Misrepresentation and Malfeasance By Audiophile Label Tech..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format
high resolution recordings has been the fact that the legacy (CD) and
high-resolution (DVD-A or SACD) portions of virtually all of these
recordings distributed until recently, have been produced in ways that are
sufficiently different that it is reasonable to expect them to sound
different. This audible difference would be aside from any purported
benefits of high resolution formats.

IOW, the high resolution layers sound different from the legacy format
layers because they were produced in such a way that they would sound
different, even if distributed in the same format. On the one hand they
invite comparison of the two formats, but behind the scenes they stack the
deck.

Here a well-known mastering engineer Steve Hoffman brags about a recording
he remastered for recent release:

http/www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=482300&postcount=174

"....those of you who have the SACD I mastered of Credence "Willie And The
Poor Boys", put on "FORTUNATE SON". Play the CD layer first and listen to
just the ECHO SEND on the drums on the intro of the song. When the snare
hits, the echo responds, correct? Now, switch over to the DSD layer and
listen to the same thing. Notice how you can now not only hear a bit more of
the echo, you can more clearly hear in what stereo direction it is going in
the sound picture? That is what I mean by MORE resolution on the DSD layer.
There can't be anything above 15k on that song; it's mainly midrange
energy."

Here's how Steve Hoffman describes how he produced the SACD and CD layers of
that release:

http/www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=482680&postcount=181

"The DSD and CD mastering was done at the same time via a split feed in the
studio."

This can be interpreted is a clear representation that the DVD and CD tracks
differ only in terms of their format.

I was recently made aware that this statement has been disputed by others.
After reviewing the following technical data, I'm prone to side with the
skeptics.

Background: In their day, CCW had a reputation for technically clean
productions. Willie and the Poor Boys was no doubt recorded using some of
the better staff, techniques and equipment that were available in 1969. I
presume that we're talking analog tape, and maybe 24 KHz bandpass.
Therefore, there's very little bandwidth in the original tracks that can't
be accurately reproduced by a traditional CD (22 KHz bandpass).

This might lead you to believe that the CD layer on Steve Hoffman's
production of this music is the same recording as the DVD layer, just with
less resolution.

Now, let's look at a technical analysis of this recording:

http/www.google.com/groups?selm=TZCCc.3%24v04.305%40news2.e.nsc.no&output=gplain

"thomh" <thom@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:I2fCc.9301$eH3.170111@news4.e.nsc.no

"I compared the CD and SACD layer of the song Fortunate Son off of Steve
Hoffman's Willie And The Poor Boys Analog Productions SACD. This is the song
from the SACD that was discussed in the link I provided.

"Notice from the JPG links that the CD layer is mastered quite hot. In fact,
it clips over 200 times.

"I believe Hoffman is too much of a pro to let this happen unintentionally.
This should NOT happen on an audiophile release IMO.

http/home.online.no/~thomh/Fortunate_Son_CD.JPG

http/home.online.no/~thomh/Fortunate_Son_SACD.JPG

"Anyway, here are the stats from the CD layer and SACD layer of Hoffman's
Fortunate Son mastering. These cannot be the same mastering, can they?

<Audition statistical analysis, 50 mSec windowing>

SACD
----

Min Sample Value: -32768 -30383
Max Sample Value: 32759 30397
Peak Amplitude: 0 dB -.65 dB
Possibly Clipped: 2 0
DC Offset: -.002 -.002
Minimum RMS Power: -96.34 dB -96.34 dB
Maximum RMS Power: -9.99 dB -10.24 dB
Average RMS Power: -17.44 dB -17.18 dB
Total RMS Power: -16.68 dB -16.52 dB
Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits

CD
--

Min Sample Value: -32768 -32768
Max Sample Value: 32767 32767
Peak Amplitude: 0 dB -.01 dB
Possibly Clipped: 226 50
DC Offset: -.001 .062
Minimum RMS Power: -69.89 dB -70.51 dB
Maximum RMS Power:-8.57 dB -8.75 dB
Average RMS Power: -16.13 dB -15.8 dB
Total RMS Power: -15.31 dB -15.09 dB
Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits

------------ end of Thomh's technical analysis and quotes on this topic from
his post ----------

I see no way that these recordings differ only in format. The Cd audio
version seems to be a clear victim of "pissing in the soup" I find the
apparent representations that they should be compared to be offensive, as
that would be an insult to the intelligence of any technically-minded
reader.

