Tape Project Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: braver on February 17, 2009, 12:08:59 AM

Title: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: braver on February 17, 2009, 12:08:59 AM
Well the good folks at the QuadraphonicQuuad reminded that Paul S. is one of the top SACD mixing engineers.  Hence I believe we finally can solve the "analog vs digital" once and for all.

Mix stereo SACD from a master tape -- directly to DSD -- and compare to a Tape Project tape.  Do it in a double-blind panel setup.  The equipment has to be the same -- it's not fully possible, but for just stereo output can hopefully be approximated with the same amp.

Alexy Khrabrov
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: ceved on February 17, 2009, 07:13:49 AM
In the time it would take to do as you suggest, I would prefer to listen to new music I had never heard before.
But there are those who really 'need/want' to know the results of these 'shootouts'; and that is just fine.
To my eyes, the key conundrum to your proposition is the phrase....'its not fully possible'...
Having said that ...'once and for all'... will still allude you.
In the meantime I will be enjoying music and the shootouters will be comparing sounds.
We each have our own curiosities, manifested in different activities.
But then that is the beauty of audio diversity, and of this forum eh?

Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: braver on February 17, 2009, 02:15:07 PM
ceved -- if you read this forum, several threads talk about comparing a tape to an equivalent LP.  Basically, if you only got 8-10 tapes, you've got plenty of time on your hands and might as well do a reality check.  Now I'm a computer scientist and a physicist and am sick and tired of all the nostalgic stuff.  Either an SACD with HDMI 1.2a out and an appropriate modern amp is better than a tape feeding a tube amp, or it is not.  My hunch is, a properly recorded DSD-throughout-SACD beats the living stereo out of your tapes.  However, Paul S. is the SACD guy, so he is in a unique position to either prove or disprove it.  If he really believes it, he'll make it happen; if not, it means this analog enterprise is just a business model geared to high-spending audiophiles, right there with $1000 cables and other gold-plated stuff.  I believe digital HDMI supercedes any gold-plated cables, IMHO; and the challenge is stated as clear as ever possible -- the very best possible analog vs. the very best digital.  Take it or leave it -- but then we get a default judgement.

Alexy Khrabrov
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: Ben on February 17, 2009, 03:17:06 PM
Check check ... testing one two three *loud feedback *.
I'll stick my money still on analog audio. What I question is the Digital to analog
conversion in modern equipment, as they all seem to use the same $.95 part
if it not covered under some patented software format. There is no midrange in
digital any more it seems. As for SACD it seems off hand still limited by sample
rate to 44KHZ if I remember right. 
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: docb on February 17, 2009, 04:03:15 PM
Generally a guy who makes a challenge is taken more seriously if he has something to lose if he's wrong.  We have indeed gone to the effort and expense to make the comparisons you are talking about, and shared the experience with others. Maybe you should too, if you think you need to prove some point that is important to you. As far as I can see we have no reason to waste any more time on this.
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: braver on February 17, 2009, 04:39:59 PM
DocB -- true, you guys have the capacity to implement it.  But not many others.  Basically you have the master tapes, and Paul who is an expert in making SACDs.  I missed a tape comparison with SACD if there was one?  I agree that it would be nice to provide a way to set up this challenge so I have something to lose, yet so is the majority in this forum -- in fact, everybody except you guys in charge.  However the comparisons are made all the time, and it's legit to ask for ways to substantiate them...  Obviously it's a hypothesis and you may or may not be able to do it.

SACD effective range is 100KHz.  It beats tape in all technical parameters -- effective frequency is 100KHz, sampling is 1 bit at 3 GHz.  Notice G for Giga -- this is not PCM for discrete A/D, this is what Sony and Philips call "digital analog" for capturing the waveform.  Folks can see more on SACD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD, or the SACD forum, http://sa-cd.net/.

I personally would appreciate Paul's opinions from his own SACD mastering experiences on whether a DSD recording directly from the master tape realized as SACD can beat the tape copied through 2 generations.

Alexy Khrabrov
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: docb on February 17, 2009, 06:45:11 PM
It has been brought to my attention by other members here that you haven't posted your name on your posts as required by the forum rules.
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: braver on February 17, 2009, 08:39:42 PM
DocB -- am correcting this.  I have a genuine interest in the high fidelity audio, and as a scientist I'm always asking the questions about any claims and proposing experiments to solve such questions.  Hopefully something beyond message format can be found to support a constructive discussion!

It would be nice to identify some areas where tape can beat SACD, or differences create substantially different listening experiences, aside from watching reels turn, -- which is definitely a plus for tape, seriously, as it adds to the experience, similarly to LP providing a physical evidence of the music playing.  However purely acoustically, a master tape can be copied to DSD directly, and then comparisons can be made...

Cheers,
Alexy Khrabrov
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: bobschneider on February 17, 2009, 09:21:52 PM
Waltz for Debbie is available on SACD, as is Saxophone Colossus.  It should be easy to set up a blind test of the SACD version against the TP versions.  Has anyone tried this?
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: braver on February 17, 2009, 11:04:33 PM
Bob -- thanks for the info!  It would be a very interesting comparison indeed; and it might show advantages of tape, too, or some features of tape folks prefer to SACD -- and vice versa.  Definitely a few different SACD/tape pairs are best to gauge what the spectrum is.

