What is good hi fi for you

[Gazzip]

and ellisdj are incorrect. iMark clearly identifies the better mastering as being the reason why he goes for SACD, nothing else. You forget that part of the marketing was just that, the mastering on SACD was generally better than the CD layer, which is why imark and others go for that medium. Nothing to do with supposed improvement in the format. There is no parallel with cables whatsoever.

You need to read his post more closely.

Can you provide me with measurements to prove that the mastering is "better" on some SACD's than it is on their equivalent Redbook release? I suspect the mastering is just different not better, but please feel free to provide those measurements when you can. Why the need for SACD to provide a different mastering? Better indeed.

 

[avole]

you jumped to an incorrect conclusion? There's no shame in that. We're often wrong when we pass through this thing called life.

 

[Gazzip]

you jumped to an incorrect conclusion? There's no shame in that. We're often wrong when we pass through this thing called life.

Can you provide me with measurements to prove that the mastering is "better" on some SACD's than it is on their equivalent Redbook release? I suspect the mastering is just different not better, but please feel free to provide those measurements when you can. Why the need for SACD to provide a different mastering? Better indeed.

 

[ellisdj]

Better will be subjective same as the majority of this hobby. What makes one better than another other than an opinion on it?

 

[avole]

in your interpretation of iMark's post. You're coming across as a bit of - well, I suspect you already know.

You were wrong, and there's no harm in that. Failure to admit that may reveal some deep-seated psychological problems, however.

 

[Gazzip]

Better will be subjective same as the majority of this hobby. What makes one better than another other than an opinion on it?

Exactly... but when it suits these guys they demand scientific evidence that something is better than something else. There is no place in science for hypocrisy.

 

[avole]

Better will be subjective same as the majority of this hobby. What makes one better than another other than an opinion on it?

Christ almighty! Better isn't just opinion, you know. Figures prove that the acceleration of a Renault Clio Trophy to 100kph is better than that of my Skoda Roomster - 6.5s vs >11. Subjectivity doesn't come into it.

 

[Gazzip]

Better will be subjective same as the majority of this hobby. What makes one better than another other than an opinion on it?

Christ almighty! Better isn't just opinion, you know. Figures prove that the acceleration of a Renault Clio Trophy to 100kph is better than that of my Skoda Roomster - 6.5s vs >11. Subjectivity doesn't come into it.

So prove your statement that SACD mixes are better than Redbook.

 

[avole]

of iMark's post was incorrect. The onus is on you, my self-denying friend

 

[Gazzip]

of iMark's post was incorrect. The onus is on you, my self-denying friend

Fine. I confirm my understanding that iMark buys SACD's because he believes that the mastering is better. Now you prove that it is.

 

[Gazzip]

Bearing in mind that the same original master recordings will be used, and that SACD is scientifically proven to provide no audible benefits to a human listener, this will be interesting...

 

[ellisdj]

If its classified as a better mastering of the same content surely that decision must be made by listening to the 2 and comparing then making a decision on it.

If that is the case expectation bias is prevalent and a decision made from a subjective opinion - unless they ABX blind test it - possible but what is the odds, unlikely I would guess in a pro capacity - they dont really care past that decision and trust themself its their job to make that decision.

So if Better its decided purely on a sighted listening test and advertised as being a Better Master thats fine.

You buy it on the strength of a better master
You listen to it, it sounds great - you compare to the original CD and it definately sounds better - even though it being better is only a collection of subjective opinions defining it so.

You read the article Gazzip linked - science proves you cant have heard it sound better, you go on a forum and get into a 22 page debate with other people that confirm science says it cant sound better than the redbook

Now this is the big one - the next time you go to listen to that album what version are you going to listen to the better sounding to you SACD (even though it cant) or the worse sounding to you Redbook.

The answer is obvious and that is a parallel with cables.

A different Master is obviously a different thing - however I would guess it would be advertised and thought of as a Better Master to / by audiophiles to help charge a premium for the disc / quantify it.

That night after you have had a great listening session, your not thinking about the science, or the other forum members opinions your thinking about how much you enjoyed that listening session and how you cant wait for the next one.

Whether that is all subjective, bias, imaginary or real it does not matter to you then and does not matter full stop - what matters is the heightened enjoyment of that listening session, the increased emotional connection to the music, gets you closer to the music is the phrase often used.

That is how I look at it and I bet pretty much everyone would do as well so thats an extremely relevant thing to bring up for this discussion

 

[MrReaper182]

Anything that Rega make is good hi-fi to me.

 

[Gazzip]

Anything that Rega make is good hi-fi to me.

Providing they don't make SACD's... which of course they don't. *biggrin*

 

[DocG]

It's so weird if someone drags the thread on topic again...*biggrin*

 

[shadders]

Hi,

I thought that SACD is superior to CD given that it is by design, presenting a potential higher signal to noise ratio and greater bandwidth. Hence, it has been proven by science to be better than CD, in this regard. Whether the recording is better, or you can hear the extended S/N or bandwidth, is subjective.

A cable, is linear, and the signal received at one end is linearly related to the signal at the input end. Whereas an amplifier will distort the incoming signal, with the manufacturers specified/measured THD, a cable does not distort the signal. Therefore, a cable cannot add extra signals, it will only relay the incoming signal. As such, cables do not have a sound, and anyone that thinks they can hear the sound of a cable is experiencing expectation bias.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[iMark]

What Gazzip doesn't seem to understand that record companies often compress sound on Redbook CD's. That's the mastering for the CD (or CD layer of hybrid SACD). There are numorous examples of hybrid SACDs that have different mastering for the CD and stereo SACD layers. When this is done by the record companies, the CD masters have less dynamic range and can be classed as a 'worse' mastering.

