Listening with EARS not eyes.

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

How SACD/CD hybrids could completely replace CDs.

SACD/CD hybrids are the perfect software solution for all the worlds record companies as they offer Stereo in standard resolution in CD form playable in all devices that play CDs.  Plus high resolution Stereo playable in SACD, Universal and some BluRay players.  In addition high resolution Multichannel Stereo with up to six full range channels of wonderful sound.

Taking a chapter from the history of DVD Videos, parity of pressing costs can be achieved for dual-layer discs.   In the beginning of DVD Video it cost considerably more to press a dual-layer than a single-layer DVD.  However as more and more movie studies started offering bonus features on the second-layer it began to be used more and more until it now costs the same to press one or two-layer DVDs.  Indeed no pressing plant even stocks single-layer blanks and when pressing a single-layer DVD they just leave the second layer blank.

If all four of the major record labels ENDED production of single-layer CDs tomorrow and all future recordings (Mono, Stereo or Multichannel) were released as hybrid SACDs, hybrids discs could be made in such quantities that parity of pressing costs could be achieved.   At some time in the future when most of the music on physical formats is on SACD/CD hybrids, CD blanks could be retired.  And the few small companies requesting CD only could be pressed on SACD/CD hybrid blanks with the SACD layer left blank.

There would be a one time cost of converting all the worlds pressing plants from CD to hybrid SACD/CD operation, but this will be returned many fold due to the larger market generated by expending the market beyond the dying CD market.

While this wholesale adoption of SACD/CD hybrids would solve the pressing cost issue.  For Stereo recordings there is the additional one time cost mastering the high resolution layer,  for multichannel recordings three programs would need mastering.  However this cost is spread over all the copies of the release sold.  For Pop/Rock that would amount to less than a tenth of a penny per disc, for slow selling classical not much over a $1 per disc.

The other concern is that it costs more to record multichannel.   While multichannel does take full advantage of the format, just because a recording is Stereo or Mono is no reason to exclude it from from SACD release.  Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab has proven that Stereo SACDs can sell quite well.  Plus many modern recordings currently are made in multichannel and only released on Stereo CD. 

So as you see if the record companies do this as a group effort not only could SACD/CD hybrids totally replace single-layer CDs in a less than a years time, but they could also save physical formats.  If the record companies do nothing eventually both CD and SACD will die.  It is in their hands, will they do the right thing?

High resolution comes first, build quality second.

My road to high resolution digital began in 1995 when Reference Recordings announced that Arnold for Band would not be released on LP, it would be HDCD only.  Even though I hated CDs with a purple passion, Prof. Keith Johnson assured us that HDCDs solved many of CDs sonic problems and were a close match to his wonderful LPs.  So I bought an Audio Alchemy Digital Drive System III transport which I connected to an Adcom GDA 700 HDCD DAC using coaxial cable.  I really liked the Reference Recordings HDCDs as well as ones from FIM and a few other audiophile labels, however I discovered most HDCDs from the major record companies sounded almost as bad as their awful unlistenable CDs.  So I collected mostly Reference Recordings HDCDs and of course LPs. 

Then in April 2000, I discovered Chesky and Classic Records 24 Bit 96kHz DAD DVDs which were even better than HDCDs and proved to me that it was possible for digital to be musically satisfying. 

I checked the CD versions of some of the recordings I had on 24/96 DAD out of the library and compared them.  Using the Audio Alchemy DDS III transport / Adcom GDA 700 HDCD DAC for CD versus an entry level Sony DVP-S330 using its cheap internal DAC for the 24/96 DADs.  The 24/96 DADs sounded so real, with more ambiance, smoother string tone, and a  deeper and larger soundstage and a lot of the smoothness of Vinyl.   The CD version sounded very poor, just like a CD.

The highest resolution the GDA-700 offered was 48kHz.  I next listened to the difference between the 24/96 DAD in its native 24/96 though the cheap Sony DVD player versus as downsampled to 24/48 though the Adcom GDA-700 DAC.  The Adcom DAC at 48kHz had deeper bass but overall the native 96kHz from the cheap Sony DVD sounded more realistic even in the bass! Overall the sonics from the cheap Sony at 96kHz stomped all over the expensive DAC at 48kHz. Thus further proof, the first goal should be high resolution and the second build quality.   High resolution is a must! Better build quality will improve high resolution sound, especially the analog circuits used after conversion to analog.

Then in December 2000 I purchased my first SACD player, the Sony DVP-S9000ES and it was so much better than the 24/96 DADs plus I purchased some SACDs from FIM and Linn that I also had on HDCD.  The differences was so convincing and complete that I sold my HDCD DAC as with SACD I felt HDCD was now totally unnecessary just like the unnecessary CD format before it.

On the other side, I have discovered that high resolution does not necessarily have to sound good, indeed high resolution can have all kinds of sonic detail but be burdened with ugly sound.  The can happen with both software and hardware.   

 

The worst SACD playback I've ever heard was from the Pioneer DV-578A-S which I briefly tried back in 1994 it was only $130 from Best Buy, I returned it after three weeks giving it plenty of time to break-in.  This universal player sounded bad and had the a terrible upper midrange glare on all formats.  On the Pioneer DV-578A-S SACD didn't sound much better than CD.  And SACDs sounded so bad they were totally unlistenable.  Even though SACDs sounded terrible there was no doubt they were high resolution as I could clearly hear the extra sonic information but it was poor sounding high resolution. The Pioneer 478 Universal player proves that it is possible to make poor sounding high resolution, On the other hand it is not possible to magically change low resolution into high resolution no matter how great the build quality.


The order of Importance


1) High resolution


2) Build quality

SACD domination obstacles

Here are some of the things I think have hurt SACD since its introduction:

The switch from small hinged SACD box to large hinge.  It cost a lot of money to reprint the bottom inlay card to fit the new dimensions of the new new large hinged cases, how many companies let SACDs go out of print instead of printing the new cards?

Lipschitz's damning exposé falsely claiming that SACD has less resolution than CD.

Meyer and Moran's damning AES paper.

The discontinuance of the of the Rolling Stones SACDs and their reissue as DSD mastered CDs

The various high-end CD manufacturer's claims that "their" newest CD player is sonically superior to SACD and that SACD is an unnecessary format.

Things that have hurt physical formats in general:
 

The difficult task of removing various anti-thief devices once one gets home with one's purchases.  Especially the sticky glue used in the anti-piracy stripe across the top of the jewel case, even worse with DVD which have these on the side and bottom as well.   Plus the magnetic sensing strip.

Broken and scratched jewel cases

Small print in booklets

Holiday SACD Promotion at Concord Music Group

Concord Music Group has a select group of Concord and Telarc SACDs for $11.99 each

52nd Annual GRAMMY® Award Nominations for 2009

The 52^nd Annual GRAMMY^® Award Nominations for 2009 were announced this evening in a CBS/Recording Academy broadcast event from the Nokia Theater in Los Angeles. Among the nominations announced tonight, the following nominees were projects recorded or produced by members of Five/Four Productions, Ltd.:

Please see 52nd Annual GRAMMY® Award Nominations for 2009 for details.

Congratulations to all the nominees!