Cheers,
Alexy Khrabrov
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: astrotoy on February 18, 2009, 02:22:47 AM
Here are my comments on Waltz for Debby SACD, vinyl and TP that I did last October. They are in the WfD part of the Forum. I am currently in London, so I don't have access to any of this right now.    Larry

"Another comparison of Waltz with the R2R vs. SACD and 33rpm both from Analogue Productions. First, I have upgraded my front end, so now the TT, cartridge and phono pre are almost exactly 3 times the cost of the Bottlehead Technics 1506/Repro. Not ten times like Mike, but not a shabby system. I also can change polarity remotely with my new Herron VTSP3 and with my system, all of the sources - SACD, LP and R2R require reversed absolute polarity. The easiest way to hear this is in any of the Scott LaFaro bass solos (as in the middle of Waltz for Debby) where without the correct polarity the bass plucks are much more lifeless and flat in perspective. Also you can feel the impact of Evan's hammer strokes on the piano with the correct polarity. The SACD is the clear loser, although quite nice in its own way. The B side of the LP is pretty close to the R2R, very realistic, not quite the depth of the tape. But side A is where the R2R shines - I agree with Mike's assessment of the utter ease of the playing and the lifelike you are there feeling of the R2R. You can hear the difference immediately in the beginning of the first cut - "My Foolish Heart".  Again the LP is quite spectacular on its own - I don't have the 45 to compare, though I have always found the 45 versions of the Classic Records pressings superior to their 33 rpm. I don't have any of Chad's 45 pressings. Another winner. BTW, lights off when playing this album makes it even more real.  One point that Dan may have a comment on. Several times in the album, the tape has a little drop out (most notably at the beginning of the B side - the first few seconds of "My Romance" and right at the end of "My Foolish Heart"). It is there in the SACD, so it must be in the master. However, in the LP it isn't there. Not sure how Chad was able to remove the problem. AP did both the LP and the SACD and only the LP has the drop out problem removed. Mike may want to comment on whether the 45 has this issue.  Larry

Finally, does anyone know about the album "Bill Evans Trio Sunday at the Village Vanguard." I got the SACD in the same bunch of SACD's where I got Waltz for Debbie. It sounds very much like it came from the same sessions - the liner notes indicate that also. The three performers are in the same acoustic and in the same positions in both albums."   
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: steveidosound on February 19, 2009, 02:50:07 AM
In the time it would take to do as you suggest, I would prefer to listen to new music I had never heard before.
But there are those who really 'need/want' to know the results of these 'shootouts'; and that is just fine.
To my eyes, the key conundrum to your proposition is the phrase....'its not fully possible'...
Having said that ...'once and for all'... will still allude you.
In the meantime I will be enjoying music and the shootouters will be comparing sounds.
We each have our own curiosities, manifested in different activities.
But then that is the beauty of audio diversity, and of this forum eh?



" O.K. But what about MUSIC ?
Can I listen to MUSIC on my system?"
"What for? It's (Hi-Fi) only good for checking to see if you have wow and flutter or if you can still hear the turntable rumble. That's all it's for - nothing else ! Only purpose!"
- Stan Freberg - Dr. Herman Horne on Hi-Fi
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: jcmusic on February 19, 2009, 10:39:57 AM
What is the point of all this? You either like tape or you don't, let's move on!!!

Jay
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: john on February 19, 2009, 01:37:50 PM
SACD effective range is 100KHz.  It beats tape in all technical parameters -- effective frequency is 100KHz, sampling is 1 bit at 3 GHz.  Notice G for Giga -- this is not PCM for discrete A/D, this is what Sony and Philips call "digital analog" for capturing the waveform.  Folks can see more on SACD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD, or the SACD forum, http://sa-cd.net/.

I personally would appreciate Paul's opinions from his own SACD mastering experiences on whether a DSD recording directly from the master tape realized as SACD can beat the tape copied through 2 generations.

Alexy Khrabrov

Alexy, you are talking about making a copy of an analogue master tape so sacd having a effective range of 100kHz is a moot point. The master tape that the TP and sacd copy's are derived from is one and the same, it didn't capture anything above 25KHz at best and probably less. The high sampling rate cannot be compared to tape as nothing is sampled during the tape copy process its simply tape to tape, no conversion to digital. Everytime you make a copy, something is lost no matter how you do it. When you digitize something you don't just copy it you convert it ( to digital ) store it, and then you make a stamper ( another conversion ) in order to produce the disc. After purchasing said disc you take it home read it with a laser ( another conversion ) send the resultant signal through a Dac ( another conversion ) in order to hear it. No conversion is perfect no matter the what the sampling rate is. thats an awful lot of conversions!!! Tape to tape is the way to go it doesn't take a scientist ( or physicist ) to work that out.
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: jcmusic on February 19, 2009, 02:37:14 PM
SACD effective range is 100KHz.  It beats tape in all technical parameters -- effective frequency is 100KHz, sampling is 1 bit at 3 GHz.  Notice G for Giga -- this is not PCM for discrete A/D, this is what Sony and Philips call "digital analog" for capturing the waveform.  Folks can see more on SACD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD, or the SACD forum, http://sa-cd.net/.

I personally would appreciate Paul's opinions from his own SACD mastering experiences on whether a DSD recording directly from the master tape realized as SACD can beat the tape copied through 2 generations.

Alexy Khrabrov

Alexy, you are talking about making a copy of an analogue master tape so sacd having a effective range of 100kHz is a moot point. The master tape that the TP and sacd copy's are derived from is one and the same, it didn't capture anything above 25KHz at best and probably less. The high sampling rate cannot be compared to tape as nothing is sampled during the tape copy process its simply tape to tape, no conversion to digital. Everytime you make a copy, something is lost no matter how you do it. When you digitize something you don't just copy it you convert it ( to digital ) store it, and then you make a stamper ( another conversion ) in order to produce the disc. After purchasing said disc you take it home read it with a laser ( another conversion ) send the resultant signal through a Dac ( another conversion ) in order to hear it. No conversion is perfect no matter the what the sampling rate is. thats an awful lot of conversions!!! Tape to tape is the way to go it doesn't take a scientist ( or physicist ) to work that out.
Way to go John!!! No one could have said it better or more planner!!!

Jay
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: Tubes n tapes on February 19, 2009, 03:41:14 PM
Making a comparison between analog tape and SACD wouldn't be very intersting. DSD is an inherently flawed system that was really proposed by Philips and Sony with the intention to significantly reduce complexity and cost on the playback side. Unfortunately that didn't practically work as expected, so the playback became actually more cumbersome than CD.

