Forgive me Computeraudiophiles, for I have sinned

[Teresa]

On ‎9‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 3:23 PM, fas42 said:

...Unlistenable CDs? Ain't any such animal ... what "those" CDs were doing was to provoke the playback chain into highlighting every tiny lacking in the integrity of the rig - if your car falls to bits over a rough track, don't blame the road makers!

 

So you can listen to any CD no matter how poorly it was engineered, good for you. I can't, in fact I'm not fond of CDs or 16/44.1kHz PCM, even if well recorded. I prefer well engineered recordings from audiophile and boutique recording companies who take great pains to make the most natural sounding recordings possible. And I prefer them in DSD or high resolution PCM.

 

A well designed car can handle rough poorly kept roads better than a bad car with poor suspension. However, a well designed car is also very quiet with very smooth handling on roads in good condition. Good roads offer a superior ride just as good recordings offer a superior listening experience.

 

A well designed audio system can play poorly engineered recordings bringing out what little audio quality they offer along with all their warts. However, when playing a well engineered recording made in a great sounding acoustic space with properly placed microphones, etc. a well designed audio system will reveal the natural realistic sound such recordings offer.

[Teresa]

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

Evidence of what?

 

That capable systems can produce convincing sound?

That one can troubleshoot a system so that it becomes capable?

That "poor" recordings on a capable system are eminently listenable to?

 

etc …

 

1. Yes, my capable system produces very convincing sound with well engineered recordings.
2. Synergy between components is very important, as is speaker placement and room acoustics.
3. Poor recordings are listenable, but not as enjoyable as recordings engineered correctly in the first place. It's my listening time and listening pleasure and I prefer to really enjoy the music I listen to.

 

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

So you accept that a capable system, however you may perceive such, can produce convincing sound?

 

Yes, indeed I do. My system produces a very realistic sound stage that extends beyond the outer boundaries of my speakers and is very deep with realistic timbre. With the best recordings it sounds like I am there.

 

14 hours ago, bachish said:

A 4416 recording, properly downsampled and dithered, should be indistinguishable from the high res version, especially on a high end system.

 

Here are possible reasons you hear a difference,

 

1) A problem with your DAC

2) A poorly executed  downsample (possible on older CDs)

3) Your head wasn't in exactly the same place for each version.

4)  You heard something new in the music when listening to the high res version and attributed it to the high res

5) Expectation bias (a proven phenomenon)

 

Have you tried a blind test?  

 

I believe the difference may be indistinguishable to you. Perhaps, you have yet to hear an authentic audiophile or natural recording in high resolution. I will say Telarc or Reference Recording CDs sound more realistic to me than high resolution recordings from the major labels. However, Telarc pure DSD SACDs and Reference Recordings 24/176.4kHz HRx discs and downloads take that realism to a much higher level.  So since audiophile SACDs, DSDs and 24 bit PCM downloads sound so much better than their CD versions, why mess with CD or 16/44.1kHz PCM?

 

Most high resolution downloads are from the major labels, perhaps these are ones you compared. Try some real audiophile recordings from SACDs and high resolution downloads before you condemn high resolution. Here is a list of my favorite audiophile labels which are audiophile from the microphones to the finished product:

 

• Analogue Productions Originals (recorded live direct to 2-track analog with no editing in Blue Heaven Studios, a church-turned-recording studio)
• AudioQuest Music (SACDs are back in print reissued by Sledgehammer
• Blues)
• Channel Classics
• Chesky Records (Their philosophy is to create the illusion of live musicians in a real three-dimensional space.)
• DMP (no editing within a single song or composition as owner Tom Jung believes editing destroys the flow of the music.)
• Groove Note
• Linn
• MA Recordings
• Opus 3
• PentaTone Classics
• Reference Recordings
• Sheffield Lab
• Stockfisch Records
• Telarc (Pre-2009, especially pure DSD SACDs) Pre-2009 Telarc is my favorite audiophile label.
• ViTaL Records (Vacuum Tube Logic) especially the SACD and DSD versions as rereleased by fonè)
• Wilson Audiophile

 

Sorry but CDs and 16/44.1kHz just are too compromised sonically for me.

