Oops! They Did It Again!

[sphinxsix]

I had a chance to compare sonically Jimi Hendrix - Machine Gun: The Fillmore East First Show 12/31/1969

Analogue Productions SACD with 24-96 download. The SACD sounds just fantastic - smooth, dynamic with (relatively of course we're talking 1969 live recording) lots of air around the instruments.

For DR fans SACD DR is 13, HDTracks 24-96 - DR10, AP SACD is even better than vinyl - DR12!

Seems (once again) that a good remaster is possible. Provided it's done by AP (no, they don't pay me for that)

Highly recommended for Hendrix fans!

http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/117438/Jimi_Hendrix-Machine_Gun_The_Fillmore_East_First_Show_12311969-Hybrid_Stereo_SACD

[sphinxsix]

BTW it's quite possible that if you like Hendrix you like Stevie Ray Vaughan too. I mentioned it on CA before but I'll repeat it again - AP Stevie Ray Vaughan - Texas Hurricane 6 SACDs box should floor you too! It's not cheap right now though.

http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/84160/Stevie_Ray_Vaughan-Texas_Hurricane-SACD_Box_Set

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Any of the AP stuff available for download?

[Ralf11]

Does the SACD version sound better than the CD version?

[sphinxsix]

10 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Any of the AP stuff available for download?

I haven't checked their site http://store.acousticsounds.com for quite a long time but I'm afraid that you can mainly download 24bit (I assume not their remasters) from it.

[sphinxsix]

8 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Does the SACD version sound better than the CD version?

You're joking... right.?

To make it 100% clear - it does.

[Ralf11]

No, not joking at all.  I've never seen a controlled study showing that SACDs sound better than CD, but have seen the opposite.

 

If an SACD does sound better than a CD, then I'm interested -- whether is a different mastering, different original recording, DSD or XYZ.  I'd still want to get it into iTunes if possible...

[The Computer Audiophile]

I just checked some of my SRV albums and can't believe how little dynamic range some of them have. 

 

Check out this DSD version. DR = 2

 

 

[wwaldmanfan]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I just checked some of my SRV albums and can't believe how little dynamic range some of them have. 

 

Check out this DSD version. DR = 2

 

 

 

That can't be right. What is that, ROON? How does that app measure DR?

Here is my original Epic CD, which, by the way, still sounds better than any of the so-called audiophile remasters I've heard:

 

 Analyzed folder: /Volumes/Music Library 1/Stevie Ray Vaughan/Texas Flood (EK 38734)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 DR        Peak        RMS        Filename
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 DR12        -0.66 dB     -14.10 dB     01 Love Struck Baby.aiff
 DR13        -0.29 dB     -14.10 dB     02 Pride and Joy.aiff
 DR14        -0.23 dB     -15.02 dB     03 Texas Flood.aiff
 DR13        -0.40 dB     -14.66 dB     04 Tell Me.aiff
 DR12        -0.65 dB     -13.28 dB     05 Testify.aiff
 DR11        -1.01 dB     -13.35 dB     06 Rude Mood.aiff
 DR15        -0.73 dB     -16.28 dB     07 Mary Had a Little Lamb.aiff
 DR13        -0.00 dB     -14.58 dB     08 Dirty Pool.aiff
 DR13        -0.54 dB     -14.75 dB     09 I'm Cryin'.aiff
 DR14        -2.35 dB     -18.68 dB     10 Lenny.aiff
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Number of files:    10
 Official DR value:    DR13

[TubeLover]

9 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

No, not joking at all.  I've never seen a controlled study showing that SACDs sound better than CD, but have seen the opposite.

 

If an SACD does sound better than a CD, then I'm interested -- whether is a different mastering, different original recording, DSD or XYZ.  I'd still want to get it into iTunes if possible...

Ralf, with all due respect, any "controlled" study that you've see that shows that cd's sound better than SACD's was clearly directed by the 3 Stooges. Even though the SACD format, like all others, contains the good, the bad, and the ugly discs, when done properly, there is no contest between it and cd's. Certainly I have some disappointing discs in my SACD collection, but for every one of those, I have many others that offer far greater sound quality, and have demonstrated it to many, many people over the years. And most of those were not even audio proponents. 

 

Even the critics who said SACD was destined for failure or had issues with cost, etc. admitted that the format was superior to cd. Some of the more recent releases are truly magical.

 

JC

[Ralf11]

Thx for your input.  I am referring to a published study in JAES in 2007.  The authors are assuredly not clowns and tested several groups of people including professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles.