I agree with Gazzip that in cases that the CD and stereo SACD layer are made from the same mastering, it's virtually impossible to hear any difference. But at the same time the SACD layer will never sound worse than the CD so no harm is done by listening to the SACD stereo layer. A well mastered CD will sound excellent if the recording was done well.

 

[ellisdj]

Do they generally compress / loudness max redbook classical releases like redbook chart releases? I didnt think that would be common practice for that genre of music.

 

[Gazzip]

What Gazzip doesn't seem to understand that record companies often compress sound on Redbook CD's. That's the mastering for the CD (or CD layer of hybrid SACD). There are numorous examples of hybrid SACDs that have different mastering for the CD and stereo SACD layers. When this is done by the record companies, the CD masters have less dynamic range and can be classed as a 'worse' mastering.

I agree with Gazzip that in cases that the CD and stereo SACD layer are made from the same mastering, it's virtually impossible to hear any difference. But at the same time the SACD layer will never sound worse than the CD so no harm is done by listening to the SACD stereo layer. A well mastered CD will sound excellent if the recording was done well.

What iMark doesn't realise is that to hear the increased dynamic range contained within his SACD he would have to be dead. That is assuming his partnering equipment is capable of reproducing weaponised sound, which it will not be. Once again, and as with FR, the DR of a Redbook CD exceeds that which can be recreated by a hifi and can be safely listened to by a human being.

I maintain my position that anybody who has invested in SACD has been suckered and is suffering from expectation bias if they hear any improvement in sound. They may however experience a different mastering and if this floats their boat then that is cool. It is only different however, not better.

 

[Gazzip]

Hi,

I thought that SACD is superior to CD given that it is by design, presenting a potential higher signal to noise ratio and greater bandwidth. Hence, it has been proven by science to be better than CD, in this regard. Whether the recording is better, or you can hear the extended S/N or bandwidth, is subjective.

A cable, is linear, and the signal received at one end is linearly related to the signal at the input end. Whereas an amplifier will distort the incoming signal, with the manufacturers specified/measured THD, a cable does not distort the signal. Therefore, a cable cannot add extra signals, it will only relay the incoming signal. As such, cables do not have a sound, and anyone that thinks they can hear the sound of a cable is experiencing expectation bias.

Regards,

Shadders.

No it is not subjective. It is impossible. Science has established this. We are limited by human biology and what our hifi equipment can actually reproduce. Why do you continue cherry picking your facts?

 

[avole]

What Gazzip doesn't seem to understand that record companies often compress sound on Redbook CD's. That's the mastering for the CD (or CD layer of hybrid SACD). There are numorous examples of hybrid SACDs that have different mastering for the CD and stereo SACD layers. When this is done by the record companies, the CD masters have less dynamic range and can be classed as a 'worse' mastering.

I agree with Gazzip that in cases that the CD and stereo SACD layer are made from the same mastering, it's virtually impossible to hear any difference. But at the same time the SACD layer will never sound worse than the CD so no harm is done by listening to the SACD stereo layer. A well mastered CD will sound excellent if the recording was done well.

What iMark doesn't realise is that to hear the increased dynamic range contained within his SACD he would have to be dead. That is assuming his partnering equipment is capable of reproducing weaponised sound, which it will not be. Once again, and as with FR, the DR of a Redbook CD exceeds that which can be recreated by a hifi and can be safely listened to by a human being.

I maintain my position that anybody who has invested in SACD has been suckered and is suffering from expectation bias if they hear any improvement in sound. They may however experience a different mastering and if this floats their boat then that is cool. It is only different however, not better.

He didn't say you could hear the increased dynamic range. He only talks about different mastering.

By the way, I do think that the two layers having different mastering on the same SACD was, in some cases, done for purely marketing reasons. On the other hand,Telarc, who used to use SACD and DSD, did so for exactly the reasons iMark and Shadders mention. Whether they continue to do so now after the company was gutted by Concord Music, who knows?

 

[ellisdj]

is that to which I listen, and do not worry about upgrades, cables, active speakers, passive speakers etc.

Avole same question to you. How do you know what your listening to is good.
What have you been active listening to recently.

Anyone can live in a bubble and only listen to their own system. Thats fine but in this instance their opinion on good is extemely limited i am sure you will agree.

For you not to be thinking about it your system must sound perfect for every song? Thats a system i would like to hear

 

[avole]

is that to which I listen, and do not worry about upgrades, cables, active speakers, passive speakers etc.

 

[ellisdj]

Interesting Idea - this is what is Good HiFi Thread

Quick Survey - What do we think Good HiFi should do?

A - Bring the music into your room

B - Take you to the music the room was made in

Interesting one this - please post answers below - we can develop conversation and debate around this that should be constructive

 

[iMark]

No it is not subjective. It is impossible. Science has established this. We are limited by human biology and what our hifi equipment can actually reproduce. Why do you continue cherry picking your facts?

Why don't you just say that you haven't understood what we've been saying about using different masters. That's a completely different issue from whether we can actually hear difference between Redbook CD and SACD. If the masters are different, we will a difference. If they're not, we won't. But even the article you linked to states that hi-res reproduction will not lead to worse quality than Redbook CD. The author of that article simply states that he thinks that hi-res distribution is overkill.