 

To answer your questions:

 

1. There is no problem with my DAC, I have a Teac UD-501 USB DSD DAC connected to my Mac Mini with a Lush USB cable. DSD audiophile recordings sound the best followed by 24/96kHz or higher PCM.
2. Poorly made CDs do indeed sound bad, as I pointed out above audiophile CDs sound better than high resolution downloads from the major labels in my system. However, I pick neither option.
3. I have long-term satisfaction with audiophile high resolution over audiophile CDs. I don't care for major label and other non-audiophile recordings either as CDs or as high resolution music files. So my head as been in all kinds of positions in the over 30 years I have compared CDs to other formats, not just high resolution.
4. There is so much more to hear in audiophile high resolution recordings, give a listen for yourself. (see recording companies above.)
5. I originally came from analog and my expectation bias is that digital sucks big time. SACD changed my mind, I was shocked that a digital format could actually sound like music.

 

Yes I have done blind tests.

 

13 hours ago, vl said:

Not all CDs are created equal in SQ.  That is why given a digital playback system, some CDs sound good and some less good.  A good playback system will demonstrate a noticeable SQ difference among CDs.  An exceptionally good playback system will show much less difference among CDs.  

 

One of the key factors in good SQ is the upsampler.  A good upsampler has to have a good algorithm and ample computation power.  If the upsampler is not good enough, the system can still sound very good when playing back hires tracks, because the upsampler is not needed to do a hard job in playing hires tracks.  

 

Agreed. IMHO well recorded audiophile and other naturally made CDs with no EQ, no compression and other studio tricks sound better than highly compressed overloaded modern major label recordings. I just want to point out IMHO the major labels actually made decent recordings in the 1950's to mid-1970's.

 

I have the Teac UD-501 DSD USB DAC is it good enough in your opinion?

[Teresa]

17 hours ago, bachish said:

You have me pegged all wrong, Teresa. I consider myself pretty experienced in these matters - at least I like to think so!

 

You realize that there is not the hard and fast line between so-called "audiophile labels' and 'major labels', right? 

 

For example, Sound Mirror recording company in Boston - considered one of the top classical recording companies in existence - has recorded for Reference Recordings and Pentatone you listed as 'audiophile labels' but also for every major label.

 

Here it is from their website...

 

Soundmirror’s orchestral, solo, opera, and chamber recordings have received over 80 GRAMMY nominations and awards as well as special commendations from prestigious publications.

Soundmirror has recorded for every major classical record label including Albany, Angel, Analeckta, BMG, Cambria, CBS, Chandos, Clarion, Decca, Deutsche Grammophon, ECM, EMI, Erato, Finlandia, Harmonia Mundi, Koch International, LSO Live, Marc Aural Edition, N2K, Naxos, New World, Nonesuch, PentaTone Classics, Philips, Phonogram, RCA Red Seal, Signum Classics, Sony Classical, Summit, Telarc, Teldec, Virgin Classics, Warner/Elektra as well as many artist in-house labels.

 

They even have Grammy nominations and awards for recordings on the Naxos label. Yep, you heard correctly.  You can check it out here.

 

BTW, the founder of Sound Mirror, John Newton, was a key player in the development of SACD, your favorite format.

 

Another example is Tony Faulkner of Green Room Productions in the UK, a legend in the classical recording world.  Here's the list from his website (notice, gasp! all the major labels!),

 

Albany, American Gramaphone, Andante, Argo, ASV, AVC, BBC Legends, BBC-tv, BMG Arte Nova, BMG Classics, BMG Conifer, Cala, Capriol, CBS Masterworks, CBS-Sony, Celestial Harmonies, CfP, Chandos, Claves, Clovelly, Collegium, Collins, CPO, das alte Werk, Decca l’Oiseau-Lyre, Delos, Denon, Deux-Elles, DG Archiv, EMI Classics, Enigma, Ensayo, Erato, Finlandia, Folio Society, Gimell, Green Label Music, Harmonia Mundi (U.S.A.), Helios, Hyperion, Iambic Productions, JVC, Kane, Koch Classics, Ktel, Landor, Lego, Lodia, LSO Live, Kevin Mayhew Publishing, MCA, Meridian TV, MCS, Musica Sveciae, Musical Heritage, Mute, Naïve, NMC, Nonesuch, Novalis, NVC Arts, NYO, Octavia, Pearl, Philharmonia, Philips Classics, Pianissimo, Pickwick-IMP, Pony Canyon, PRT, Radio New Zealand, RCA Red Seal, Reader’s Digest, Regent, Signum, Solo, Sony Classical, Soundcircus, SRC, Sunshine Taiwan, Telarc, Teldec, Unicorn-Kanchana, United Artists, Universal, Virgin Classics, Virgo, Virtuosi, Vital, Vox, Warner Classics, WEA, Wigmore Hall Live, Windham Hill, Windmill

 

And a third example is Norbert Kraft, a well-known classical guitarists and performer who became one of the great recordists of classical guitar, IMO. Since the 1990s he has been in charge of recording the Naxos Guitar Collection, that pesky major label!  