 

They did NOT find that CDs sounded better and I am sorry if I was somehow unclear.

 

They did find that the higher bit rate and higher bit depth recordings were indistinguishable from the CDs.

 

I am wondering if you two have matched the recordings & masterings themselves between the CDs and SACDs you tested?  Were they hybrid discs?

 

_____________________________________________

With about 2,000 CDs ripped I am not about to replace them all with DSD, but along with the 20 or so SACDs I already own, I'd love to get higher SQ source material for a few select releases.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

Thx for your input.  I am referring to a published study in JAES in 2007.  The authors are assuredly not clowns and tested several groups of people including professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles.

 

They did NOT find that CDs sounded better and I am sorry if I was somehow unclear.

 

They did find that the higher bit rate and higher bit depth recordings were indistinguishable from the CDs.

 

I am wondering if you two have matched the recordings & masterings themselves between the CDs and SACDs you tested?  Were they hybrid discs?

 

_____________________________________________

With about 2,000 CDs ripped I am not about to replace them all with DSD, but along with the 20 or so SACDs I already own, I'd love to get higher SQ source material for a few select releases.

You are apparently talking about the Meyer-Moran study...

No, they are not clowns but they actually didn't know enough to do a proper test. 

Why? Some of the SACDs they used in the test were derived from upsampled Redbook. 

Not exactly a definite way to judge if CD and SACD are distinguishable. So IMO, their "test" can't lead to any useful conclusion.  

 

BTW, they did say that some SACDs sounded superior b/c of superior mastering. 

[sphinxsix]

8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I just checked some of my SRV albums and can't believe how little dynamic range some of them have. 

 

Check out this DSD version. DR = 2

 

 

Wow! Yet another argument for not streaming music for me! (streaming services having choice of for example Miles' albums equal to 25% my Davis collection is the main one).

 

8 hours ago, wwaldmanfan said:

Here is my original Epic CD, which, by the way, still sounds better than any of the so-called audiophile remasters I've heard:

 

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=stevie+ray+vaughan+&album=texas+flood

 

AP SACD has similiar DR to MoFi, but sounds superior, Chris. And better than 24bit downloads IMO.

[The Computer Audiophile]

46 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

Wow! Yet another argument for not streaming music for me! (streaming services having choice of for example Miles' albums equal to 25% my Davis collection is the main one).

 

 

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=stevie+ray+vaughan+&album=texas+flood

 

AP SACD has similiar DR to MoFi, but sounds superior, Chris. And better than 24bit downloads IMO.

 

Not sure what my sacd rip has to do with streaming?

[firedog]

10 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I just checked some of my SRV albums and can't believe how little dynamic range some of them have. 

 

Check out this DSD version. DR = 2

 

 

First of all, in Roon if I load the AS DSD download of that album (Epic version) with 15 songs, Roon reports DR 4, not 2. If I convert the album to 24/88 and test the DR in Foobar, I get average DR of 12 (different DR method), with a range of 10-14. That's good, and that also what it sounds like to me - not like something heavily compressed. 

 

I also have the DSD rip of the original Sony/Epic SACD and it gives me an identical result. I'd call this the "correct" DR:

foobar2000 1.1.7 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.0
log date: 2017-04-26 16:13:15

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Stevie Ray Vaughan & Double Trouble / Texas Flood (DSD Download)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR         Peak         RMS     Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR12      -4.21 dB   -17.62 dB      2:24 01-Love Struck Baby
DR12      -5.56 dB   -18.71 dB      3:41 02-Pride And Joy
DR13      -4.08 dB   -18.43 dB      5:22 03-Texas Flood
DR12      -4.89 dB   -18.39 dB      2:49 04-Tell Me
DR11      -5.91 dB   -17.93 dB      3:23 05-Testify
DR12      -4.13 dB   -17.63 dB      4:41 06-Rude Mood
DR13      -3.73 dB   -18.85 dB      2:48 07-Mary Had A Little Lamb
DR12      -5.08 dB   -18.92 dB      5:03 08-Dirty Pool
DR13      -4.13 dB   -18.69 dB      3:48 09-I'm Cryin'
DR14      -5.20 dB   -21.88 dB      5:07 10-Lenny
DR10     -10.59 dB   -26.05 dB      0:37 11-SRV Speaks
DR13      -5.92 dB   -22.93 dB      7:42 12-Tin Pan Alley (aka Roughest Place In Town) (1982 Version)
DR11      -5.98 dB   -18.18 dB      3:54 13-Testify (Live)
DR12      -6.02 dB   -20.31 dB      3:39 14-Mary Had A Little Lamb (Live)
DR10      -3.10 dB   -17.55 dB      4:12 15-Wham! (Live)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks:  15
Official DR value: DR12

Samplerate:        88200 Hz

 

 

 

So maybe Roon is having issues telling us DR of DSD?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Roon uses the R128 standard. Here is a screenshot of JRiver, using both the traditional DR and R128 DR.