If you follow this link, you will find the details of similar apparent
malfeasance perpetrated by Michael Bishop of Telarc:

http/forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=4780

So the bottom line is that high resolution formats are being pushed by
record labels that doctor what might be comparable recordings of the same
basic work in such a way that they are likely to sound different, even if
they were recorded in the same format. And they compound these deceptions,
by publicly claiming that it doesn't make a difference or that there is in
fact no difference.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:35:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:
>One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format
>high resolution recordings has been the ...

The not so hidden secret is that way too many releases have been
identical in Red Book and "superior" formats.

A large part of the industry's push has clearly been their mistaken
belief that high res formats are copy-proof. Hence all
the restrictions about access to the digital data in
available players.

Compressing to death, deliberate overs, etc. are problems
across the board. I used to have hopes that
people would notice and complain. I don't hold that
anymore. I"m not sure anyone (at mass market quantities) listens
to music anymore.


Pat http/www.pfarrell.com/prc/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news8idnSUMN4J7hkHd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of
dual-format
--- snips stuff ----
> presume that we're talking analog tape, and maybe 24 KHz bandpass.
> Therefore, there's very little bandwidth in the original tracks that can't
> be accurately reproduced by a traditional CD (22 KHz bandpass).
---- Snips stuff -----

So how does the SACD or the CD for that matter, compare to the original
issue analog LP?

Carl

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

This one has been beaten to death. Vinyl is so flawed and inconsistent a
medium that it doesn't even belong in the same discussion as properly
implemented CD technology.
Not to say that some records may not sound "better" than a given CD release,
but the reasons include using heavily EQ'd vinyl masters for the CD release,
natural variations in cartridge / tonearm combinations AND SETUPS of same.
The discussion goes on and on, and has been addressed in many threads in the
past.
By all means listen to your albums and enjoy them, but a CD release using
the same original master, not EQ'd for vinyl, and properly produced for no
clipping etc, simply isn't even in the same class.
Our ears are analog however, so the frequency response problems, ringing
effects, harmonic distortion etc can be quite pleasing on a given record,
and some people prefer it, and the nostalgia, as well as just preferring to
state a contrary opinion when the subject comes up.

Mark Z.

--
Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.


"Carl Valle" <cwvalle@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:fcMDc.9217$Ug.267@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news8idnSUMN4J7hkHd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> > One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of
> dual-format
> --- snips stuff ----
> > presume that we're talking analog tape, and maybe 24 KHz bandpass.
> > Therefore, there's very little bandwidth in the original tracks that
can't
> > be accurately reproduced by a traditional CD (22 KHz bandpass).
> ---- Snips stuff -----
>
> So how does the SACD or the CD for that matter, compare to the original
> issue analog LP?
>
> Carl
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Carl Valle" <cwvalle@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:fcMDc.9217$Ug.267@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news8idnSUMN4J7hkHd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>> One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of
> dual-format
> --- snips stuff ----
>> presume that we're talking analog tape, and maybe 24 KHz bandpass.
>> Therefore, there's very little bandwidth in the original tracks that
>> can't be accurately reproduced by a traditional CD (22 KHz bandpass).
> ---- Snips stuff -----

> So how does the SACD or the CD for that matter, compare to the
> original issue analog LP?

Given the abundant fragility, inconsistency and egregious built-in flaws,
the origional issue analog LP is a very poor choice of a standard. The
original 2-track mixdown would be a better choice.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:35:14 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

> One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format
> high resolution recordings has been the fact that the legacy (CD) and
> high-resolution (DVD-A or SACD) portions of virtually all of these
> recordings distributed until recently, have been produced in ways that are
> sufficiently different that it is reasonable to expect them to sound
> different. This audible difference would be aside from any purported
> benefits of high resolution formats.
>
> IOW, the high resolution layers sound different from the legacy format
> layers because they were produced in such a way that they would sound
> different, even if distributed in the same format. On the one hand they
> invite comparison of the two formats, but behind the scenes they stack the
> deck.

