UPDATED 11/27/2011
Robert von Bahr of BIS often accuses those of us who prefer DSD recorded SACDs as listening with eyes and not ears.
Proof that I listen with ears and not eyes is the fact that I love analog cassette even though it is 1 7/8 IPS versus my Reel to Reel tapes which are 7 1/2 IPS and thus on paper much higher in resolution.
I also agree with Robert von Bahr that recording techniques are more important than format and that is why my favorite recordings on LPs closely mirror my favorite recordings on SACDs. I love the realistic and tonally accurate recordings from Telarc, Reference Recordings and Lyrita for example. Plus the Telarc and Reference Recordings give the deep bass impact and realism I experience in the concert hall!
Low Resolution 16 Bit 44.1kHz
On LP, Reel to Reel tape, CD, SACD, DVD-Audio, uncompressed WAV/AIFF and Apple Lossless 16 Bit 44.1kHz sounds "digital" to me in the most offending ways. I believe it has something to do with how poorly 16 Bit 44.1kHz PCM reproduces the high frequencies.
High Resolution PCM and DSD
The magic of high resolution digital is its smooth and relaxing sound. In the case of SACDs the frequency response also extends up to 100kHz and extremely fast transient response.
The articles on this site will explain my feelings about SACDs and the various masters they are sourced from. For more information on high resolution 88.2kHz and 96kHz computer music files see Computer Audio, the musically comfortable alternative
I'm surprised you prefer MP3 over RBCD. I was so dissatisfied with the sound of 320kbps MP3 downloads that I have not bought one in over a year, and don't intend to buy any compressed format again, ever. To me, the soundstage is not so much "smaller", as it is flatter -- very two-dimensional, with no depth at all. And dynamic range is noticeably compressed. Also, in very loud, dense, complex passages, the sound breaks up to the point of distortion: not analog-type distortion, but a very ugly "scrambled eggs" sound. Altogether, they sound heavily processed compared to RBCD (or SACD).
ReplyDeleteSomewhat off-topic: what is a "PCM signature"? I've seen you and many others use this phrase in Internet forums. People refer to it but never define or describe it. Help me out.
Thanks.
Steve you are not alone, there are a lot of people who do not like the sound of even higher bit rate MP3s. Since you like the sound of CD you likely do not notice the "PCM signature". To those of us in which even the best CDs sound cold, sterile and even strident this "PCM signature" is clearly audible as it makes us uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteAs noted the soundstage of MP3s are smaller and not as deep as SACDs. I find the best MP3s to be from audiophile labels such as Telarc, Reference Recordings, Lyrita and others.
I have never heard the distortion of the type you mention from MP3s, could it possibly be your computer contributing it? I do hear the added (perhaps artificial) warmth and smoothness of MP3s over CDs. Also MP3s from older analog recordings seem to discard some of the analog artifacts, plus tape hiss and other noises are less apparent making them more enjoyable as well.
I am willing to live with the resolution MP3s throw away as they also throw away that part of 16 Bit 44.1kHz PCM especially as heard through CDs that I cannot live with. To me MP3s at 192kbps or higher are a blessing, at least until everything is released on SACD.
Even though more comfortable to my ears than CDs, ultimately I deleted all MP3's from my hard-drive as they are just too compromised in resolution compared to high resolution music files and SACDs. I have no 44.1kHz digital now in any form.
ReplyDelete