 

And not all audiophile labels have great recordings either. One of my least favorite recordings of all time is Carmina Burana performed by the Atlanta Symphony and Chorus recorded by Telarc. The SACD layer offers no help. Why? Because the acoustics in the Symphony Hall were awful in 2001. They've since replaced the shell (2013) which has helped a lot. But the acoustics make a far bigger difference than DSD vs PCM or even 44/16 vs 96/24.  If the recording is excellent, it will sound excellent on PCM 44/16, 96/24, 88.2/24 or DSD.  DSD will not automatically sound more analog!

 

I could say a lot more but I'll leave it at that for now.

 

Thanks for the lengthy reply. The only Sound Mirror work I have are their remasters of RCA Living Stereo on SACD.

 

All of my Reference Recordings SACDs and 24/176.4 HRx's are engineer by Prof. Keith Johnson. The sub-label Reference Recordings Fresh! are the only ones engineered Sound Mirror, I don't have any of those. So I can't comment on those.

 

Also I clearly stated I like pre-2009 Telarc, especially pure DSD SACDs, that was back before they were purchased by Concord Records, who fired the inhouse recording teams and went to outsourcing. Prior to 2009 Telarc's domestic recordings were done by Michael Bishop, Jack Renner, Robert Woods, etc. and the European recordings were done by Polyhymnia .

 

Also most of my PentaTone recordings were engineered by  Polyhymnia .

 

I've not been very impressed with the Naxos CDs, SACDs or high resolution downloads. I have kept a Naxos SACD and a 24/192 download mostly because of the music. The Naxos SACD lists the recording engineer as Genady Papin and producer as Beta International.

 

So, to sum up I don't remember seeing Sound Mirror listed on any of my recordings except for the RCA Living Stereo remasters, so I can't comment on their original recordings.

 

In closing, I really don't enjoy listening to music at 16/44.1kHz PCM or CD, if you do I am very happy for you. ?

[Teresa]

5 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

And this is important why? If human beings can't hear it, why is it important to capture this information? Just in case bats decide to listen in?

 

The theory is that, even though we do not hear ultrasonic frequencies, that audio energy exists as upper overtones of musical instruments which has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear directly.

 

When listening to music we hear the fundamental note and its overtones shape the timbre, this is why an oboe and a clarinet sound different when playing the same note as their overtone series is different. The more overtones available to shape the timbre of the fundamental tone the more accurate the timbre is.

 

See There's Life Above 20 Kilohertz! A Survey of Musical Instrument Spectra to 102.4 KHz

[Teresa]

On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 6:53 PM, bachish said:

You realize that there is not the hard and fast line between so-called "audiophile labels' and 'major labels', right?... 

 

And not all audiophile labels have great recordings either. One of my least favorite recordings of all time is Carmina Burana performed by the Atlanta Symphony and Chorus recorded by Telarc. The SACD layer offers no help. Why? Because the acoustics in the Symphony Hall were awful in 2001. They've since replaced the shell (2013) which has helped a lot. But the acoustics make a far bigger difference than DSD vs PCM or even 44/16 vs 96/24.  If the recording is excellent, it will sound excellent on PCM 44/16, 96/24, 88.2/24 or DSD.  DSD will not automatically sound more analog! ...

 

Actually, I was aware that my favorite recording engineers from Telarc who formed Five/Four Productions made a few recordings for Deutsche Grammophon. However, I assume (and I could be wrong) that the requirements of a major label are different than the requirments of an audiophile label or a recording company who strives to make the most natural sounding recordings they possibly can.

 

A while back I read an interview with an engineer who has worked for both commercial and audiophile labels. And he does what his client asks as they are paying him. It's up to the client (record company, artists, etc.) if they want a natural minimalist recording or a big production with EQ., limiting, compression, etc. He records popular, jazz and other non-classical music. It's possible that outsourced engineers are given more freedom with classical music, I don't know. At any rate I'm sticking with audiophile and boutique labels in high resolution.

 

I don't own the Telarc Carmina Burana you mention, but I do have the first movement (O Fortuna) on Telarc's SACD Sampler No. 1 and I just played it and the 2:33 excerpt sounds excellent on my system. I don't own the complete SACD as I am not a fan of classical singing styles, I prefer folk, rock, pop, jazz for the human voice. 

