Digital vs analog

[Chris A]

SACD sounds lifeless to me. Again, just my opinion...

Now THAT one places you squarely into the minority party.

[Mike Lindsey]

SACD sounds lifeless to me. Again, just my opinion...

Now THAT one places you squarely into the minority party.

In comparison to vinyl, and in my room on my system.

I want to like SACD. I really do. I have bought 20 - 25 of them hoping the next one will do it for me. I bought the Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here SACD based on all the reviews. My original pressing LP sounds better. I bought the Jeff Beck Blow By Blow SACD. This one's not even close to the original Epic vinyl pressing. Now, DVD-Audio is a whole nother ballgame in my opinion. That's a format that really does suck me in, and gets as close to vinyl as anything I have. Steely Dan's Gaucho is a great recording! As is GordonGoodwins Big Phat Band - Swingin For The Fences. I have a number of others that sound really good as well. SACD, however, doesn't stack up as well.

Mike

[Chris A]

Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here SACD

Here are the DR Database ratings for Wish You Were Here

Jeff Beck Blow By Blow SACD

Blow by Blow

EDIT: fixed link for Blow by Blow (17 Apr 2013)

The Blow by Blow SACD is a LOUD disk in terms of DR. The Wish You Were Here SACD isn't particularly good either, no better than the vinyl. Reissues of old recordings typically are no better than the original reel-to-reel tapes from which the vinyl records were made (in terms of DR).

However, if you pick something recorded later...especially on DVD-A or even BD music...or even just different music such as anything by Chesky or Sheffield Lab or DMP or Naxos or Philips or DG...

Chris

[Quiet_Hollow]

I want to like SACD. I really do.

Mike, if you are running SACD through the same amp that you're running your vinyl through, you're not experiencing its full performance potential.

-QH

[Mike Lindsey]

I want to like SACD. I really do.

Mike, if you are running SACD through the same amp that you're running your vinyl through, you're not experiencing its full performance potential.

-QH

The Oppo BDP-83SE has 2 sets of analog outputs. It has a L/R output that I run to my 2-ch preamp (BBX), and it has 5.1 analog outputs (L/R/C/SL/SR/SW) that I connect to the Anthem D2 5.1 inputs. When playing 5.1 material I use the Anthem with the Acurus amps, and when playing 2-ch material (CD's and Stereo SACD) I use the BBX with the VRD's.

In either case, SACD does not suck me in the way the vinyl does.

Mike

[Mike Lindsey]

Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here SACD

Here are the DR Database ratings for Wish You Were Here

Jeff Beck Blow By Blow SACD

Blow by Blow

The Blow by Blow SACD is a mediocre SACD in terms of DR. The Wish You Were Here SACD isn't particularly good either, no better than the vinyl. Reissues of old recordings typically are no better than the original reel-to-reel tapes from which the vinyl records were made (in terms of DR).

However, if you pick something recorded later...especially on DVD-A or even BD music...or even just different music such as anything by Chesky or Sheffield Lab or DMP or Naxos or Philips or DG...

Chris

Unfortunately, DR doesn't tell the whole story. Vinyl has less DR than just about all other formats, and it still sounds better than most imho. Having said that, I will certainly look into some of these other labels.

Mike

[Chris A]

Actually, I'm not going to agree with you on the point that vinyl has lower DR - the data says otherwise: almost every instance where vinyl disks exist usually are accompanied by lower CD Dynamic Ratio disks. Refer to the thread on the DR Database observations.

See the updated link for Blow by Blow in my original post above that you quoted: it tells a pretty interesting story, IMHO.

Chris

[DrWho]

Chris, you're sounding a lot like a young engineer that thinks this
"new found" dynamic range measurement somehow describes all aspects of
sound quality, and now everything becomes a nail to be hit with this
dynamics hammer.

In the words of my boss, "did you listen to it
yet?" You are so overstating the significance of dynamic range it's
almost not even worth trying to have a legitimate conversation about it.

I
brought up Blackmore's Night because I knew it would measure low, but
it's entirely because of the style of music. Granted there is definitely
some mastering compression, but in the grand scheme of things it is
relatively low. I would argue that each of the instruments gets to
demonstrate pretty close to its natural acoustic dynamic range, but
there is so much layering that it ends up with a thick sound that
happens to measure a low dynamic range. Btw, this isn't the only style
of music that has this behavior - and I've also recorded live acoustic
concerts (nothing electric) demonstrating numbers as low as the "bad
category" on this insanely naive database.

In other words, you
can get low dynamic range with no compression whatsoever. You say that
doesn't sound realistic, and yet it happens in real life all the time.
And there are also huge groups of people that enjoy that kind of sound.

I
met this one guy a while back that owned only a few CDs and would play
certain parts of tracks because he loved the dynamics over his super
expensive electronics and horn speakers...and he would sit there and
rewind those favorite sections so we could experience it over and over
again. You're coming off a lot like that, except you're trying to find a
few more CDs that exhibit the same effect.

