Improvements in Digital to Analog Converters and Modulators

[4-earredwonder]

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion that they sound better, but the faulty logic is attributing the (perceived) uptick in sound quality to AP's use of the SACD format for their remasters. The improvement in fidelity could just as easily be the result of new EQ choices made by the mastering engineer, which would be perceptible to listeners regardless of what optical format or codec the audio is packaged in.

My opinion stands, Jonathan. I invested a small fortune in my MAIN system over the years and when A/Bing the RCA 'ambisonically recorded' Cowboy Junkies RBCD on a Reference Meridian 808 player to AP's SACD remaster on my tank like Marantz SA 113S SACD player .... the difference was palpable. As I told Adam in another thread......my bedroom receiver and 5.1 set~up is hardly as revealing as my Main System. A receiver just can not give you the bang for the buck that high quality separate components can.

 

[fredblue]

My opinion stands, Jonathan. I invested a small fortune in my MAIN system over the years and when A/Bing the RCA 'ambisonically recorded' Cowboy Junkies RBCD on a Reference Meridian 808 player to AP's SACD remaster on my tank like Marantz SA 113S SACD player .... the difference was palpable. As I told Adam in another thread......my bedroom receiver and 5.1 set~up is hardly as revealing as my Main System. A receiver just can not give you the bang for the buck that high quality separate components can.

if the new SACD is remastered it would differ from the old CD.

that would be due to the new SACD and old CD having different mastering from one another, not because of any format difference influence.

 

[4-earredwonder]

if the new SACD is remastered it would differ from the old CD.

that would be due to the new SACD and old CD having different mastering from one another, not because of any format difference influence.

Of course mastering makes a difference, obviated by my recent purchase of an RBCD mastered XRCD by JVC in Japan of The Secret Garden [Philips]. The older RBCD always sounded wonderful but this newer XRCD RBCD mastering blows it away. But the JVC disc lists for $40.

Perhaps if all RBCDs were XRCD mastered there wouldn't be a need for higher res formats, but alas, that will never be the case.

 

[sjcorne]

if the new SACD is remastered it would differ from the old CD.

Exactly. The point is that the remaster is what improves the sound, not the format. It'd be wonderful if porting everything to SACD magically made it sound better, but unfortunately that's not how it works - there are plenty of SACDs that sound terrible for one reason or another (poor source material, compression, etc).

 

[4-earredwonder]

Exactly. The point is that the remaster is what improves the sound, not the format. It'd be wonderful if porting everything to SACD magically made it sound better, but unfortunately that's not how it works - there are plenty of SACDs that sound terrible for one reason or another (poor source material, compression, etc).

Read my post #27, Jonathan.

And BTW, not all remasters sound better as we've learned from botched, shrill, lifeless remasters in recent years....done by absolute HACKS [the LOUDER is BETTER syndrome].

 

[sjcorne]

Read my post #28

Post #28 is mine and I enjoyed re-reading it

 

[4-earredwonder]

Post #28 is mine and I enjoyed re-reading it

Jonathan ..... By the Numbers! Good one.

 

[bmoura]

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion that they sound better, but the faulty logic is attributing the (perceived) uptick in sound quality to AP's use of the SACD format for their remasters. The improvement in fidelity could just as easily be the result of new EQ choices made by the mastering engineer, which would be perceptible to listeners regardless of what optical format or codec the audio is packaged in.

And the improvement in sound quality can also be in part due to improved digital converters and conversion software that is available today that was not available in the past.
Things have changed - and improved - over the years in the mastering world. Without the need for EQ choices.

 

[marcb]

And the improvement in sound quality can also be in part due to improved digital converters and conversion software that is available today that was not available in the past.
Things have changed - and improved - over the years in the mastering world. Without the need for EQ choices.

The improvements in converters has a small impact on the overall sound. Lots of great masterings were done 30 years ago with old technology that are yet to be surpassed with newer converters.

 

[4-earredwonder]

The improvements in converters has a small impact on the overall sound. Lots of great masterings were done 30 years ago with old technology that are yet to be surpassed with newer converters.

A salient point. And IMO, those loudness wars are a direct result of 'hearing loss' suffered by a lot of recording engineers and artists over the years who have been subjected to high decibels of sound. The ears are delicate 'instruments' and inevitably suffer hearing loss over time .... even under normal circumstances.......akin to one's eyes, over time, suffering vision loss.

 

[bmoura]

Not in the listening tests that I have been involved with.
Taking the same track, with no EQ or other changes and simply remodulating the track with newer converters and modulators often results in a substantial improvement in sound quality!

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Not in the listening tests that I have been involved with.
Taking the same track, with no EQ or other changes and simply remodulating the track with newer converters and modulators often results in a substantial improvement in sound quality!

Of course it can't be denied that both digital & analog components have come a long way since early digital. Back in the early days of CD, if it was supposed to be Perfect Sound then why was Pioneer Hi-Bit, Yamaha High Bit or HDCD need to improve on perfect?

In the chain of events regarding original fomats limitations vs new high res releases: if you can replace some of those weak links of the past then there is a significant chance for audible improvement. As J. Gordon Holt once said: "everything affects the quality of sound in audio electronics. All that matters is whether you can hear it or not."

To appreciate the improvements it's good to get a historical perspective of the challenges of early efforts in digital technology. One of the best of these I can recommend is the AUDIO magazine June 1993 issue. On page 56 there is an interview by David Ranada with Takeaki Anazawa a true pioneer in digital studio recording. Much good info stated on side issues of audio reproduction. The placement time wise of this article is significant. It details the earliest attempts at digital recording in the 70's but the interview takes place a solid 11 years after the launch of CD, and on the cusp of DCC & mini-disc compression.

 

[marcb]

Not in the listening tests that I have been involved with.
Taking the same track, with no EQ or other changes and simply remodulating the track with newer converters and modulators often results in a substantial improvement in sound quality!

Define “substantial”.

Of all of the variables in the mastering process and chain which can affect the final outcome in terms of sound quality, converters are about a 1 or maybe a 2 on a scale of 1-10 IMO. It’s real, but I’d hardly call it substantial.

Unless a good source is used and good EQ/compression decisions are taken, everything else is inconsequential. A nicer shade of lipstick on a pig is still just lipstick on a pig.

The difference between SACD and CD playback is greater than the differences between old and new state of the art converters of the same resolution IMO and even then, those SACD/CD differences are subtle, at best, and negligible in the opinion of many listeners.