 

Two of my favorite Telarc SACDs are with the Atlanta Symphony and the acoustics are fantastic, they are Britannia and Gandolfi's The Garden of Cosmic Speculation. I sell or trade-in any recordings that have awful sound including poor acoustics. So I have no explanation why these sound so different to you and I.

 

21 hours ago, bachish said:

...BTW, under the discography for Soundmirror they list recordings done for Reference Recordings and Pentatone. 

 

As I stated in the previous post the sub label Reference Recordings Fresh! are engineered by Sound/mirror and the main label Reference Recordings are engineered by Prof. Keith Johnson.

 

I went through Sound/mirror's discography today and it turns out I own two of their recordings one on PentaTone and one on BSO Classics. 

• This England - Carlos Kalmar, The Oregon Symphony - PentaTone Classics SACD
• Ravel: Daphnis et Chloe - James Levine - BSO Classics SACD

This England on PentaTone does not credit Sound/mirror but lists John Newton as engineer, sad to say I'm not practically found of the sonics on this one, but it's good enough to keep. I prefer the sound quality of PentaTones recorded by Polyhymnia.

 

Also the Ravel: Daphnis et Chloe is good but nothing to get excited about.

 

I didn't mention it last time but I prefer the remastering of the Analogue Productions RCA Living Stereo recordings over the Sound/mirror ones. However, the Sound/mirror Living Stereo SACDs are a great bargain as they sell for $10 or less new and often include two LPs whereas the Analogue Production Living Stereo SACDs sell for three times as much and only include a single LP.

 

21 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

You should try some.  These guys are excellent.

 

It turns out I have two original recordings from Sound/mirror (see above) and based on those I won't be seeking them out. I listen in 2-channel, perhaps they are better in multi-channel?

[Teresa]

15 hours ago, rando said:

For the sake of clarity she is referring to a selection off this album.

 

 

Yes, that is the album the excerpt (O Fortuna) on Telarc's SACD Sampler No. 1 is from. 

 

13 hours ago, bachish said:

 

Yep, that's it.  This is one recording where some processing would have helped to compensate for the acoustic.

 

Each to their own. I'm sure glad Telarc didn't do any processing on their SACDs of the Atlanta Symphony as they are some of the finest sounding recordings I own. And in my system the acoustic sounds perfect with a very I am there feel. I would say the acoustics are fantastic. We are either not hearing the same things, have drastically different sounding audio systems, speaker placements, hearing or we live on different planets. Anyway if you don't like the way Telarc records, don't buy them. That's what I do, I try to buy only what I think I will like. And if I end up with something I don't like I sell it, trade it in or in the case of computer downloads delete the music file and all backups.

[Teresa]

On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 9:53 AM, bachish said:

Absolutely, if you like it, I think that's great.  The performance is wonderful no doubt, which is the most important thing to me.

 

But we also differ on the appropriateness of processing. I don't follow a dogmatic almost religious view of some audiophiles that processing is always bad. I think some processing to compensate for defects, especially with the quite amazing quality of the hardware and software today, often helps recordings.  

 

And just FYI, the acoustics in Symphony Hall was widely known to have serious issues prior to 2013 when they installed a new $500,000 shell on stage. To me, it's obvious in the recording that was recorded in the early 2000s but hey, Viva la difference! And maybe there is a re-release, who knows.

 

Now hear this! New $500,000 acoustical shell improves long-lamented sound in Symphony Hall

 

But the all-important change is in the sound. Musicians have long complained that it is difficult to hear one another on the stage, and the hall’s acoustics have left much to be desired. “The sound is more immediate; there is more bloom,” Murphy says. “Personally, I find it easier to make a quality sound, especially in quiet dynamics. I am hearing other sections of the orchestra much more easily, especially the woodwinds and the double basses.”

 

BTW, I didn't say I didn't like Telarc. Quite the opposite.

 

I just looked at the technical information on my Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Telarc SACDs it says they used on-stage acoustic treatments, your research explains why. I only have a few Telarc recordings that use acoustic treatments on-stage. So, they too knew it was a less than perfect hall.

 

Just to clarify the old Telarc's stand (pre-2009), they preferred to do pre-production as opposed to post-production. They moved microphones around, players around, sometimes covered or removed the first row of seats in a concert hall, etc. They did many sound tests beforehand because once they began the actual recording that is what the finished product was unless they needed to correct a bad note or other mistake.