HiRez Poll Krauss, Alison and Union Stations - LIVE! [SACD]

[Quad Linda]

I wanted to seriously A/B the DVD to the SACD when I had time to do it justice. I auditioned the DVD in both DD and DTS. As expected, DTS was a bit smoother and more open than DD, yet much duller and more compressed than SACD as 6ch advanced res. analog into my B&K. The DVD pales greatly by comparison. After watching a couple hours of baseball in 1080 HD on my plasma, the picture quality looks crappy. OK, the picture is pretty good for a DVD concert, but computer animation may be the only HD picture that surpasses a well-shot sports event. The mix appears to be the same, yet SACD does a better job of reproducing the transients and dynamic range, which make the rears appear a bit more pronounced when the crowd gets boisterous.

Yes, it's great to see them perform. Still, the SACD is a far superior experience IF the music is what really matters. I'll be the first in line if this one comes out on Blu-Ray. Perhaps then, we can hear and see it in ALL its' glory.

My apologies that it took me a week to respond here. After many months of recovering from an injury, and practically living on QQ, I'm back to a very hectic schedule. I hadn't even logged in for the last 3 days!! Even that was from my phone. Likely this will be the norm in the forseeable future. (sorry,guys)

 

[Almen]

Hi Linda, thanks for the comparison!

I wanted to seriously A/B the DVD to the SACD when I had time to do it justice. I auditioned the DVD in both DD and DTS. As expected, DTS was a bit smoother and more open than DD

Did you notice that the DD is more compressed/limited?

[DTS was] ... more compressed than SACD
---
SACD does a better job of reproducing the transients and dynamic range

This is strange, I wouldn't imagine that the DTS is compressed in any way. How did you notice this?

[DTS was] ... much duller
---
the rears [in the SACD] appear a bit more pronounced when the crowd gets boisterous.

This I've experienced when listening to some SACD:s, though in those cases I've felt the other around: the SACD is too bright.

Does anyone have an analyses of the files? That would be interesting.

Cheers,
Mattias

 

[Quad Linda]

Certainly, DD is more compressed. Yes, DTS appeared to be far less compressed, but somewhat compressed vs. SACD. Yes, the SACD appears "brighter." To me, it isn't overly bright. Rather, the DD, and to a lesser degree, DTS has a less pronounced high end. After listening to the SACD, the DVD's shortcomings become painfully obvious. The audio on the DVD seems much less realistic and open in comparison to the SACD.

 

[Almen]

OK, thanks. This sounds so odd, that I think we are listening to different editions - or have some major differences in technical setup.

As I said, this is one of the few phonograms I have that is possible to listen to with the volume knob turned all the way up, without it ever sounding too harsh (apart from the applause right at the start), and still the tiniest of nuances are there. So my edition is un-compressed, that's all I can say.

 

[Quad Linda]

Perhaps yours is mastered differently. I was not saying that it sounded harsh or heavily compressed/limited. What I was saying is that the DTS appeared to be somewhat compressed and that SACD had a better high end and a much more real, open, uncompressed sound. At the risk of sounding contrary, I've never been one to judge a piece of software base on what the format is capable of. Nor would I attempt to compare without going back and forth to both discs. Mastering often makes more of a difference than format capabilities.

 

[0tto]

OK, thanks. This sounds so odd, that I think we are listening to different editions - or have some major differences in technical setup.

As I said, this is one of the few phonograms I have that is possible to listen to with the volume knob turned all the way up, without it ever sounding too harsh (apart from the applause right at the start), and still the tiniest of nuances are there. So my edition is un-compressed, that's all I can say.

there are two meaning of "compressed" thus one should clarify which compression we're talking about - one, used
during the sound mastering or compression of the data with purpose to save on the volume size of storage medium.
if the talk is in regard of the same master but packed into different formats, then pretty obvious DSD vs. DTS vs. DD
would give us different quality of the sound after digital data have been converted into analog sound.
inspite all shortcoming, DSD packing will preserve more info about captured sound and will deliver closest sound fidelity
to original, than DTS or DD. after all in digital domain final quality of sound or picture is equal to amount of the information
captured and saved about source. that's what make difference between HD vs. SD video, .GIF vs. .TIFF image, mp3 vs. LPCM.