With the right effort SACD is capable of very good sound, but in reality it is as uncontrolled and subjective as any analog medium. The fact that it is also a multi channel medium is for me the most attractive aspect of SACD. For those few labels that are still producing them: Please keep on doing it! I'm a fan!

But back to the subject, a comparison between tape and high res PCM would be more interesting because high res PCM is by nature a much better defined and controlled medium than DSD.
The good news with respect to this subject is that Reference Recordings has the Exotic Dances available in HRx 176kHz/24bit. Now we are talking about an interesting and reasonably objective digital vs analog tape comparison.
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: astrotoy on February 19, 2009, 05:31:21 PM
I was really hoping that SACD would be comparable to the best vinyl and R2R. I invested a good bit of money on my Bel Canto PL-1A that I wanted to use for SACD and bought a fair number of SACD discs, including the Julia Fisher Pentatone violin recordings. So far, they are very nice, but not at the level that I had hoped for. The cost of my Bel Canto is more than Doc's Bottlehead Technics 1506 with the repro preamp. However the software cost for the SACD's is lower. Maybe the Reference Recordings 176/24 will be the audio nirvana, but that will take another $10K investment for very limited software, certainly not the back catalogue that the YP has access to.  I'm not ready to take that plunge yet.  Larry
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: Hiro on April 04, 2009, 03:55:07 AM
Making a comparison between analog tape and SACD wouldn't be very intersting. DSD is an inherently flawed system ... HRx 176kHz/24bit. Now we are talking about an interesting and reasonably objective digital vs analog tape comparison.

are you sure? have you tried Korg MR2000S DSD studio recorder?

It has much higher resolution than Blu-Ray Audio (link below)
http://puresuperaudio.blogspot.com/2009/04/exit-lp-enter-dsd.html
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: mikel on April 04, 2009, 08:50:18 AM
Making a comparison between analog tape and SACD wouldn't be very intersting. DSD is an inherently flawed system that was really proposed by Philips and Sony with the intention to significantly reduce complexity and cost on the playback side. Unfortunately that didn't practically work as expected, so the playback became actually more cumbersome than CD.

With the right effort SACD is capable of very good sound, but in reality it is as uncontrolled and subjective as any analog medium. The fact that it is also a multi channel medium is for me the most attractive aspect of SACD. For those few labels that are still producing them: Please keep on doing it! I'm a fan!

But back to the subject, a comparison between tape and high res PCM would be more interesting because high res PCM is by nature a much better defined and controlled medium than DSD.
The good news with respect to this subject is that Reference Recordings has the Exotic Dances available in HRx 176kHz/24bit. Now we are talking about an interesting and reasonably objective digital vs analog tape comparison.

Hummmmmmm.

Arian,

we certainly disagree on this subject. i've been involved with SACD since 2000 and own 700-800 of them. i prefer SACD in general to any other digital i have heard, including the HRX RR's. it seems to sound more like a mic feed than any other digital to my ears. as far as PCM being better defined and controlled.....that's the problem.....PCM 'manipulates' the music into submision thru the process of recording and (in my opinion) misses a level of musical essence. most telling to me is the way PCM deals with ambience and space. SACD/DSD gets closer to how RTR tape or DTD Lp captures low level information which provides the context of music in the venue. it's no accident that DSD is more expansive.

Absolutely no doubt that overall SACD/DSD sounds much more similar to my vinyl and RTR tape than any PCM.

I'm planning on putting together a hi-rez music server, my digital player is a hi-rez server DAC as well. Maybe after i live with hi-rez PCM files for awhile i will modify my viewpoint....but i doubt it.

mikel
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: ironbut on April 04, 2009, 10:42:54 AM
are you sure? have you tried Korg MR2000S DSD studio recorder?
Hi Hiro, welcome to the forum. I listened to the MR2000 briefly at AES last year but you know how that goes (noisy environment, unknown samples etc). I have spent a little time with the MR1000 at the higher sample rate (5.8mHz?) and it did sound very nice. The files that I listened to had not been processed for commercial release and I think that makes a huge difference. Even 16/44.1 sounds pretty decent before any processing or transfer to disk.
I understand what you're talking about regarding ambient cues and I agree that SACD has a fuller, richer sound than hi rez PCM. More analog. But in practical terms, I listen to vinyl or tape primarily and I don't worry about more analog since I listen to the real thing. When I listen to digital, I'm looking for another perspective so I've gravitated to hi rez downloads (diskless is much better IMHO).  Meanwhile, my SACD player gets very little use. I think if I was listening to digital as my primary source, this might be different but that's the reality of my particular situation.
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: joeljoel1947 on April 05, 2009, 07:34:18 AM
Anyone with an interest in this thread should check out the interview below with one of the greatest engineers of our time, Tony Faulkner.  A lot of different topics are covered including SACD vs. Analog.  Tony points out many of the limiting factors of SACD as well.

Also, I strongly disagree that SACD is better then HRx material.  I have all the HRx releases and they are at the very top of my list (sonically) of any material I have in the home--- including the TP tapes!!

http://www.stereophile.com/musicrecordings/804k622/index.html (http://www.stereophile.com/musicrecordings/804k622/index.html)
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: Tubes n tapes on April 05, 2009, 07:40:02 PM
I have certainly not heard every DSD recorder and player, so it may very well be the case that the Korg MR2000S lifts DSD to a new level.

That said, as far as I know nobody has heard a true DSD decoded audio stream because DSD cannot be converted to analog as it was originally intended (One of the several inherent flaws of DSD). As far as I have been able to find all DSD DACs use a questionable digital filter with a conversion to some form of PCM at the end. If anyone is aware of the existence of a true DSD DAC, I am very interested to learn more about that.

The best DSD DAC I have used is the EMM Labs DAC6e. Good as that unit is, it could not reach the level of my modified Luxman on high res PCM, especially on the HRx material.