So, what do you get when you convert the DVD-A or SACD audio to 16-bit,
44.1KHz? If you A-B it with the original CD layer, which sounds better?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"RobbH" <rh3@operamail.com> wrote in message
news64otuya2c6u.p7i6rbeu2p20$.dlg@40tude.net
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:35:14 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of
>> dual-format high resolution recordings has been the fact that the
>> legacy (CD) and high-resolution (DVD-A or SACD) portions of
>> virtually all of these recordings distributed until recently, have
>> been produced in ways that are sufficiently different that it is
>> reasonable to expect them to sound different. This audible
>> difference would be aside from any purported benefits of high
>> resolution formats.
>>
>> IOW, the high resolution layers sound different from the legacy
>> format layers because they were produced in such a way that they
>> would sound different, even if distributed in the same format. On
>> the one hand they invite comparison of the two formats, but behind
>> the scenes they stack the deck.
>
> So, what do you get when you convert the DVD-A or SACD audio to
> 16-bit, 44.1KHz? If you A-B it with the original CD layer, which sounds
> better?

In a nutshell, the DVD-A or SACD layer has and/or the CD layer are altered
in such a way that there is no simple transformation like conversion to 16
bits, that will make them sound the same.

More significantly, if you take the DVD-A or SACD layer and convert it to
16/44, the 16/44 version won't sound any different from the high-bitrate
DVD-A or SACD origional.

You can find examples of origional recordings made in the DVD-A format of
24/96 stereo, and downconverted to various vastly lower bitrates for you to
compare for yourself, at
http/www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm . This site also
provides a number of Double Blind Test Comparators, which will enable you to
perform highly-controlled bias-controlled listening tests, if you have a PC
with a high-bitrate audio interface.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"RobbH" <rh3@operamail.com> wrote in message
news64otuya2c6u.p7i6rbeu2p20$.dlg@40tude.net...
> So, what do you get when you convert the DVD-A or SACD audio to 16-bit,
> 44.1KHz? If you A-B it with the original CD layer, which sounds better?

Whichever mastering decisions you prefer obviously.
More to the point, if you ABX it with the DVDA/SACD layer, can you tell the
difference?

TonyP.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Mark D. Zacharias" <mzacharias@yis.us> wrote in message news:<2ka4a5F19udq7U1@uni-berlin.de>...
> This one has been beaten to death. Vinyl is so flawed and inconsistent a
> medium that it doesn't even belong in the same discussion as properly
> implemented CD technology.

CDs are flawed as well in several other ways.

> Not to say that some records may not sound "better" than a given CD release,
> but the reasons include using heavily EQ'd vinyl masters for the CD release,
> natural variations in cartridge / tonearm combinations AND SETUPS of same.
> The discussion goes on and on, and has been addressed in many threads in the
> past.
> By all means listen to your albums and enjoy them, but a CD release using
> the same original master, not EQ'd for vinyl, and properly produced for no
> clipping etc, simply isn't even in the same class.
> Our ears are analog however,
So are our voices, our musical instruments, and all our other senses.


so the frequency response problems, ringing
> effects, harmonic distortion etc can be quite pleasing on a given record,
> and some people prefer it, and the nostalgia, as well as just preferring to
> state a contrary opinion when the subject comes up.

A few things that your eval does not mention:

1. The vinyl was usually mastered from 2 track mixdown on tapes that
were recently recorded and not very old. The CD may have been mastered
ten, twenty, fifty years later. Some vintages of tape have not aged
well-particularly from the mid-70s to the mid-80s.

2. The vinyl was mastered by people that in most cases knew what they
were doing on a technology that was at or close to its zenith. The CD
may have been mastered by people that did not understand the CD
process very well, on bad-sounding ADCs, or people that were simply
inept or unconcerned.

