launch, have you *any* idea
> how ludicrous is this proposition?
I'm not entirely sure what your point is, but simply stated it
is my opinion that there exists today a near unanimity among
the current audio press, "high end" and mass market mags, that
SACDs, on the whole, sound significantly better than current
CDs or the very best current analog technology. This is,
in my opinion, in contrast to the relative division among
the audio press regarding the superiority of CDs when compared
to vinyl with the launch of the CD format in 1982. As I recall,
while Stereo Review and Hi Fidelity quickly embraced CDs, the
high end ("underground" as they were sometimes called) mags that
I subscribed to ("Absolute Sound", "Stereophile", and "IAR")
were sharply divided (even internally) on the issue and were
very wary about the sound quality of CDs. To some (lessor)
degree this wariness exists today.
Does this mean that the majority opinion is the correct one?
Not at all! The majority is frequently wrong. May be those who
have heard SACDs and believe them to be superior to CDs have
jumped to conclusions. Perhaps time will tell. There are those
who believe the market prematurely jumped to conclusions in
proclaiming that CDs were audibly superior to vinyl in 1982.
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> BTW, DTS is unquestionably *inferior* to CD, apart from the extra
> channels, so this is not a sensible argument under any circumstances.
I don't doubt that you are correct. I don't know what "DTS" is.
That was a typo on my part. I intended to say DST (Digital Stream
Transfer) which is an integral contribution by Philips
to the DSD/SACD invention.
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> p.s. Have you considered the actual response of the *microphones* used
> to record those SACD discs? :-)
No I have not. I don't have the predilection for the technical
that you espouse. And I would not know how to consider or
evaluate microphones used to record SACDs or any other format.
So,
I will leave that up to you. Perhaps you will share with us
the results of your evaluations of the actual response of the
microphones used to record the JVC XRCDs you advocate or
other sources you enjoy. (By the way, based on your
recommendation I listened to a few selections of a JVC XRCD ll
disc. One of the selections was from (I believe) Miles Davis'
"Streamin" Your enthusiasm is justified. It sounded damn good!)
My point here is that I don't have where-with-all, time, money,
desire, test equipment, skill, etc. to make those kinds of
technical evaluations. I didn't do it when I bought into CDs
and I did not do it as a requisite to buying into SACDs or if I
go DVD-A. I will leave that to you and others. I research a
product to the best of my ability, read as many reviews and
comments that I can get my eyes on and then use my ears. I
evaluate all the charts and graphs that I can as best that I can.
These are all important part of the process, but charts, graphs,
test gear, etc. don't have ears. I am an experienced listener who
is fortunate enough to have very good ears.
Robert C. Lang
James Boyk
> ...Small independent labels can only go so far with full blown comparative tests, which ...can be ...a lot more expensive than I ever imagined. The independent labels may just have to ... rely on some abbreviated form of testing, extensive listening, and/or force Sony and Philips to perform the bulk of the valid tests. More I think about it I believe that such tests are their responsibility. (And I have been reading for the past couple years that they have been performing such tests)
I'd love to think that the big companies have been doing such tests;
but I've never heard such a thing, about this issue or any other. And
when you think about it, what economic incentive do they have to do
so? A positive result (that is, one favoring the technology they're
currently pushing) would help sales not at all, or only to a
microscopic degree. I mean, how many consumers *care*? Whereas a
negative result--if it got out; say if it were leaked and publicized
by a commercial opponent--would most definitely *hurt* sales! So it
seems to me that there's a strong incentive for them not even to
perform such tests in the first place.
On CD vs Lp, I can't resist--unwisely I know--mentioning that a
master disk for an Lp can be cut of such quality that you can't pick
it from the master tape; or can pick it only with great difficulty. I
have personally heard such disks. From that point, it's a matter of
how closely the finished Lp's hew to the master; and they can be very
close indeed.
James Boyk
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk
Alan Dang
> > channels, so this is not a sensible argument under any circumstances.
>
> I don't doubt that you are correct. I don't know what "DTS" is.
> That was a typo on my part. I intended to say DST (Digital Stream
> Transfer) which is an integral contribution by Philips
> to the DSD/SACD invention.
DTS is a lossy compression standard used in home theatre to provide
20-bit 5.1 channels of audio. DTS encoding can also be used with
music CDs to provide 20-bit, 5.1 channels of audio as well (these
discs require a DTS decoder). Listening to the DTS demo CD, I
thought it was actually better than CDs for pop music. For more
demanding music such as Holst's Mars on the demo disc, I found CDs
better -- the 5.1 mix just seems unnatural.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> p.s. Have you considered the actual response of the *microphones* used
>> to record those SACD discs? :-)
>
>No I have not. I don't have the predilection for the technical
>that you espouse. And I would not know how to consider or
>evaluate microphones used to record SACDs or any other format.
>So, I will leave that up to you. Perhaps you will share with us
>the results of your evaluations of the actual response of the
>microphones used to record the JVC XRCDs you advocate or
>other sources you enjoy.
There are a very few labels (such as Pope Music) who use wideband
'measuring' microphones for music recording, otherwise the large
capsule condenser mic is in very wide use. It droops away at no more
than 18kHz. There's a basic physics problem in that mics with an
extended frequency response need to be physically small, with capsules
less than 10mm in diameter, but this limits their dynamic range as
they have very low output. So, to get 90dB dynamic range from a
microphone, it must of necessity have only something like a 15kHz
bandwidth.