But as I mentioned before, SACD has become a niche format for serious audio and I really appreciate that, especially for multi channel. So if anyone can help me find a significantly better SACD player or DSD DAC, I am very interested.
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: mikel on April 05, 2009, 07:49:23 PM
Joel,

i read the linked article and remember reading it back in 2004. Mr. Faulkner's comments are focused on the technical and practical issues with DSD/SACD and really don't draw any clear conclusions about performance. His points are ones i have heard and read for 10 years about this subject. For me the only thing that matters is what i hear when i listen.

regaridng Reference Recording's HRX recordings; i agree they do sound very good. so far i have only heard them in other's systems and at shows. i have a couple here in my room but have not yet put together a server to use so i've not listened to them in my room yet. I plan on getting most/all of them. I am a big fan of Reference Recordings on CD, Lp and Tape.

However much i like the RR recordings and even the HRX's i have heard i generally prefer SACD for sound quality. SACD is simply more like music.....that's just my opinion.

2 years ago i had an event in my room where we recorded off my tt onto an Alesis Masterlink, made a redbook CD, and then i attempted to identify whether i was hearing the CD recorded or my tt live. I identified the tt in 5 out of 6 trials and should have easily been perfect. Later that day a local pro audio guy who was helping with the event recorded my tt onto his KORG. when he played that back i was only 50-50 in identifying my tt. we did not do many trials but DSD was much much closer to the source than the redbook.

then last summer my friend Winston Ma (FIM Recordings) used my room and tt to make a K2HD disc recording from a DTD LP he had bought the rights to. i had three pro audio guys and Winston in my room for 12 hours recording from my tt onto 2 different Hirez recording chains; one was a Pacific Microsonics II at 176/24 and the other was a DAD AX24 at 386/24. we made many test recordings from my tt at onto a hard drive from both these units and then listened. this was as good as a digital recording can be, State of the Art. none of those test tracks came very close to the level of my tt. it was easy to hear the difference when we would play the test recording and the tt live. none of those recordings came nearly as close as the DSD had to reproducing the sound of my tt. we probably did 10 or 15 separate back and forth comparisons.

so my opinion is based on my personal experince.

i prefer DSD to any PCM. OTOH i own 4000 CD's and listen to them every day.....they sound great.

Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: mikel on April 05, 2009, 07:55:05 PM
The best DSD DAC I have used is the EMM Labs DAC6e. Good as that unit is, it could not reach the level of my modified Luxman on high res PCM, especially on the HRx material.

But as I mentioned before, SACD has become a niche format for serious audio and I really appreciate that, especially for multi channel. So if anyone can help me find a significantly better SACD player or DSD DAC, I am very interested.

i owned the original EMM Labs DAC6, the DAC6e and then the DAC6 SE. the original and the DAC6e sounded identically but the SE was better.

I now own the Playback Designs MPS-5......which is a few levels beyond the EMM Labs DAC6 SE on both Redbook and SACD. It is also a SOTA server DAC (there is a DAC only version for less money). If you want to hear how good digital can sound listen to one of these.
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: Hiro on April 06, 2009, 08:57:02 AM
One of the several inherent flaws of DSD

Channel Classics will receive tomorrow BBC Music Magazine "Technical Excellence in Recording" 2009 Award for Shostakovich 2nd cello concerto (Pieter Wispelwey) which is DSD recording http://www.sa-cd.net/showthread/36600//y?page=first

Kevin Killen (sound engineer) during "Deep Listenig" discussion http://puresuperaudio.blogspot.com/2009/01/deep-listening-why-audio-quality.html said that "Super Audio CD was the closest we ever get to the master tape", even Morten Lindberg from 2L (a great supporter of PCM) admits he prefers DSD to PCM 24/96kHz

DSD isn't that bad, seriously.
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: Tubes n tapes on April 06, 2009, 11:26:54 AM
Mike,

Thanks for the equipment suggestions. I am still very interested in SACD despite the inherent flaws, because it has been adopted by some serious audio labels and there certainly are very nice recordings available on that medium.

DSD, because of its analog nature, is very suitable for continuously ongoing improvements and may even have the potential to become the best recording medium in the end. There is however the danger, even more so than with our analog recording media, that there will be significant mismatches between recording equipment and playback equipment for DSD. You can already hear (and measure) large differences between DSD recording algorithms used by the different music labels. It is very conceivable that DSD playback equipment depending on the algorithms used there may favor a certain recording algorithm.
(Maybe we end up with three different SACD players in our systems, each one dedicated to certain music labels.)
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: Ben on April 06, 2009, 12:40:15 PM
I worry more that right now , you can't get a good quality DAC regardless of
the digital encoding even for CD quality music. Will all our music be tied to only
one supplier of chips, who only cares about profit rather than audio quality?
 
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: mikel on April 06, 2009, 06:23:16 PM
Mike,

Thanks for the equipment suggestions. I am still very interested in SACD despite the inherent flaws, because it has been adopted by some serious audio labels and there certainly are very nice recordings available on that medium.

DSD, because of its analog nature, is very suitable for continuously ongoing improvements and may even have the potential to become the best recording medium in the end. There is however the danger, even more so than with our analog recording media, that there will be significant mismatches between recording equipment and playback equipment for DSD. You can already hear (and measure) large differences between DSD recording algorithms used by the different music labels. It is very conceivable that DSD playback equipment depending on the algorithms used there may favor a certain recording algorithm.
(Maybe we end up with three different SACD players in our systems, each one dedicated to certain music labels.)

Arian,

regarding compatability with DSD, i have a few comments.

on the playback side; i've not heard an SACD player that is superior on one label but not on all labels. it's either better or it's not.