 

[Quad Linda]

Perhaps I should have expressed the SACD as having wider frequency response and dynamic range. On a $500 system, that might not mean much. On a $40,000 system, it's HUGE!

 

[sukothai]

Does anyone have an analyses of the files? That would be interesting.

I would post pictures, but this thread doesn't allow attachments. My spectral frequency display shows the SACD goes to 34K Hz, while the DTS goes to 22K Hz. There is the typical SACD high frequency noise band from 28K to 38K Hz that seems to overlap true audio spikes in that area.

- Ben

 

[Fourplay]

Hey Again,

Thanks for taking the time to make this comparison. I will continue to search for the SACD, although thus far all copies I have seen are out of my price range.

I hope you are fully recovered from your injury. Take care!

Ken

I wanted to seriously A/B the DVD to the SACD when I had time to do it justice. I auditioned the DVD in both DD and DTS. As expected, DTS was a bit smoother and more open than DD, yet much duller and more compressed than SACD as 6ch advanced res. analog into my B&K. The DVD pales greatly by comparison. After watching a couple hours of baseball in 1080 HD on my plasma, the picture quality looks crappy. OK, the picture is pretty good for a DVD concert, but computer animation may be the only HD picture that surpasses a well-shot sports event. The mix appears to be the same, yet SACD does a better job of reproducing the transients and dynamic range, which make the rears appear a bit more pronounced when the crowd gets boisterous.

Yes, it's great to see them perform. Still, the SACD is a far superior experience IF the music is what really matters. I'll be the first in line if this one comes out on Blu-Ray. Perhaps then, we can hear and see it in ALL its' glory.

My apologies that it took me a week to respond here. After many months of recovering from an injury, and practically living on QQ, I'm back to a very hectic schedule. I hadn't even logged in for the last 3 days!! Even that was from my phone. Likely this will be the norm in the forseeable future. (sorry,guys)

 

[Almen]

I would post pictures, but this thread doesn't allow attachments. My spectral frequency display shows the SACD goes to 34K Hz, while the DTS goes to 22K Hz. There is the typical SACD high frequency noise band from 28K to 38K Hz that seems to overlap true audio spikes in that area.

- Ben

Thanks. Do you have a regular waveform analysis to compare the dynamics, and to see any compression?

 

[Almen]

there are two meaning of "compressed" thus one should clarify which compression we're talking about

Well, volume knob and compression mentioned in the same paragraph - that's a give-away, isn't it?

 

[sukothai]

Thanks. Do you have a regular waveform analysis to compare the dynamics, and to see any compression?

The waveform shows no compression on either SACD or DTS. There are plenty of dynamics on both.

After listening to both versions all the way through yesterday, it is obvious we need a Blu-ray release of this title. The SACD is wonderful to listen to with an added sense of air and space to the performance. I know those terms are ambiguous, but I don't know how else to describe the difference between the SACD and the DTS. However, the DTS really makes the show more fun with the video along side the music. The DTS also includes a lot of stories, jokes and banter between songs not found on the SACD. I found myself smiling a lot more with the DTS, but with the SACD I put my head back, closed my eyes and let the music sink in.

 

[0tto]

Well, volume knob and compression mentioned in the same paragraph - that's a give-away, isn't it?

not really. beside compressor often apply tool, called limiter, which abruptly cuts the peak level.
compressor itself just increases chosen frequency band and being applied in smart way, didn't
harm the sound. limiter cuts the peaks of signal, thus decrease volume of loudest part, at same
time letting weakest parts of the sound to become more louder. that's what mainly kills the dynamic
of the sound, making all parts of the sound to be equally loud. usually this effect the folks call
"brickwalled' sound.

 

[Quad Linda]

40 odd years ago, I made some cassettes engaging the limiter switch on my Sony. That didn't last long, because I couldn't stand the way they sounded. My head was in a vice. No, the DTS didn't sound anywhere that bad, but the dynamic range seemed a bit less than the DSD.

"Vice? I have no vice. I'm as pure as the driven snow. " - Curly Howard (nyuk, nyuk)

 

[Almen]

The waveform shows no compression on either SACD or DTS. There are plenty of dynamics on both.