3.Albums recorded in the "vinyl era" were engineered, produced, mixed
down and mastered by people who understood the record-making process
quite well and made a lot of decisions on the basis of what they
figured would work well and not well on the finished vinyl product.
It's like printing Ansel Adams photos via offset litho-Adams
understood his films and papers intimately and you are reproducing
them in a different medium. Inherently, something is lost.

4. In some cases, the material is only available on vinyl, or the
available CD is made from-believe it or not-playing the extant vinyl.

5. Finally, although vinyl is good for a finite number of plays, its
shelf life is effectively infinite if properly stored. CDs are not
affected by playing but they are probably good only for 50 years at
the most. Many early CDs are apparently now unplayable, especially in
their outer tracks.

The record industry would have been better served by an analog
optical format, and probably audiophiles as well.

___________________________________________________________________

Putting MM on the dime would serve a lot of purposes. It would
displace the devious FDR, send a signal to the Islamist world, make
the currency more attractive, and be a thorn in the ass to the Kennedy
Family, to name four good ones.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Very interesting observations. Very little to really quibble with, unless I
wanted to just argue vs another persons opinions, which I try not to do.

I might have gone into some of this a bit more myself, except as I said, the
subject has really been beaten to death.


Mark Z.


"Sam Byrams" <samdotbyrams@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d792394d.0407062116.7e439012@posting.google.com...
> "Mark D. Zacharias" <mzacharias@yis.us> wrote in message
news:<2ka4a5F19udq7U1@uni-berlin.de>...
> > This one has been beaten to death. Vinyl is so flawed and inconsistent a
> > medium that it doesn't even belong in the same discussion as properly
> > implemented CD technology.
>
> CDs are flawed as well in several other ways.
>
> > Not to say that some records may not sound "better" than a given CD
release,
> > but the reasons include using heavily EQ'd vinyl masters for the CD
release,
> > natural variations in cartridge / tonearm combinations AND SETUPS of
same.
> > The discussion goes on and on, and has been addressed in many threads in
the
> > past.
> > By all means listen to your albums and enjoy them, but a CD release
using
> > the same original master, not EQ'd for vinyl, and properly produced for
no
> > clipping etc, simply isn't even in the same class.
> > Our ears are analog however,
> So are our voices, our musical instruments, and all our other senses.
>
>
> so the frequency response problems, ringing
> > effects, harmonic distortion etc can be quite pleasing on a given
record,
> > and some people prefer it, and the nostalgia, as well as just preferring
to
> > state a contrary opinion when the subject comes up.
>
> A few things that your eval does not mention:
>
> 1. The vinyl was usually mastered from 2 track mixdown on tapes that
> were recently recorded and not very old. The CD may have been mastered
> ten, twenty, fifty years later. Some vintages of tape have not aged
> well-particularly from the mid-70s to the mid-80s.
>
> 2. The vinyl was mastered by people that in most cases knew what they
> were doing on a technology that was at or close to its zenith. The CD
> may have been mastered by people that did not understand the CD
> process very well, on bad-sounding ADCs, or people that were simply
> inept or unconcerned.
>
> 3.Albums recorded in the "vinyl era" were engineered, produced, mixed
> down and mastered by people who understood the record-making process
> quite well and made a lot of decisions on the basis of what they
> figured would work well and not well on the finished vinyl product.
> It's like printing Ansel Adams photos via offset litho-Adams
> understood his films and papers intimately and you are reproducing
> them in a different medium. Inherently, something is lost.
>
> 4. In some cases, the material is only available on vinyl, or the
> available CD is made from-believe it or not-playing the extant vinyl.
>
> 5. Finally, although vinyl is good for a finite number of plays, its
> shelf life is effectively infinite if properly stored. CDs are not
> affected by playing but they are probably good only for 50 years at
> the most. Many early CDs are apparently now unplayable, especially in
> their outer tracks.
>
> The record industry would have been better served by an analog
> optical format, and probably audiophiles as well.
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Putting MM on the dime would serve a lot of purposes. It would
> displace the devious FDR, send a signal to the Islamist world, make
> the currency more attractive, and be a thorn in the ass to the Kennedy
> Family, to name four good ones.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Sam Byrams" <samdotbyrams@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d792394d.0407062116.7e439012@posting.google.com...
> "Mark D. Zacharias" <mzacharias@yis.us> wrote in message
news:<2ka4a5F19udq7U1@uni-berlin.de>...
> > This one has been beaten to death. Vinyl is so flawed and inconsistent a
> > medium that it doesn't even belong in the same discussion as properly
> > implemented CD technology.
>
> CDs are flawed as well in several other ways.