OTOH certain pro DSD ADC's did sound better than others. i was an EMM Labs owner for 7 years and there is no doubt that SACD's recorded thru EMM Labs pro ADC sounded better than the dCS pro ADC. and the EMM Labs mastered discs did sound better on EMM Labs consumer DAC's. dCs mastered discs also sounded better on EMM Labs consumer DAC's. Ed Meitner was involved with Sony/Philips in the creation of the first pro audio gear for DSD recording. Andreas Koch (who also did digital design for EMM Labs) worked with Sony/Philips in the creation of the DSD format.

even though SACD's mastered on the dCs were not quite as good (in general they had less pleasing high frequencies), those SACD's still sound very good. i think that over time there are fewer 'non-optimized' SACD's. i've not purchased one for 3 or 4 years which had any edge. i think that dCs has improved their ADC.

i think another problem with SACD is that some DAC's convert DSD to PCM prior to analog conversion (mostly this was older SACD players). it's not hard to find out which players do what and how.

like anything; there is SACD 'done right' and SACD 'light'. PCM also comes in many different flavors of filtering and upsampling, it's not unique to SACD.

mikel

Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: funbebop on April 06, 2009, 07:55:42 PM
Hi I'm new to the forum, so forgive my ignorance....I grew up with digital CD's and at the end of the tape/vinyl age...mid 80's.  I thought CD was the way to go, it was so easy to cue and relatively balanced but I was listening on fairly cheap consumer equipment.  I finally got some money and got some decent speakers and a good ES Sony amp...well, in the course of about 2 years both top end Sony ES amps had failed...so I was doing the same thing with my guitar amps...I finally went to tube amps for guitar and later decided to go with moderate priced tube stuff for a home audio...

my experience is that CD is great for no hiss, but the dynamic range, depth and soundfield sucks compared to a good clean LP...I'm hoping for a similar experience with reel to reel audio, but I know there will be hiss with my Revox A77 at high speed...however, I feel confident that a half inch or inch reel at 15 ips is going to blow any CD or SACD, or any digital recording away regardless of sampling rate and resolution....digital at 24 bit , 96 kHz is good, but you really have to have your own master recordings to do that...other than a few master stuff I've recorded myself and a small batch of conversions in the Grateful Dead tape scene I don't know of too many out commericially available  to get that kind of digital with out doing it myself  but I don't see much benefit taking a "remaster" CD or a SACD and converting it to tape....it may warm it up and do the saturation thing, but it's only as good as the master in many ways...

I will say that digital amplication is not very satisfy-ing...it may have great specs, but I've only heard a few solid state guitar amps that sound good - and the ones I have are low impedence, mainly the early polytones from the late 70's
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: joeljoel1947 on April 06, 2009, 08:46:54 PM
Well, I want to add that for the high-resolution "PCM" crowd (aka the computer audiophiles), there is really a lot of great material out there.  For the past few years the audio rags and myself have been glued to the HD tracks site as an up and coming source of hi-rez material.

As someone who owns close to 350-450 SACD's/DVD-A's myself, if I could find just 4-5 that sounded as good as the HRx material or some of the hi-rez PCM I own then I would be all ears!  I am not knocking the SACD stuff, I love it, I'm just stating that PCM done right at high resolution is the way to go.  At least in my system.  Many will agree and many disagree, which is the nature of the beast!  I personally find SACD to sound less "lifelike/realistic" and slightly more artificial/synthetic sounding (especially in the treble as documented by others) then well done PCM.  That is just my opinion.

But, I will say that PROPERLY recording in DSD is about as close to "analog" as you can get.  My friend is a recording engineer and bought the Korg mentioned in this thread.  In his opinion, its as close to analog as you can get.  And I have heard this myself in his half million dollar system and also with the very few pure DSD recordings I own---mostly Telarc's.  However, as ALSO mentioned in this thread---its the decoding that counts, and unless he uses the same Korg to play it back when my friend is recording, there is a loss in quality.

Done **right** I think you will be hard pressed to beat PCM----- from either HRx, or any of the magnificent 24/192 material available from such labels as 2L, Acousence, Design w/ sound, or Linn for example.  MikeL, hopefully at some point you can hear this (HRx or hi-rez) material done right in your own system and can agree with me (like it took you a while to do with tape!!)!  ;)

Actually, with regards to the 2L material---I don't like the PCM OR the SACD versions quite as much as the Blu Ray version!  For example on this release where you can compare them all:
http://www.2l.no/epost/news2008may.html (http://www.2l.no/epost/news2008may.html)

For those who really want to learn what HRx and PC audio/PCM audio have to offer, check out the computer audiophile website:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/ (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/)\\

P.S. MikeL I know Winston Ma too (and his friend Gary Koh from Genesis who happens to be here in Michigan today) and as I spoke with him at CES this year----- he will be the first to tell you that computer audio downloads/PCM are the "wave of the future".   I hope that soon Winston has these type of downloads available direct from his site, as he said would happen eventually at CES.

In the end its all about having all these wonderful formats---hi-rez PCM, SACD, Blu Ray, tape analog, LP, redbook, etc.---at our (my) disposal!  As to which is "absolute best" will be an argument for eternity!!  Each is in the grand scheme of things only slightly different then each other----none significantly better nor worse!


Regards,
Joel
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: ceved on April 06, 2009, 09:06:49 PM
"Done right' is the operative and overall contolling aspect which results in the sound of music many of us in this forum seem to prefer regardless of format.
I suspect that without too much trouble even the TP titles which we enjoy could be made to sound 'bad'.
Perhaps the real 'shootout' is in the steps leading up to the final product including raw materials and the care taken in the physical fabrication of the medium to say nothing of the recording, engineering, mastering and the like.
If you are going to limit yourself to analog,LP/tape not only are you are going to miss a lot of really interesting music well performed and recorded in the here and now you will also not be able to as easily confirm your loss of visual acuity as you can no longer read the CD notes.

The most recent Jefferson Starship album is a perfect example of music that I would have missed were I fixated upon format rather than content.

While I prefer good sound, I insist upon good content regardless of genre.  If it isn't worth listening to who cares how good it sounds?
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: Ben on April 06, 2009, 10:30:15 PM
I find with the few SACD's I have, I am limited to still 44Khz sampling rate for stereo.
As long as that is standard, 4 track, 3 7/8 ISP is good match. I'll trade tape hiss
instead of digital artifacts. Ben.