All I gotta say is
there is a lot more to be enjoyed in music, and those other areas of
enjoyment can actually be reduced by arbitrarily expanding dynamic range
to get off on a certain sound.

Do you also discredit any painting that doesn't exhibit the full spectrum of color and brightness levels?

[Marvel]

Chris, you're sounding a lot like a young engineer that thinks this
"new found" dynamic range measurement somehow describes all aspects of
sound quality, and now everything becomes a nail to be hit with this
dynamics hammer.

There is a bit of irony in this statement. []

Bruce

[Chris A]

Chris, you're sounding a lot like a young engineer that thinks this "new found" dynamic range measurement somehow describes all aspects of sound quality, and now everything becomes a nail to be hit with this dynamics hammer.

Mike, since we know each other in real life to some degree - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

1) If my tastes had changed after the acquisition of the DR Offline Meter application, then I'd probably admit that - it hasn't, however. It has given me some insights that I'm sharing here for comment.

2) I believe that it was you that stated that we need to be measuring AND using our ears. I'm doing that here. In fact, I've been listening a lot longer than measuring and analyzing this data. There are things that I'm seeing and hearing that address long-standing questions that I've held.

3) I believe it was you that indicated that Dynamic Range isn't important. I also believe that you are in a minority here in that opinion on this forum (and I could be wrong on this point, but I don't believe that I am). I know that certain forms of music have lower DR ratings from the analysis that I've already performed and by listening carefully. I've found that overall (track-level) DR ratings of 8 or 9 are the de facto bare minimums that I've seen in terms of any type of music that I've heard. I find that this is necessary so that music still sounds "live" and "real", even if the instrumentation and genre aren't conducive to high DR ratings. But that's another topic for observations and discussions yet to come in that other thread that I've referenced.

4) I really don't sit around listening to the same music all the time, wishing it would be better: I listen to a LOT of music of differing genres, etc. I'm okay with discussions of types and genre of music that I use to do critical listening and judgments on. Most of the best new music that I listen to at home (which is, by the way, spectacular) I can't yet measure the DR values with the tools discussed above, since these new recordings are in multichannel format not yet supported by the tool.EDIT (20 May 2013): NOT ANYMORE -THERE ARE MULTI-CHANNEL PLUGINS NOW AVAILABLE AS FREEWARE.

5) It's been my experience that any time a new means to measure or a new more-available means to measure is brought out, it tends to upset some rice bowls. I'm okay with that if it does. That's why I write about it. I'm sure that there are a few here that are disturbed by what they see in the DR Database data analyses that I've been posting, or that don't agree with my observations or the implied importance of those observations. That's okay.

Chris

[rigma]

Chris, you're sounding a lot like a young engineer that thinks this
"new found" dynamic range measurement somehow describes all aspects of sound quality, and now everything becomes a nail to be hit with this dynamics hammer.

I can't believe this is coming from the Grasshopper! Now that is funny.

rigma

[Marvel]

I find music with a low DR to be tiring. It's like holding your breath, because the music doesn't breathe any. I don't mind that much when I'm in my car, because it disappears and then is too loud. [:@]

At home, I sit to listen, and that is mostly symphonic/classical. I do listen to jazz, rock,country, celtic, etc., but what I gravitate to is music with dynamics, music that breathes.

Bruce

[Mike Lindsey]

Actually, I'm not going to agree with you on the point that vinyl has lower DR - the data says otherwise: almost every instance where vinyl disks exist usually are accompanied by lower CD Dynamic Ratio disks. Refer to the thread on the DR Database observations.

See the updated link for Blow by Blow in my original post above that you quoted: it tells a pretty interesting story, IMHO.

Chris

I'll try not to be quite as harsh as DrWho. []

I guess I meant vinyl doesn't have the potential that digital does in the way of DR, although I could be wrong there as well. But more importantly that has never been the end-all be-all for me. I can see where that would be important for a classical music lover however.

For me, vinyl just makes me want to sit down and listen. It's hard to explain really, but when I have a record on I know it, and I have to sit in the sweet spot and listen to it. CD's and SACD's have never sucked me in like that. Again, this is just on my system and in my room.

Mike

[DrWho]

Chris, you're sounding a lot like a young engineer that thinks this
"new found" dynamic range measurement somehow describes all aspects of
sound quality, and now everything becomes a nail to be hit with this
dynamics hammer.

There is a bit of irony in this statement.

Entirely intentional []

Btw Chris - thanks for your thoughtful reply. I don't get as much time to post these days, but I have some follow up and want to spend a bit more time writing it.

[Quiet_Hollow]

See also this enlightening, yet entertaining video: http://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml [8]http://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml' target="_blank">

[Chris A]

In the words of my boss, "did you listen to it yet?" You are so overstating the significance of dynamic range it's almost not even worth trying to have a legitimate conversation about it.

For those instances where the dynamic range is actually being compressed (which, unfortunately, is most instances nowadays per the literally thousands of data points evidenced in the DR Database): http://www.turnmeup.org/

All I gotta say is there is a lot more to be enjoyed in music, and those other areas of enjoyment can actually be reduced by arbitrarily expanding dynamic range to get off on a certain sound.