Of course, but better than really necessary, and FAR better than vinyl..

> > Our ears are analog however,
> So are our voices, our musical instruments, and all our other senses.

And so is the output from any CD player DAC. Your point is?

> 1. The vinyl was usually mastered from 2 track mixdown on tapes that
> were recently recorded and not very old. The CD may have been mastered
> ten, twenty, fifty years later. Some vintages of tape have not aged
> well-particularly from the mid-70s to the mid-80s.

Yes, CD has a much better chance of lasting a lot longer. And can be copied
as many times as necessary WITHOUT any loss of data (unlike tape or vinyl)

> 2. The vinyl was mastered by people that in most cases knew what they
> were doing on a technology that was at or close to its zenith. The CD
> may have been mastered by people that did not understand the CD
> process very well, on bad-sounding ADCs, or people that were simply
> inept or unconcerned.

Yes for all media types.

> 3.Albums recorded in the "vinyl era" were engineered, produced, mixed
> down and mastered by people who understood the record-making process
> quite well and made a lot of decisions on the basis of what they
> figured would work well and not well on the finished vinyl product.
> It's like printing Ansel Adams photos via offset litho-Adams
> understood his films and papers intimately and you are reproducing
> them in a different medium. Inherently, something is lost.

Ansel used the tools he had at the time. I can well imagine a digitally
scanned print copy from one of his plates being superior to an old, torn,
water stained etc. print. And certainly better than a new photo taken of the
old print.

> 4. In some cases, the material is only available on vinyl, or the
> available CD is made from-believe it or not-playing the extant vinyl.

Yep, and have often improved such copies over the original vinyl. If the
original master tapes no longer exist, how can you compare CD with them?

> 5. Finally, although vinyl is good for a finite number of plays, its
> shelf life is effectively infinite if properly stored. CDs are not
> affected by playing but they are probably good only for 50 years at
> the most. Many early CDs are apparently now unplayable, especially in
> their outer tracks.

I have hundreds from the early eighties, NONE are unplayable in any way. (OK
one had errors when bought, so did ALL of my viny records)
Your proof of life span is where?
Both formats can probably outlast the ability to play them, however digital
can be transferred without loss to any new format as desired. Not so vinyl
or analog tape.

> The record industry would have been better served by an analog
> optical format, and probably audiophiles as well.

Only the morons, which is probably quite a few I admit.

TonyP.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:n3ese0p2m2024g4k0ak3278f35aem3fk0i@4ax.com...
> But most of those you mention are artists of the '50s and '60s - so
> their old master tapes are better than any available vinyl.

Not necessarily. Some of the old master tapes are pretty bad, conversely
there are some records around that have never been played. And in general,
vinyl records last much longer without degradation, when not played, than
analog tapes.

Digital on the other hand could be copied from one format to another for
Millenia/Eons (till the next ice age anyway) without ANY loss of quality.

> Agreed, with good-quality replay gear. However, where do you find
> albums from the '70s that have been played only a couple of times on
> high-quality decks?

I have hundreds, so do many others. I used to tape them to R2R and cassette
then store them away in sealed bags. Something I don't need to do now with
CD, thank god. And MANY of my CD's are replacements for those same vinyl
records I still have, and never play. And yes, a few of them are so badly
remastered that I did it myself from the vinyl, rather than listen to the
CD.
But the medium itself is SO much better, that arguing about it is just
amazing, or amusing.

TonyP.