Footnote. I just finished a 6A5G PP amp, with cheap Hammond transformers.
I still can't decide if it is better than the SET 6B4G amp I have, but it seems
to clean up CD's better than I expected. This is using 50's technology here,
but with matched tubes and resistors and caps. I am guessing bandwidth is about
40HZ  to 18 KHZ but  I need to check that with the scope. The only part to get is
now is vintage feet and 2 track vintage music. :)  I'll continue to experiment
with my sound system for a while, since with analog you can still piece together
you think is a good system. So far it looks to be Dynaco SCA 35 clone in the future
with options added back that saved money and optimized for real triode use and
real bandwidth on the inputs.

 
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: Tubes n tapes on April 07, 2009, 01:51:00 AM
Quote
Arian,

regarding compatability with DSD, i have a few comments.

on the playback side; i've not heard an SACD player that is superior on one label but not on all labels. it's either better or it's not.

OTOH certain pro DSD ADC's did sound better than others. i was an EMM Labs owner for 7 years and there is no doubt that SACD's recorded thru EMM Labs pro ADC sounded better than the dCS pro ADC. and the EMM Labs mastered discs did sound better on EMM Labs consumer DAC's. dCs mastered discs also sounded better on EMM Labs consumer DAC's. Ed Meitner was involved with Sony/Philips in the creation of the first pro audio gear for DSD recording. Andreas Koch (who also did digital design for EMM Labs) worked with Sony/Philips in the creation of the DSD format.

even though SACD's mastered on the dCs were not quite as good (in general they had less pleasing high frequencies), those SACD's still sound very good. i think that over time there are fewer 'non-optimized' SACD's. i've not purchased one for 3 or 4 years which had any edge. i think that dCs has improved their ADC.

i think another problem with SACD is that some DAC's convert DSD to PCM prior to analog conversion (mostly this was older SACD players). it's not hard to find out which players do what and how.

like anything; there is SACD 'done right' and SACD 'light'. PCM also comes in many different flavors of filtering and upsampling, it's not unique to SACD.

mikel


Mike,

I have played for a while with both the EMMlabs and the modified Luxman in my system at the same time and it was very clear that some SACDs performed better on the EMMlabs while others performed better on the Luxman. The noise shaping algorithms of DSD on the recording side is vastly different from one SACD recording to another and the different playback systems handle that very different. This was very audible and also very measurable. I could measure noise floor differences of up to 20dB. Most of the time in favor of the EMMlabs but sometimes the Luxman was just as good, depending on the SACD used.
I was making analog recordings of SACDs at that time using my virtual surround process. Except for the noise that was very different, also the depth of the soundstage was remarkably different between the EMMlabs and the Luxman and again depending on the SACD the EMMlabs or the Luxman could be clearly better in that respect. So I ended up making some of the recordings from the EMMlabs and others from the Luxman.

Concerning DSD to PCM conversion, I think that is one of the flaws of DSD. As far as I have been able to find there are no true DSD DACs. All of the existing DACs will convert DSD to some level of PCM in the actual DAC section. I have spend quite some time trying to design a real DSD DAC, but I failed because there is a practical limitation you cannot get around. The only way is to start filtering in the digital domain and abandon the true DSD stream. Again if there is a real DSD DAC out there I would really like to learn more about that.
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: steveidosound on April 09, 2009, 06:34:04 PM
my experience is that CD is great for no hiss, but the dynamic range, depth and soundfield sucks compared to a good clean LP...I'm hoping for a similar experience with reel to reel audio, but I know there will be hiss with my Revox A77 at high speed...however, I feel confident that a half inch or inch reel at 15 ips is going to blow any CD or SACD, or any digital recording away regardless of sampling rate and resolution

Most everyone on here would agree with your "by ear" assessment for the most part, especially the "depth and soundfield" part.
You should know however, even if it is abused and misused on most pop recordings today, that plain old CD 16 bit / 44.1 KHz
actually has superior dynamic range to any analog media, if by dynamic range you mean from the point the signal is clearly dominating the background noise (in digital there should theoretically be no noise) to the point at which distortion becomes unpleasant (more gradual with analog - sudden and awful with digital)
All the soft to loud in between is the dynamic range or "signal to noise ratio".  Whether you can hear hiss on tape has everything to do with how loud the relative record and playback levels are for the track. If what you are recording has a 30dB dynamic range and you want to record it with no compression, and you drove the record levels to "zero" on the machine, the softest parts would come back at -30 and the loudest peaks at "0". Depending on how dynamic the insturment was, the worst being something with loud high frequecy peaks much higher than it's average, and long pauses, you would hear some hiss. Typically what happens in practice is that the instrument has a dynamic of over 30dB, but is compressed, and then the track is pushed harder - it varies as to what acceptable distortion is, so that the track might only be down to -15 on its quietest parts.
I don't know about 1/2" or 1" stereo tape at 15 or 30 ips., but 1/4" is pretty lucky to get into the mid 60dB signal to noise range and vinyl pressings somewhat worse than that. A freshly cut lacquer from a state of the art system might get to be as good as the 1/4" stereo 15ips. master.
Paul could probably quote specs for the 1/2" or 1" at 15 or 30ips. I think I recall an ATR demo. saying they had achieved the same dynamic range as a CD.

