There's been a lot of talk about this sampling rate, maybe...maybe too much talk

[Jud]

I've got one that is the opposite. Pixies Doolittle. The CD sounds very run of the mill, nothing you would listen to as a demo disk, even if you liked the music. Now listen to the SACD DSD rip. It sounds wonderful. The kind of sound you would use as demo material even if you were tepid on the music. Do we say it is all due to the mastering and that it should just have been released on CD instead of SACD? Perhaps, but what would be gained by doing so? If all I can get out of such a conversion is a loss of information, why do it? What is the value from such a conversion?

 

John

 

Thanks for the tip about Doolittle - love that album and didn't know if the SACD was worth getting.

 

Conversions are a subject that ought to be thought of more all along the chain. You've pointed out the AD end. At the DA end, it's all going to be converted to 24/352.8 or 384, then to DSD, before the final conversion to analog, and they'll be done by imperfect filters, especially the initial one. May as well get as close as possible to 352.8/384 at the input to minimize that initial filtering step.

[kumakuma]

I've got one that is the opposite. Pixies Doolittle. The CD sounds very run of the mill, nothing you would listen to as a demo disk, even if you liked the music. Now listen to the SACD DSD rip. It sounds wonderful. The kind of sound you would use as demo material even if you were tepid on the music. Do we say it is all due to the mastering and that it should just have been released on CD instead of SACD? Perhaps, but what would be gained by doing so? If all I can get out of such a conversion is a loss of information, why do it? What is the value from such a conversion?

 

John

 

I think comparing the MFSL SACD to the original CD is an apples to oranges comparison due to the difference in masterings. A more useful comparison would be comparing the Redbook and SACD layers of the MFSL hybrid SACD disk to see what SACD adds.

[InfernoSTi]

I think comparing the MFSL SACD to the original CD is an apples to oranges comparison due to the difference in masterings. A more useful comparison would be comparing the Redbook and SACD layers of the MFSL hybrid SACD disk to see what SACD adds.

 

So you are saying the Redbook would sound the same or better than the DSD layer?

 

And if so, why would they include the DSD layer at all? What benefit would MFSL have for doing so?

[InfernoSTi]

Thanks for the tip about Doolittle - love that album and didn't know if the SACD was worth getting.

 

Conversions are a subject that ought to be thought of more all along the chain. You've pointed out the AD end. At the DA end, it's all going to be converted to 24/352.8 or 384, then to DSD, before the final conversion to analog, and they'll be done by imperfect filters, especially the initial one. May as well get as close as possible to 352.8/384 at the input to minimize that initial filtering step.

 

I think you will really enjoy the MFSL SACD of Doolittle. I find it a much better "upgrade" than the other MFSL remasters on SACD (there are three if I recall correctly). However, they all sound better, just not so much better as Doolittle does.

 

I would worry that dithering it to Redbook then back on playback would compound the imperfections. I recommend the DSD rip if you have the ability...

[Bob Stern]

I'm very pleased to be able to access the DSD files on the hybrid CD/SACDs I have by my favorite classical and early music performer and conductor, Jordi Savall.

 

By "access", do you mean purchase a DSD download of an SACD you already own?

 

Is there any way to extract DSD from SACD besides an old Sony Playstation? (I know Ted Brady has generously offered extensive instruction on the latter, but I wanted to confirm that I haven't missed something.)

[kumakuma]

So you are saying the Redbook would sound the same or better than the DSD layer?

 

And if so, why would they include the DSD layer at all? What benefit would MFSL have for doing so?

 

I am not saying this at all. I am simply saying that the only way to tell if your system benefits from the added resolution is to compare two recording that have the same mastering.

[InfernoSTi]

I am not saying this at all. I am simply saying that the only way to tell if your system benefits from the added resolution is to compare two recording that have the same mastering.

 

I see. I was thinking you were saying it differently…I'm sorry.

 

Yes, that would allow me to compare the same mastering and see if one sounds better than the other. I've not done that as I have the DSD layer ripped and didn't ever see it as an issue. I've not liked the PCM conversions better than the DSD versions I've done with AudioGate so I just assumed the same would be true for the Redbook layer. Maybe it has a better conversion algorithm than AudioGate.

[Jud]

By "access", do you mean purchase a DSD download of an SACD you already own?