I really don't believe that I said this, or implied it.

Rather, I'm in the "record it and produce it as it came to the microphone" camp, and personally do not like to hear postprocessing of the original tracks beyond that which is absolutely necessary to assemble into 2 channels or 5 channels, whichever the case may be.

I've never had a problem with "quantization effects" of low-recording-level CDs, DVDs, or BDs. But I've had significant issues over the years (mostly in the 70s and 80s) with vinyl records that were recorded at too low a level, particularly certain DG classical disks which require an extreme amount of care and cleaning to keep grooves free of ticks and pops, and also are hyper-susceptible to infrasonic record warp signals that exercise preamps and subwoofers unnecessarily.

Chris

[Chris A]

Another interesting article on this subject, and this one actually mentions names on separate "loud" and "quiet" lists:

http://musicmachinery.com/2009/03/23/the-loudness-war/

I can see if you don't like this subject...if you often listen to the loud acts identified.

I do own a copy of Vapor Trails on CD, but I couldn't listen to it at anything other than very low level, and I listened to it about twice. It's gathering dust now. The vinyl version is apparently much better with significantly increased DR. Test for Echo is the same story, except that I can't find a vinyl version of it to compare against. The compositions and (apparently) the performances aren't bad at all...it's the processed recordings that are the problem.

Chris

[babadono]

Did you join "Turn Me Up"? I've been wondering if there was an orginazation that was already all over this loud for loudness sake issue.

[bracurrie]

In the words of my boss, "did you listen to it yet?" You are so overstating the significance of dynamic range it's almost not even worth trying to have a legitimate conversation about it.

For those instances where the dynamic range is actually being compressed (which, unfortunately, is most instances nowadays per the literally thousands of data points evidenced in the DR Database): http://www.turnmeup.org/

All I gotta say is there is a lot more to be enjoyed in music, and those other areas of enjoyment can actually be reduced by arbitrarily expanding dynamic range to get off on a certain sound.

I really don't believe that I said this, or implied it.

Rather, I'm in the "record it and produce it as it came to the microphone" camp, and personally do not like to hear postprocessing of the original tracks beyond that which is absolutely necessary to assemble into 2 channels or 5 channels, whichever the case may be.

I've never had a problem with "quantization effects" of low-recording-level CDs, DVDs, or BDs. But I've had significant issues over the years (mostly in the 70s and 80s) with vinyl records that were recorded at too low a level, particularly certain DG classical disks which require an extreme amount of care and cleaning to keep grooves free of ticks and pops, and also are hyper-susceptible to infrasonic record warp signals that exercise preamps and subwoofers unnecessarily.

Chris

I read this thread again tonight while listening to Patsy Cline. I then put on a 1956 classical recoding lovingly transferred from tape to digital. There were lots of quiet passages that in years gone by I would not have listened to at volume because of the pops and clicks. It would appear that the cleanliness is more important than the problems associated with digital.

So my question is this. What is the order of priority for material for reproduction? I tolerate a level of hiss in my fifties recordings because the music is so darn good.

All the best.

[Chris A]

So my question is this. What is the order of priority for material for reproduction? I tolerate a level of hiss in my fifties recordings because the music is so darn good.

I believe that many disagreements on this forum relate to differing priorities for reproduction.

1) Certainly for some, the answer is that they want a certain kind of reproduction that sounds like their childhood memories of a certain type of sound: for instance, some like a jukebox sound, car radio, or ear bud (no kidding, I've read some proclaiming that the sound improved once the music was passed through an iTunes mp3 encoder/decoder.Others like their recordings muffled by the use of cone-type direct radiator speakers so that they feel like they are at the back of a theater ("British" sound), or like the speakers that they had when they grew up in their childhood home.

2) For others, the sound of a touring band concert may be the goal, including the type of music typically played (usually loud in the midrange and perhaps higher bass).

3) Others may seek out the sound of some "audiophile" setup, which includes a certain willingness to forgo extreme dynamics and concert level performance in favor of "micro-detail" and soundstage, even surpassing real live performance soundstage.

4) Still others may prefer the look of the equipment over its performance...no kidding. For instance, large esoteric turntables/arms, glowing tubes, matched wood grains, etc.

5) Apparently a small minority desire realism in performance effects, including soundstage, real concert dynamics, freedom from noise on the recording medium, freedom from all kinds of distortion including especially modulation distortion, and a realism in the soundstage that you actually hear when you go to a live acoustic concert.

I would also add that the goal typically changes for individuals based on the type of music played and the environment it is played in.

This is actually a complex subject. I've found that my tastes aren't in the majority but are focused exclusively on the fifth point above, regardless of music type or environment.

I will also share that I've never been satisfied listening to music reproduced on home hi-fi systems and commercial systems since I was very young, because it didn't sound like the real thing: I spent many hours listening to live acoustic music of different genres--not amplified music.

Chris