Does DSD recording benefit Japanese traditional instruments?

[dualazmak]

DSD and CD layers that have purposely been mastered differently are known to exist.

If you work only with the DSD layer, you control how the comparable 'CD' version is made.

OK, I understood and agree with your point.

At least, and as far as, the specific SACD is concerned, in my post #42 and #56, I believe I have done all of the objective analyses and subjective listening comparisons in rather strict manner as well as under complete level matching in listening using my HiFi audio setup, and I found almost no audible difference between SACD-layer and CD-layer.

Let me repeat again, I wrote in #42;
We should be careful enough about, however, this finding (almost no difference between SACD-layer and CD-layer) would not be always true for other SACD discs; it may be dependent on the mastering engineering and QC of hybrid SACD production.

BTW, it is interesting for me that in the article you referred, they too used MusicScope 2.1.0 for objective analysis; I did the same in my investigations shared in my post #42.

 

[dualazmak]

Hello friends,

Just for our reference,,,

As for the amount and spectrum of UHF (ultra High Frequency) noises often seen in HiRes music tracks including DSD layer of SACD (1xDSD) as well as other download-purchased 1xDSD, 2xDSD, 4xDSD, DXD352.8 kHz 24 bit, DXD 352.8 kHz 32 bit, some (a few?) of the HiRes media producing companies are now having careful attention and good QC practice in reducing such UHF noises in their HiRes release.

You can find very nice example case of really low UHF noises in HiRes formats in my post here on my project thread.

 

[Trell]

Because you have no idea what might or might not been 'done' to the CD layer. You don't know if it has been processed/mastered in some way that might conceivably produce an audible difference unrelated to sample rate or bit depth. That makes it another variable you can't control.

DSD and CD layers that have purposely been mastered differently are known to exist.

If you work only with the DSD layer, you control how the comparable 'CD' version is made.

tl;dr If you do find an audible difference between the DSD and CD layers of an SACD....so what? What can it tell you and what can it mean for SACD vs CD?

I've some of those where the CD layer is different from the SACD stereo layer, and in this case it's very different where in the SACD stereo is just him singing and his piano, but the CD layer has added other musicians.

Christian Willisohn - Hold On

View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the 2005 SACD release of "Hold On" on Discogs.

www.discogs.com

 

[Snoopy]

I've some of those where the CD layer is different from the SACD stereo layer, and in this case it's very different where in the SACD stereo is just him singing and his piano, but the CD layer has added other musicians.

Christian Willisohn - Hold On

View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the 2005 SACD release of "Hold On" on Discogs.

www.discogs.com

There are even examples where the stereo SACD layer is mastered differently from the SACD layer. (Dynamic range or even different tapes used)

 

[Trell]

There are even examples where the stereo SACD layer is mastered differently from the SACD layer. (Dynamic range or even different tapes used)

Indeed, and I suspect this has cause a number of listener to draw invalid conclusions from listening tests between the CD layer and the stereo SACD layer of hybrid SACDs. The assumption, I guess, is that both those layers comes from the same master. My example above should put to rest anyone insisting that those to layers has to come from the same master.

Personally I'm not interested in SACD as such but for the multi-channel layer, and almost all of my SACD (140+) are multi-channel.

 

[Snoopy]

Indeed, and I suspect this has cause a number of listener to draw invalid conclusions from listening tests between the CD layer and the stereo SACD layer of hybrid SACDs. The assumption, I guess, is that both those layers comes from the same master. My example above should put to rest anyone insisting that those to layers has to come from the same master.

Personally I'm not interested in SACD as such but for the multi-channel layer, and almost all of my SACD (140+) are multi-channel.

That are probably the same people that believe that all masters are the same and streaming services are as good as it gets

 

[tomchris]

The only benefits of the SACD format was to provide SONY with improved copy protection and licensing terms over the Red Book CD format. SACD was a can of worms from the very start. Lots of marketing BS, Opaque mastering process and equally opaque decoding process. As an archival format, you are basically wastefully preserving a "mountain" of ultrasonic noise.