 

Nope, wish the purchase of an SACD in the past entitled me to download the DSD file, but I just use a PS3.

 

Is there any way to extract DSD from SACD besides an old Sony Playstation? (I know Ted Brady has generously offered extensive instruction on the latter, but I wanted to confirm that I haven't missed something.)

 

I think I've read something about use of HDMI and some sort of box (perhaps Google "Athlona") with SACDs, but I'm not at all sure if that provides the DSD file.

[ted_b]

The customized early phat models of PS3 (Cecha, cechb, cechc and ceche) is the only way, other than professional workstations like a Sonoma. An HDMi de-embedder (like Atlona or Monoprice) use digital coax or toslink outs and therefore only allow you to capture (de-embed) HDMI's PCM signal path (and send 24 bit PCM to your DAC). Works good for BluRays though, so if you have a universal player (bluray and SACD) and don't care to capture DSD but your players down'rez'd PCM (usually 24/88.2k) they are a cheap decent little solution.

[[email protected]]

With the launch Pono, I've heard more noise about 192k than ever before. From the celebrity cheerleaders to those that say it is totally unnecessary.

 

Being relatively new to the HiFi game, I'm not completely jaded...yet ☺. I would like to give it try. For those that are proponents, can you recommend a favorite recording that you feel really showcases the purported advantages?

 

Regards,

Clay

 

So we still don't know what you like.

 

But if you like the Beatles, you might try a little experiment by buying "Love," which comes with both a CD at 16/44.1 and DVD-Audio at 24/96. (There are directions on the site regarding how to rip audio DVDs.) I think the alternate takes George Martin and son used on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" sound terrific. Have a listen and see whether you think the 24/96 sounds different (better, worse) than the CD rip.

 

Jud..thank you and thank you to all those that have responded to my post. A little overwhelming to see all the responses. I am a big Beatles fan and actually ripped my Love CD to uncompressed FLAC. Unfortunately I only have the CD-only version. Bummer. Needless to say the sound of the CD is wonderful. I can only conclude that this is a direct result of quality mastering. I know others have asked what kind of music I like. Well... Pretty much anything with a guitar. Whether that be folk , blues, rock and roll , and sometimes some classical Spanish guitar like Segovia. I also like things without a guitar. For example Kraftwerk. Or things where the guitar is not always central like Beck maybe. I have to say I'm a sucker for the big bands and artists like the Beatles, the stones, The Who, Rush, Pearl Jam, The Clash and the lads from Dublin... U2. I have also grown very fond of the ladies in recent years like Norah Jones and Natalie Merchant. Unfortunately for me it has not been easy to find good recordings of my favorite artists. Some have fallen victim to the loudness wars being run by record company marketeers . What a shame. But occasionally I do strike gold. I recently grabbed The Clash's Combat Rock in 24/96. It's terrific actually.

 

But to return to the reason behind my post, everytime I go looking for new music, I have never bothered with 192. Everything I've read said its a waste of time. Now, I'm being told I'm listening underwater unless it is 192. I know there's a lot of smoke and mirrors in that statement. But I'd like to know, does anybody out there have an example of something they think is definitely better because it at 192? Either a native recording or a transfer? If anyone is passionate about something I'd like to know what it is and I may want to give it a shot. Again thank you to all of those that have responded. This is a great place!

[Teresa]

Clay, thanks for specifying what you like. Since you like blues and guitar, here is one of the very best sounding recordings I've ever heard in my life. The music and playing are fantastic, Doug MacLeod at his very best.

 

Doug MacLeod - There's a Time on Reference Recordings at 24 bit 176.4kHz PCM, after clicking the link, click on tracks and there are sound samples to hear before purchasing.

[[email protected]]

Clay, thanks for specifying what you like. Since you like blues and guitar, here is one of the very best sounding recordings I've ever heard in my life. The music and playing are fantastic, Doug MacLeod at his very best.

 

Doug MacLeod - There's a Time on Reference Recordings at 24 bit 176.4kHz PCM, after clicking the link, click on tracks and there are sound samples to hear before purchasing.

 

Awesome. Thank you Teresa. I'm taking notes here and will check it out!