After listening to both versions all the way through yesterday, it is obvious we need a Blu-ray release of this title. The SACD is wonderful to listen to with an added sense of air and space to the performance. I know those terms are ambiguous, but I don't know how else to describe the difference between the SACD and the DTS. However, the DTS really makes the show more fun with the video along side the music. The DTS also includes a lot of stories, jokes and banter between songs not found on the SACD. I found myself smiling a lot more with the DTS, but with the SACD I put my head back, closed my eyes and let the music sink in.

Yeah, a Blu-ray I would purchase immediately!

Your comparison of the dynamics complies with my impression. Also, your description of the added "air and space" sounds like some SACDs I have, although in those cases in the long run it gets a bit annoying - I suspect it might be due to the excessive ultra noise.

 

[0tto]

No, the DTS didn't sound anywhere that bad, but the dynamic range seemed a bit less than the DSD.

i guess this pictures could be good example what happens with sound, after usage of the DD or DTS compression.
big chunk of info was cut off and losted during encoding, thus back to analog signal was converted only what remains.
that's why during playback of the same source side-by-side PCM (MLP, DSD) vs. DTS gives impression about that
something lacking in the DTS format, something sounds more artificially, un-natural.
perhaps that's what you experienced during comparison.

 

[Quad Linda]

Louder listening levels, hi-end equipment and advanced resolution audio (or video) all can often make us more aware of flaws and anomalies that can be masked by lesser technology. So, yes, air & space and other anomalies can get annoying. As they say, garbage in/garbage out.

 

[sukothai]

your description of the added "air and space" sounds like some SACDs I have, although in those cases in the long run it gets a bit annoying - I suspect it might be due to the excessive ultra noise.

I agree that SACD can get tiring after long listening sessions and I also agree the cause is likely the SACD ultra noise. In contrast, I get the same "air and space" sense from a good DVD-A without the ear fatigue.

 

[Fourplay]

Hey All,

I finally got this for $53 off Amazon. Having given it a spin, I am going to break with conventional wisdom and give this a 5. Yes, it is wonderful music and sonically pure, but this is a surround sound forum, and the mix is strictly audience/ambience. There is no music in the rears other than reverb, and to me this kills the deal as a surround title. On another thread we discussed Tangerine Dream videos, and these were roundly dismissed as weak mixes. Yet this title appears in the overall surround ratings as a 9.11. Really? Why does this one get such a huge pass while other recordings with the identical sort of mix are dismissed?

Again, not an attack on the music or the sonics, nor on those who love the SACD. Just saying as a surround mix it is uninteresting, and my rating reflects this.

As it happens, I listened to Agents of Fortune by Blue Oyster Cult tonight as well. While the surround mix is surely inconsistent, there is far more of interest occasionally going on in the surrounds on the BOC disc than the Krauss Live disc. Yet it rates an average 6.17. Hmmmm...

So as others have observed, buy the Alison Krauss for the sonics, the musical style and the performance, but not for the surround.

Ken

 

[fredblue]

Hey All,

I finally got this for $53 off Amazon. Having given it a spin, I am going to break with conventional wisdom and give this a 5. Yes, it is wonderful music and sonically pure, but this is a surround sound forum, and the mix is strictly audience/ambience. There is no music in the rears other than reverb, and to me this kills the deal as a surround title. On another thread we discussed Tangerine Dream videos, and these were roundly dismissed as weak mixes. Yet this title appears in the overall surround ratings as a 9.11. Really? Why does this one get such a huge pass while other recordings with the identical sort of mix are dismissed?

Again, not an attack on the music or the sonics, nor on those who love the SACD. Just saying as a surround mix it is uninteresting, and my rating reflects this.

As it happens, I listened to Agents of Fortune by Blue Oyster Cult tonight as well. While the surround mix is surely inconsistent, there is far more of interest occasionally going on in the surrounds on the BOC disc than the Krauss Live disc. Yet it rates an average 6.17. Hmmmm...

So as others have observed, buy the Alison Krauss for the sonics, the musical style and the performance, but not for the surround.

Ken

I don't think the Blue Oyster Cult SACD could be called top tier (surround mix or fidelity) but I feel its been pretty harshly judged over the years and that its certainly better than its 6.17 average on QQ would suggest.