Yes, some superior SACD releases probably do exist, but they are most certainly above the usual DSD64/2.8MHz releases. Even then, one should regard them with suspicion due to the dubious "SACD mastering process". Listening comparisons are not enough; too many variables. As such, every single SACD release needs to be extracted and meticulously compared to claimed similar mastered releases in other formats, just to be certain. Trustworthiness when it comes to delivering quality is not something that I would attribute the SACD format.

 

[Trell]

The only benefits of the SACD format was to provide SONY with improved copy protection and licensing terms over the Red Book CD format. SACD was a can of worms from the very start. Lots of marketing BS, Opaque mastering process and equally opaque decoding process. As an archival format, you are basically wastefully preserving a "mountain" of ultrasonic noise.

Yes, some superior SACD releases probably do exist, but they are most certainly above the usual DSD64/2.8MHz releases. Even then, one should regard them with suspicion due to the dubious "SACD mastering process". Listening comparisons are not enough; too many variables. As such, every single SACD release needs to be extracted and meticulously compared to claimed similar mastered releases in other formats, just to be certain. Trustworthiness when it comes to delivering quality is not something that I would attribute the SACD format.

Multi-channel SACD is the formats biggest audible benefit and is much better than stereo.

 

[krabapple]

There are even examples where the stereo SACD layer is mastered differently from the SACD layer. (Dynamic range or even different tapes used)

Huh?

DO you mean what was already noted , about the CD layer being mastered differenty from the DSD layer?

 

[krabapple]

The only benefits of the SACD format was to provide SONY with improved copy protection and licensing terms over the Red Book CD format. SACD was a can of worms from the very start. Lots of marketing BS, Opaque mastering process and equally opaque decoding process. As an archival format, you are basically wastefully preserving a "mountain" of ultrasonic noise.

Yes, some superior SACD releases probably do exist, but they are most certainly above the usual DSD64/2.8MHz releases.

Er...you're buying into the DSD 'BS' you decry.

Why do so many audiophiles still fall for this fallacy?

If the release is audibly 'superior' it's because the mastering is better (to your ears). Not the DSD sample rate.

 

[krabapple]

Multi-channel SACD is the formats biggest audible benefit and is much better than stereo.

It's impossible to compare those. A multichannel mix is so vastly different from a stereo mix. And if you hear an audible benefit to it, it's not because it's DSD rather than PCM.

 

[Newman]

Multi-channel SACD is the formats biggest audible benefit and is much better than stereo.

I was going to say the same but you beat me to it.

This, indeed, is the BIG, audible, sonic improvement that SACD offered over the CD that Sony hoped it would replace.

 

[Trell]

It's impossible to compare those. "Audible benefit' from remixing as in orange and audible benefit from reasons other than mix is an apple.

And AGAIN, whatever audile benefit exists that isn't due to the remix, is due to the mastering, not DSD vs PCM!

I’m not sure I claimed anything else. As I wrote above a couple of times it’s the multichannel part of SACD that interests me. Whether or not that is DSD does not matter to me, and the DSD is converted to PCM in any case for processing in my AVR.

 

[krabapple]

I’m not sure I claimed anything else. As I wrote above a couple of times it’s the multichannel part of SACD that interests me. Whether or not that is DSD does not matter to me, and the DSD is converted to PCM in any case for processing in my AVR.

Right, but multichannel releases don't need to be on SACD. It was never the only multichannel consumer option.

 

[krabapple]

I was going to say the same but you beat me to it.

This, indeed, is the BIG, audible, sonic improvement that SACD offered over the CD that Sony hoped it would replace.

Yet quite a few of the early Sony SACD releases were....stereo only. Michael Jackson's Thriller being a famous example. Meanwhile DVD-Audio (not to mention good old DD and DTS) also offered multichannel music.

SACD never a necessary consumer format, except for Sony's copy protection.

 

[Trell]

Right, but multichannel releases don't need to be on SACD. It was never the only multichannel consumer option.

No, there was DVD-A as well, but I bought the SACD when starting out all those years ago.