[Jud]

Well... Pretty much anything with a guitar. Whether that be folk , blues, rock and roll , and sometimes some classical Spanish guitar like Segovia.

 

Spanish guitar at 24/88.2 from HDTracks - Dune, Ottmar Liebert. Terrific. CD is available from Amazon if you want to compare, and it could be the same master.

 

There is very little around with CD and hi-res, be it 88.2/96 or 176.4/192, from the same mastering. So you're mostly going to hear the effect of the mastering for good or ill. (E.g., can't stand the remastering used for the hi-res Nirvana "Nevermind."). I'll try to come up with some examples of 192 or 176.4 and CD from identical masters....

[Melvin]

There is very little around with CD and hi-res, be it 88.2/96 or 176.4/192, from the same mastering. So you're mostly going to hear the effect of the mastering for good or ill. (E.g., can't stand the remastering used for the hi-res Nirvana "Nevermind."). I'll try to come up with some examples of 192 or 176.4 and CD from identical masters....

 

dieselroxbury .. alternatively (and without spending much) you could purchase something of interest (and well reviewed) to you in 24/192 and downconvert to 16/44.1 on-the-fly using Audirvana +, Fidelia, or JRMC. Audirvana and Fidelia both use Izotope for the conversion which is well-respected here and elsewhere. This way you will be using the same mastering at least.

[gmgraves]

It is so odd to me that the same folks who advocate that Redbook CDs are all we need don't also propose that all digital recordings be made at 16/44, as well. But of course they recognize that 24 bits should be the minimum for recording and mastering and that higher sample rates would be great for capturing all information that is possible, regardless of if it can be heard. Better is better and maintaining S/N during editing is a good thing. So why would converting to a lower bit rate be preferred for a recording recorded and mastered in 24/44 or greater?

 

Why would anyone say it would sound better to take a recording at 24/44 and reduce it to 16/44? Not analog tape conversion. Not DSD. Just recorded and mastered at 24 bits (and whatever sample rate they used). And if nobody is saying that, then what exactly are they saying?

 

 

I agree with much of what you says here. However, I'm firmly in the "horses for courses" camp. Up-sampling a 16-bit/44.1 KHz master to 24-bit/96 KHz (or 192 KHz, or anything in between) just to be able to sell it as a high-resolution file strikes me as bordering on fraud. If I (or anyone else) want to up-sample 16/44.1 to a higher bit-depth and sample rate on play-back, that's my choice, but selling me up-sampled material in the guise of high-res should be against the law. Also, I have no problem with converting master analog tapes of historically significant performances to high-res digital, as long as the buyers understand that there probably isn't much on the original analog masters above 17-19 KHz, and it's probably overkill to go beyond 24-bit/48 KHz for this kind of material. I'm all for DSD recording (that's what I master at) and 24/96 and above LPCM for capture. But when I buy a high-resolution file, I want to be sure that it's really recorded at high resolution, and not some warmed over low-res source material.

[gmgraves]

I've got one that is the opposite. Pixies Doolittle. The CD sounds very run of the mill, nothing you would listen to as a demo disk, even if you liked the music. Now listen to the SACD DSD rip. It sounds wonderful. The kind of sound you would use as demo material even if you were tepid on the music. Do we say it is all due to the mastering and that it should just have been released on CD instead of SACD? Perhaps, but what would be gained by doing so? If all I can get out of such a conversion is a loss of information, why do it? What is the value from such a conversion?

 

John

 

 

That's almost impossible to know. Is it the difference in resolution between the CD and the SACD, or is it the remastering that was done when the SACD was produced? I have no idea what kind of music Pixies Doolittle is, as I've never heard of them, however, as I suspect that they are some form of pop, I'm going to venture a guess based on that assumption. Over the last 15 years or so, pop CDs have been produced with huge amounts of analog signal compression, so that the music has little or no dynamic range. I'm told that this is done so that when these discs are played on the air, that they sound louder than competing pop albums, and that this is the result of a "loudness war" that is raging between record labels and music artists. Since I have never heard a volume compressor that didn't sound horrible when used to excess, I'm going to guess that this is the reason why the CD sounds so bad. Ostensibly, the SACD of this release wasn't compressed, and with that piece of equipment out of the mastering chain, you are getting to hear what the original recording really sounds like. This is just a guess, you understand, as I have no knowledge of the real events that unfolded in the production of either the CD or the SACD release.