 

Perhaps we need someone to explain the differences between DR and R128 DR.

 

[sphinxsix]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Not sure what my sacd rip has to do with streaming?

Sorry, I was sure the source of your SRV album was some streaming site. BTW this seems to be a very weird DR result for SACD rip. None of both hi-res files and CDs (both 1st editions and remasters) I've heard sounded that compressed. Are you sure there's no some mistake as far as your ripping software settings or DR measurement is concerned?

[sphinxsix]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Roon uses the R128 standard. Here is a screenshot of JRiver, using both the traditional DR and R128 DR.

 

Perhaps we need someone to explain the differences between DR and R128 DR.

 

So all is clear now. I'm curious what R128DR means too.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, sphinxsix said:

Sorry, I was sure the source of your SRV album was some streaming site. 

 

No worries :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, sphinxsix said:

So all is clear now. I'm curious what R128DR means too.

 

Perhaps someone such as @mansr can help us?

[sphinxsix]

@The Computer Audiophile

If not :

https://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Dynamic_Range

As for this link - I do completly agree with the last sentences of wiki.jriver's explanation:

' Dynamic Range (either one) is not the be all end all of musical quality. You may find you prefer some tracks that are more compressed than others. Dynamic Range isn't a perfect test, it's just more information.'

I think DR in some way has become many audiophiles' fetish (DR numbers are so easy to get..) as far as SQ (which is more that that) is concerned. It's important but it can't say anything about the other imortant (for some) aspects of SQ. Don't you agree?

Anyway I'll start to check both DR and R128 DR from now on We'll  see how they both are reflected in 'subjective' listening experience.

BTW why my addressing some other CA user (@....)  doesn't appear on the blue background (I write '@" and copy and paste 'user's nick' - am I doing something wrong?). Or maybe the background is invisible just for me and my addressing someone in such a way works just fine?

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

@The Computer Audiophile

If not :

https://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Dynamic_Range

As for this link - I do completly agree with the last sentences of wiki.jriver's explanation:

' Dynamic Range (either one) is not the be all end all of musical quality. You may find you prefer some tracks that are more compressed than others. Dynamic Range isn't a perfect test, it's just more information.'

I think DR in some way has become many audiophiles' fetish (DR numbers are so easy to get..) as far as SQ (which is more that that) is concerned. It's important but it can't say anything about the other imortant (for some) aspects of SQ. Don't you agree?

Anyway I'll start to check both DR and R128 DR from now on We'll  see how they both are reflected in 'subjective' listening experience.

BTW why my addressing some other CA user (@....)  doesn't appear on the blue background (I write '@" and copy and paste 'user's nick' - am I doing something wrong?). Or maybe the background is invisible just for me and my addressing someone in such a way works just fine?

 

Of course dynamic range isn't everything. It's one very important aspect of many recordings. 

 

When calling out a user you need to select them form the list after using the @ symbol, for example @sphinxsix was selected from the list in the screenshot below.

 

 

[mansr]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Roon uses the R128 standard. Here is a screenshot of JRiver, using both the traditional DR and R128 DR.

 

Perhaps we need someone to explain the differences between DR and R128 DR.

 

Here's the spec: http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3342.pdf

[sphinxsix]

@mansrThanks for the detailed spec. Long time no 'see'!

@The Computer Audiophile Thanks, got it!

[Ralf11]

15 hours ago, firedog said:

You are apparently talking about the Meyer-Moran study...

No, they are not clowns but they actually didn't know enough to do a proper test. 

Why? Some of the SACDs they used in the test were derived from upsampled Redbook. 

Not exactly a definite way to judge if CD and SACD are distinguishable. So IMO, their "test" can't lead to any useful conclusion.  

 

BTW, they did say that some SACDs sounded superior b/c of superior mastering. 

 

Thx.  That is the study, but I didn't know some SACDs were just upsampled redbook CD files.

 

Are you aware of any other tests?