Now there are Blu-ray as well but I don’t have any of those. I like being able to play SACD without turning on my TV, unlike most Blu-ray.

 

[tomchris]

Er...you're buying into the DSD 'BS' you decry.

Why do so many audiophiles still fall for this fallacy?

If the release is audibly 'superior' it's because the mastering is better (to your ears). Not the DSD sample rate.

Excuse me... I am no audiophile What part of my reply was factual incorrect?

1. Did SONY try to improve copy protection?

Super Audio CD - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2. Did SONY wanted to introduce the successor to Red Book and benefit by receive licensing fees?

Super Audio CD - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

DSD vs. PCM: Myth vs. Truth

DSD vs. PCM: Myth vs Truth

www.mojo-audio.com

3. Marketing hype and dubious mastering around SACD?

DSD vs. PCM: Myth vs. Truth

DSD vs. PCM: Myth vs Truth

www.mojo-audio.com

- No pure DSD recording, many mastered in low resolution PCM
- problems with quantization noise / error when converted back and forth

4. Is DSD64 format inferior to DSD128, DSD256 etc.?

DSD vs. PCM: Myth vs. Truth

DSD vs. PCM: Myth vs Truth

www.mojo-audio.com

- Quantization noise rises sharply above 25KHz
- low-pass filtering DSD64 -> artifacts in the audible range.

5. Does superior SACD releases exist?

DSD vs. PCM: Myth vs. Truth

DSD vs. PCM: Myth vs Truth

www.mojo-audio.com

- I stated that SOME releases PROBABLY do exist. Am I able to know and check every SACD release out there? No, hence the "probably"
- DSD64 SACD has higher resolution than 16-bit 44.1KHz Red Book CD ~ roughly 24-bit 88.2KHz PCM
- DSD formats larger than DSD64 push Quantization noise further up

So, how exactly am I buying into the SACD 'BS' when it is a format that I find cumbersome, do not use or recommend?

 

[krabapple]

5. Does superior SACD releases exist?

DSD vs. PCM: Myth vs. Truth

DSD vs. PCM: Myth vs Truth

www.mojo-audio.com

- I stated that SOME releases PROBABLY do exist. Am I able to know and check every SACD release out there? No, hence the "probably"
- DSD64 SACD has higher resolution than 16-bit 44.1KHz Red Book CD ~ roughly 24-bit 88.2KHz PCM
- DSD formats larger than DSD64 push Quantization noise further up

So, how exactly am I buying into the SACD 'BS' when it is a format that I find cumbersome, do not use or recommend?

Because you think you can hear any of those differences under non-pathological circumstances . Which is what Sony wanted you to believe.

And that's just the usual audiophile BS.

 

[tomchris]

Because you think you can hear any of those differences under non-pathological circumstances . Which is what Sony wanted you to believe.

And that's just the usual audiophile BS.

You must not be a very good reader. I have never claimed that I could hear differences. On the contrary.

I wrote:

Even then, one should regard them with suspicion due to the dubious "SACD mastering process". Listening comparisons are not enough; too many variables. As such, every single SACD release needs to be extracted and meticulously compared to claimed similar mastered releases in other formats, just to be certain. Trustworthiness when it comes to delivering quality is not something that I would attribute the SACD format.

"Extracted" as in the files of a SACD needs to be imported into a program such as Adobe Audition - checking the frequency spectrum, just as Archimago has done on numerous occasions, when he has described the failings of SACD, all of which I agree with:

LIST: Suspected 44 or 48kHz PCM upsampled SACDs.

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

MUSINGS: On SACD & DSD audio...

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

ANALYSIS: DSD Conversion Impulse & Spectral Display... Another few images for completeness!

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

Notes on DAC DSD (1-bit PDM) measurements going forward...

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

 

[krabapple]

You wrote:

Yes, some superior SACD releases probably do exist, but they are most certainly above the usual DSD64/2.8MHz releases.

Please explain what that line is supposed to mean. Could be you're just not a very precise writer.