In the '50s and '60s, this didn't matter as studio tape decks
struggled to exceed 70dB dynamic range, but 100-110dB is now readily
achievable with digital technology.
>(By the way, based on your
>recommendation I listened to a few selections of a JVC XRCD ll
>disc. One of the selections was from (I believe) Miles Davis'
>"Streamin" Your enthusiasm is justified. It sounded damn good!)
Glad you like it. Those JVC XRCDs seem to have tremendous strength in
depth. While some of the music (especially the Japanese jazz!) may be
an acquired taste, the sonic quality is universally excellent,
apparently limited only by the quality of the masters, which BTW are
universally analogue tape.
Bob Olhsson
<lan...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>While I believe Bob's Olhsson's comments could very well be true
>(I have emailed a couple of labels to try to get some
>clarification)
Just to be clear, it was Sony who paid for controlled tests and who
has taken by far the greatest financial risk by designing and tooling
up to manufacture players.
Independent record labels only pay a trivial amount more for
replication and about the same as ever for recording and mastering.
One of the most popular DSD converters is actually less expensive
than the most expensive conventional converters. While the current
custom built players are very expensive, the process is no more
expensive to a label than first class conventional recording. By
releasing hybrid disks, the only risk to a label is a extra few cents
for replication.
James Boyk
> ...it was Sony who paid for controlled tests and who has taken by
> far the greatest financial risk by designing and tooling up to
> manufacture players....
Would love to have a detailed account of test method & results.
James Boyk
ROBERT C. LANG
Sony paid for and/or conducted themselves fairly extensive
tests. I emailed a couple of independent labels for some
sort verification of this instead of Sony because I have
never been successful in getting responses from Sony on anything
concerning audio (Sony Professional on the video side can,
at times, be very responsive). I am hoping that some
independent labels, who may have first hand knowledge
(or participation in) of these tests (if they were conducted)
might in turn share what they know.
Robert C. Lang
==================
> ROBERT C. LANG wrote:
> >While I believe Bob's Olhsson's comments could very well be true
> >(I have emailed a couple of labels to try to get some
> >clarification)
>
Bob Olhsson wrote:
>
> Just to be clear, it was Sony who paid for controlled tests and who
> has taken by far the greatest financial risk by designing and tooling
ROBERT C. LANG
>
> I'd love to think that the big companies have been doing such tests;
> but I've never heard such a thing, about this issue or any other. And
> when you think about it, what economic incentive do they have to do
> so? A positive result (that is, one favoring the technology they're
> currently pushing) would help sales not at all, or only to a
> microscopic degree.
Agreed. And more than once I have seen test procedures (video
and audio), no matter how carefully planned, that were
immediately challenged by the "other side" as being invalid
or flawed for one reason or another. (And heaven forbid that
test results be falsified to enhance their acceptance). Tests
can be important and helpful. But the need for such tests, as
it relates to the success of SACD or 24/96, DVD-A, etc.,
(or their perceived or actual importance to the consumer) is
probably over rated and overly expensive in relation to their
relevance.
Perhaps Sony and Philips, should come right out and say what
tests were performed or not performed with respect to SACD.
But why and whose asking? I have been following SACD fairly
closely for over a year now and I have seen very few
individuals call for tests (to validate SACD, DVD-A,
or any other format or variation of a format). I believe
that most consumers will do as they have always done;
that is, read reviews (which often comment on
some forms of testing), talk to others, listen and then listen
some more, and vote with their pockets books.
This process seems to have worked well for the acceptance or
rejection of CDs, Elcasettes, DAT, Beta, VHS, etc. and con-
sumers will probably use a similar process for SACD or whatever.
Tests, no matter how extensive, valid or not, (and I have
seen references to tests with respect to SACD, which I will
attempt to verify) will play a *very* secondary role for me
and most (in my opinion). Tests can provide pertinent
information. But they can often raise as many questions
as they answer. Bottom line is that they are simply one of
many factors I consider when making a purchasing decision.
I am definitely not a "Golden Ear", but the primary litmus test
for me are my ears (and my pocket book).
Robert C. Lang
timot...@my-deja.com
I heard the second Sony SACD player at the Bristol Hi-Fi show. First
the SACD layer, then the CD layer.
I am no Golden Ear but the difference was night and day.
Of course, this could just be because the 44.1 CD replay on the
machine is naff and this is just an anecdote after all.
Tim
Spear
> For the most part
> mags such as Stereo Review and Hi Fidelity quickly embraced
> CD as being superior to vinyl, from the earliest releases. But
> the "underground" press, such as "The Absolute Sound",
> "Stereophile" and "IAR" tended to be *very* wary of CDs and
> remained (remain?) so for many years.
Don't forget that JGH absolutely raved about CD in Stphl's first
published review. I re-read it the other day to remind myself to
actually listen to SACD/DVD-A over a decent period of time to be sure
that *I* note the differences and feel they are worth the investment.
mike gray
Let me assure skeptics that the difference between Red Book CD and
SACD are both real and easily discerned, at least during the
demonstrations I've heard at AES and at the Stereo Sound listening
room in Tokyo last November, where we compared the Red Book and SACD
layers of the new Telarc On Broadway disc and the 20-bit and SACD
versions of Bruno Walter's 1958 recordings of the Schubert Unfinished
and Beethoven 6.
Similar - but smaller - improvements in sweetness and definition are
also evident in the Red Book, DSD-mastered Bruno Walter CDs issued in
Japan last year over their 20-bit, SBMed American counterparts.
Regards,
Mike Gray
The Absolute Sound