[Jud]

The original CD of Doolittle has very good dynamic range according to DR Database, very slightly better than the Mobile Fidelity version.

[gmgraves]

The original CD of Doolittle has very good dynamic range according to DR Database, very slightly better than the Mobile Fidelity version.

 

 

Like I said, it was just a guess at why the SACD might sound so much better than the CD. I am still convinced that whether or not a commercial recording sounds good has a lot more to do with how carefully it is produced than does the release's ultimate resolution or format.

[Guidof]

I agree with much of what you says here. However, I'm firmly in the "horses for courses" camp. Up-sampling a 16-bit/44.1 KHz master to 24-bit/96 KHz (or 192 KHz, or anything in between) just to be able to sell it as a high-resolution file strikes me as bordering on fraud. If I (or anyone else) want to up-sample 16/44.1 to a higher bit-depth and sample rate on play-back, that's my choice, but selling me up-sampled material in the guise of high-res should be against the law. Also, I have no problem with converting master analog tapes of historically significant performances to high-res digital, as long as the buyers understand that there probably isn't much on the original analog masters above 17-19 KHz, and it's probably overkill to go beyond 24-bit/48 KHz for this kind of material. I'm all for DSD recording (that's what I master at) and 24/96 and above LPCM for capture. But when I buy a high-resolution file, I want to be sure that it's really recorded at high resolution, and not some warmed over low-res source material.

 

+ 1! (sigh . . . )

[Audio_ELF]

Like I said, it was just a guess at why the SACD might sound so much better than the CD. I am still convinced that whether or not a commercial recording sounds good has a lot more to do with how carefully it is produced than does the release's ultimate resolution or format.

+1 because George isn't talking absolutes!

[Jud]

+1 because George isn't talking absolutes!

 

Yes, very much agreed. Dynamic range is a subject that tends to get brought in very often these days to discussions about good production, probably because (1) the Loudness Wars, and (2) DR Database makes it easy to look up measurements (though there are caveats about what those measurements represent - they meet applicable standards, but those standards don't necessarily uniformly correspond to what we hear as wide dynamic range or lack of compression). But dynamic range/lack of compression is not nearly the whole of good production. (Though not compressing an entire track within an inch of its life could be thought of as a sort of Hippocratic "first do no harm" production principle.)

[Don Hills]

^^^^ Agreed. Any mix / mastering engineer who cares about quality will tell you that there's quite a difference between making it hot enough to sound "good" and crushing it to death for the loudness wars.

[RealAudio]

Yes, very much agreed. Dynamic range is a subject that tends to get brought in very often these days to discussions about good production, probably because (1) the Loudness Wars, and (2) DR Database makes it easy to look up measurements (though there are caveats about what those measurements represent - they meet applicable standards, but those standards don't necessarily uniformly correspond to what we hear as wide dynamic range or lack of compression). But dynamic range/lack of compression is not nearly the whole of good production. (Though not compressing an entire track within an inch of its life could be thought of as a sort of Hippocratic "first do no harm" production principle.)

 

 

You know, if you look at the fletcher munson curves, you can see there's a good reason for dynamic range compression and why the anything above 15-18 KHz and 90 to 100 db doesn't matter.

[Jud]

You know, if you look at the fletcher munson curves, you can see there's a good reason for dynamic range compression and why the anything above 15-18 KHz and 90 to 100 db doesn't matter.

 

So maybe you can tell me how that works for taking an album like Nirvana's Nevermind, where Cobain's songs rely on extreme dynamic contrasts for their drama - slow, soft verses ratcheting up in a fraction of a second to screaming, thrashing choruses - and completely draining it of all life. The DR album-min-max for the original CD was 12-10-12 in the US, 12-10-13 for the German pressing. For the HDTracks "hi res" 24/96 and 20th anniversary CD remaster, it was 7-6-9 and 7-6-8, respectively.

[elcorso]

You know, if you look at the fletcher munson curves, you can see there's a good reason for dynamic range compression and why the anything above 15-18 KHz and 90 to 100 db doesn't matter.

 

Who cares about the old Fletcher-Munson poor curves.

 

This are real curves:

 

(Photo removed. - CC)

 

 

Roch