A big part of what people care about is how an analog or digital system behaves at it's noise floor or distortion limits. Good analog systems just rise slowly in distortion or distort a bit sooner at very high or low frequencies, thus giving the impression that they still have more left before severe distortion takes place.
Digital is a brick wall of distortion that you never want to hit, but which most pop mastering engineers flirt with all the time in the interest of making  the CD "play loud". At the other end if you turn up an analog system loud enough with unmodulated media going past, you will hear the noise floor. The music will just fade slowly into this noise floor as the recording volume is lowered. There is a last on or off limit to the CD, but the range is so wide that other things like analog microphone preamp noise will show up before you hit the digital wall on the "soft" side, but that range "wall to wall" is over 90dB.
How dynamics are handled or mistreated by recording engineers is the subject of great debate.
I am old enough to remember when people who cared were fighting for a couple more dB from their analog systems. Now we have all this range and in some cases we are using only the top  1-2% of it.     
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: ironbut on April 09, 2009, 08:49:30 PM
Well put as always Steve.
I don't get too wrapped up with worrying about tape hiss. Most of the old recordings we all love have enough hiss on the master tape that the 468 that the TP tapes are made on are well below that.
 One of the reasons that even very good digital transfers of these old master tapes don't have as much depth and soundstaging is that they've been processed. In an effort to remove tape hiss, drop outs, and any other audible problems many studios rely on software that repair these automatically. I use restoration software all the time on live recordings to do things like removing steady state noise like motors or hum, clipping or chatty neighbors. Removing talking/coughing without effecting the music is much more doable than removing the noises that last a long time. The software that removes those steady state noises are constantly making math based decisions on what is noise and what is music. The subtle cues that our brains have learned to associate with distance and location end up being altered or eliminated. Something that an engineer would never knowingly do just to reduce hiss another couple of dB. But the software has it's orders and that barely audible reverb that's right in the hiss's frequency range has got to go. A classic baby with the bathwater effect. For this reason, I've stopped using this type of de-noisers unless it's a really awful.
When I was doing demos of these tapes I had several guys who had owned reel to reels before. Almost all of them commented on how low the hiss level was.
What I feel is well worth the trouble is getting the timbres and subtle sounds just right. That's why so many of us really go all out to refine what comes after the tape.
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: steveidosound on April 09, 2009, 10:26:26 PM
...One of the reasons that even very good digital transfers of these old master tapes don't have as much depth and soundstaging is that they've been processed. In an effort to remove tape hiss, drop outs, and any other audible problems many studios rely on software that repair these automatically....The subtle cues that our brains have learned to associate with distance and location end up being altered or eliminated.... But the software has it's orders and that barely audible reverb that's right in the hiss's frequency range has got to go. A classic baby with the bathwater effect.... What I feel is well worth the trouble is getting the timbres and subtle sounds just right. That's why so many of us really go all out to refine what comes after the tape.


air...space...dimension...depth...

Sounds more like religious experience, but when it is right in a recording you know it and are transported.
The nuts and bolts might reveal higher phase consistency between the channels at high frequencies or a very low noise floor, but your ears say ahh, this is closer to what it is like in real life. At present our old analog technologies can, in their state of the art form, capture more of this detail than normal CDs can. I have stayed out of the higher bitrate digital discussions on this thread because I don't have enough experience with them to comment. I do like the sound (or lack thereof) in SACDs I have better than normal CDs, but I don't think I would rate it as better than the best analog sources I have heard.
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: Ben on April 09, 2009, 10:38:48 PM
I agree about the sound processing affects the depth of the soundstage.
Now we all need to do is  agree on what is the best amp for the music to be heard
for a modest budget. :)

Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: Hiro on April 10, 2009, 04:16:19 AM

Concerning DSD to PCM conversion, I think that is one of the flaws of DSD. As far as I have been able to find there are no true DSD DACs.

just two examples luxman D-06 and esoteric SA-50 - both support DSD natively
http://puresuperaudio.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-high-definition-pure-audio-players.html

IMHO all original master tapes should be brought to DSD.
(http://www.professional-audio.de/typo3temp/pics/4971e19b9f.jpg)
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: ironbut on April 10, 2009, 11:15:11 AM
Hiro, the grim reality of what actually happens in the case of archiving and production of master tapes/files is, what leads to the best sounding product doesn't always make the cut. I'm certainly not arguing with you. IMHO, these master tapes will all need to be transfered eventually and I'd like to see them archived in the highest quality that technology is capable of. To me this means with no error correction (if errors occur during the transfer, it should either be repeated until there are no errors or the archivist should correct the code manually) and no dither or other interpolation added. So, if I were to have a bone to pick with your statement, it would be that even 5.6 mhz DSD may not be good enough for archiving master tapes.
What is probably the most important factor in choosing a digital format for any kind of archiving is that it will be accessible to a wide user base into the foreseeable future. When we talk about one of a kind sonic treasures whether it's music, spoken work or newsworthy events, they need to be accessible to the folks that can bring them to the public in general. From an audiophiles perspective that may seem like a simple matter but even though the digital age of recording has only lasted a few decades, the number of formats that have come and gone and are still in use makes this vitally important. On a much smaller scale, if you look at some of the reformating software like Max, it can read over 20 file types and sometimes that isn't enough. There are already formats that have been out of use for 15+ years whose files can't be read since they're based on operating systems that were native to computers that went by the wayside. So, whose to say that of those 20 file types that Max can read today, how many of those will remembered in 10-15 years. My guess is 5 or so.
So, what it boils down to is just that,.. who is to say?
Harvard and Indiana Universities did a joint study into these very questions. They took advantage of parallel research from other universities and organizations such as The British Library, and the Library of Congress all of whom entrusted with preserving the worlds audible legacy. If you'd like to see the results of their research, here's a link to download "Sound Directions".   http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/sounddirections/papersPresent/index.shtml
So, there's a lot more to archiving than meets the casual eye. I've put a little thought into the question of how these master tapes should be handled and I'd like to see a higher standard developed for these and other items whose exact details aren't entirely understood (are we certain that we've mined all that can be had from these tapes even today?). Maybe a physical scanning of the oxide particles would be more exact than playing their results? I don't know. But I do know that all digital formats that I've heard aren't up to the task.

Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: steveidosound on April 10, 2009, 12:16:29 PM
This archiving thing is cool and should be another thread.
I don't think one can EVER justify the disposal of original source material... ever.
It is sad when it happens due to natural disaster or deterioration through improper storage, but to say that it has been captured in perfect form and so the original need no longer be saved is just the worst sort of fallacy.
For example, at the beginning of the analog tape era record labels decided to transfer all their pre-tape material cut directly to discs in the new state of the art tape format. At this point would we rather go back to the original disc masters or those 50+ year old tape transfer duplicates? The disc masters might have proved more durable than their tape replacements. And the quality of the pickups and turntables used to make those transfers, not to mention the transport, tape and head technologies have improved too. Compare an early 50s  Lp release of 30s era 78 material to that same disc master restored today. Need I say more. Who is to say what a transfer from that same disc master cut in the 1930s might be like 50 years from now?
But you say, that was then - NOW we can make much better restored copies and store them in space saving forms.
Restored according to whose values and standards, and on which digital format that will last forever? 10 years ago that might have been CD/ pcm / wav. files, but not so much now. 
Even though we are living in what seems to be an ideal age where every modern digital recording technology is pursued and pushed to higher limits and all the old analog ones are being researched and developed to a degree not thought possible in the day when they were the only technology around, we can never say we have arrived.
I wonder how much more can be known and understood that will make analog tape and disc better than the state of the art we have today?
So,
 Make the best duplicates and restore from that copy but never EVER toss the original source if it can be saved somehow and preserved.
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: ironbut on April 10, 2009, 05:28:32 PM
Truer words have never been spoken Steveo. I've seen a few folks get dragged down to the flour for suggesting that something should be tossed once a transfer is done. You never know what the future will bring and just like some of those mystery movies have taught us,.. sometimes the most important thing about a message is what it's written on!
The LOC (Library of Congress) just opened a special facility in Culpepper Va. that is primarily for the restoration and storage of delicate audio and video artifacts (musical instruments included). It was designed from the ground up (which isn't quite right since it's partially underground to save energy maintaining cooler temps) for that purpose alone.
I first got interested in this stuff when Mikey Fremmer visited the LOC and wrote about it in his Analog Corner column in Stereophile. Just the thought that every recording, book or anything else that is copywritten by the US has been required to send several copies to the LOC to have on hand since Congress is where copyright law is debated. Of course once a collection of that magnitude gets started, everybody starts to send stuff (hence the instruments). Collections of ungodly proportions are donated to them every year in hopes that they'll be displayed with the patrons name next to it. Just trying to keep things organized there must be akin to filling a bottomless bucket.
I confess that I just know the surface stuff when it comes to archiving and restoration but it is very interesting and important.
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: steveidosound on April 11, 2009, 12:57:28 AM
"If you'd like to see the results of their research, here's a link to download "Sound Directions".   http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/sounddirections/papersPresent/index.shtml "

Fascinating stuff ! At least to me.
If I could choose a new career direction at 50+ it would be to work professionally as an analog audio historian/archivist.
I have been fascinated  by old media and transferring stuff from disc to tape and tape to tape since I was a boy.
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: Tubes n tapes on April 13, 2009, 11:11:10 AM
Quote
just two examples luxman D-06 and esoteric SA-50 - both support DSD natively
http://puresuperaudio.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-high-definition-pure-audio-players.html

Hiro,

Both the Luxman and Esoteric SACD players are fine machines. They support DSD, but the actual DAC chips (PCM1792A and AK4392) first use digital filtering to control the high frequency noise and then convert the data to a PCM like multi bit sigma-delta data to convert it back to analog. The PCM inputs on those chips go through a different digital filter but end up on the same multi bit sigma delta DAC. I'm sure both chips do a good job, but it is unclear whether these DAC chips will perform equally good on all DSD coded data streams.

When I said "there are no true DSD DACs" I meant that as far as I know the original beauty of DSD didn't fly because you cannot convert DSD back to analog as intended.

The original thought behind DSD was to create a 1 bit data stream that basically contains the audio information in analog form, but since it was digital data you could still store it on digital storage media. 
In the basis that original thought is still valid. If you take the digital DSD data stream and you hook that up to the analog input of you amp, you will actually hear the music. (Try that with PCM.) However the trick is in the details. DBX brought out a 1 bit sigma delta digital recorder somewhere in 80's that used a non-dithered and non-noise shaped A/D process. The drawback was that the S/N ratio was only about 50dB. But since this was DBX they combined that with their compander noise reduction system to get something like 100dB. It worked but was not suitable as a standard.
DSD is basically the same, but it uses enormous amounts of negative feedback and dither to move the noise below 20kHz to the area above 20kHz. From a digital point of view that works OK, however it has now become practically impossible to distill the analog information straight from the DSD stream. Even the slightest timing and transition imperfections will bring a significant amount of the noise that was moved away from the audio band back in. In the end if you can get 60dB S/N you're doing very well.

So what I have seen as practical solutions in all DSD DAC chips as far as I know is that the DSD principles are abandoned and the DSD stream is first converted to a multi bit PCM like delta sigma signal exactly the same as is done with high res PCM.

All these tricks make DSD about as vague and uncontrolled as our beloved analog media. Great fun, but not very practical.
Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: Hiro on April 19, 2009, 06:48:01 AM
Quote
just two examples luxman D-06 and esoteric SA-50 - both support DSD natively
http://puresuperaudio.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-high-definition-pure-audio-players.html

So what I have seen as practical solutions in all DSD DAC chips as far as I know is that the DSD principles are abandoned and the DSD stream is first converted to a multi bit PCM like delta sigma signal exactly the same as is done with high res PCM.

All these tricks make DSD about as vague and uncontrolled as our beloved analog media. Great fun, but not very practical.

SA-50 and Luxman support DSD natively just like for example Pioneer PD-D9 (WM8741 DAC) - the DAC's have 'the option' to use DSD conversion to PCM but they can also play DSD natively bypassing PCM conversions...BTW take note that most of today's PCM DACs are really delta sigma, not to mention most of CDs available on the market were recorded with the use of sigma delta 'pcm' recorders
(http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/1102/dsdc.jpg)

To me as a music lover the most important part in DSD is the sound.. but people working in the studio seem to be satisfied with the results they are getting from DSD too, BruceB from audioasylum says clearly "DSD128fs sounds identical to the master tapes to us."
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/25/256485.html#postfp

Title: Re: The SACD vs Tape Challenge
Post by: docb on April 19, 2009, 07:01:22 PM
Sorry guys, this has gone way too far afield and by now has nothing to do with tape. I have locked the thread.