Thread: Solti's Ring on SACD -- the ULTIMATE?!

Originally Posted by regnaDkciN

bigshot, do you agree with this? Also, as far as I can tell foobar only has one form of dither -- or am I missing something?

...

Unless you're playing 24bit audio on a 16bit card, there's no need to dither.

Edit: Just downsample your file with SoX (dithering is internal and taken care of), play it back in foobar with your sound card set to the higher resolution and sample rate of the two files.

For example, convert a 24bit/96kHz file to 16bit/48kHz, set your card to 24bit/96kHz output, fire up foobar with the ABX plugin and compare the two files... the sound card (or software? not sure) will pad the 16bit file to 24bit and will most likely oversample both files to well above 96kHz.

Originally Posted by bigshot

Early home audio DACs in CD players, etc. didn't oversample. Even the cheapest now performs as good as SACD at normal listening levels. Problems are rare.

Originally Posted by bachman

rofl. Bigshot says: "I'm not a crank".

Well, I don't think there can be any question that his first sentence is totally correct. The earliest generation of CD players -- the ones without oversampling -- sounded generally abysmal, to the extent that I found myself in total agreement with the "digital sucks" school of audiophilia. It was only when the first generation of oversampling DACs came out that it became clear that CDs could sound musical as well.

Originally Posted by Philip

Unless you're playing 24bit audio on a 16bit card, there's no need to dither.

I asked bigshot because he said, in the context of why the AES study showed that more people were able to detect a difference between 88.2 native and 44.1 downsampled from it than could detect a difference between 88.2 and 44.1 native recordings from the same feed, that dither was important. I assumed that he meant that the downsampling process used in the study may have introduced artifacts that made the difference more noticeable, and I wanted to make sure, should I run my own test, that I wouldn't be reproducing the same phenomenon.

Originally Posted by regnaDkciN

I asked bigshot because he said, in the context of why the AES study showed that more people were able to detect a difference between 88.2 native and 44.1 downsampled from it than could detect a difference between 88.2 and 44.1 native recordings from the same feed, that dither was important. I assumed that he meant that the downsampling process used in the study may have introduced artifacts that made the difference more noticeable, and I wanted to make sure, should I run my own test, that I wouldn't be reproducing the same phenomenon.

SoX is one of the most reputable tools out there. The study basically means nothing until they start repeating the outcome with a much more rigorous method and tools; they used a "professional" blackbox-type downsampler with no options, simply because that's what is often used in the industry. SoX is a full-featured open source software.

Originally Posted by Philip

SoX is one of the most reputable tools out there. The study basically means nothing until they start repeating the outcome with a much more rigorous method and tools; they used a "professional" blackbox-type downsampler with no options, simply because that's what is often used in the industry. SoX is a full-featured open source software.

I repeat my question...to bigshot.

Originally Posted by regnaDkciN

bigshot, do you agree with this? Also, as far as I can tell foobar only has one form of dither -- or am I missing something?

I'm afraid I'm a Mac guy, so I probably can't recommend software to you. At home, with my transfers of records, everything I do is redbook and I use Peak. I think it has different dithers, but I've neer had occasion to use them. The ProTools station I was using when I was doing production sound had a menu full of dithers, all designed for different purposes. I have to admit, I never had time to figure them all out because I had deadlines. I found the one I used through trial and error and just stuck with it. Sorry I can't be more help.

Originally Posted by regnaDkciN

I asked bigshot because he said, in the context of why the AES study showed that more people were able to detect a difference between 88.2 native and 44.1 downsampled from it than could detect a difference between 88.2 and 44.1 native recordings from the same feed, that dither was important.

I think that was Philip, not me. It's been my experience that redbook native is as transparent as downsampled 24 bit as long as you don't have to do any gross volume adjustments or filtering.

Oh, and please report back on your results...

Wow, nice to see so much activity on this thread I started way back.

Question for you all -- is the the new remastered Decca Solti Ring set worth it?
http://www.getmusic.com.au/sirgeorgs...tail?id=156372

$300 for this incredibly lavish set seems like a great deal to me.

Has anyone had a chance to sample this at all? Does the 24-bit remaster
make for a noticeable difference? I assume all you need is a regular stereo
system and no fancy-pancy SuperAudio player?

Thanks in advance!

Originally Posted by GrosseFugue

Wow, nice to see so much activity on this thread I started way back.

Question for you all -- is the the new remastered Decca Solti Ring set worth it?
http://www.getmusic.com.au/sirgeorgs...tail?id=156372

$300 for this incredibly lavish set seems like a great deal to me.

Has anyone had a chance to sample this at all? Does the 24-bit remaster
make for a noticeable difference? I assume all you need is a regular stereo
system and no fancy-pancy SuperAudio player?

Thanks in advance!

Well, there's no way of knowing yet, since the set won't be released until 8/31 (in Japan) and 9/3 (in Europe). I don't know if it's even going to be available domestically here, so you may have to order from one of those places.

The remastered CDs can be played on a "regular stereo system," however, the 24/96 disc requires an even-more-fancy-pancy Blu-Ray player hooked up to your system. Of course, if you've gone over all of this thread so far, you'll have noticed that several people here maintain that, for the final playback stage, 24/96 will sound no better than Redbook, while others disagree.

So, as of this moment, the jury is still very much out. We'll have to wait until the set starts shipping, and gets into the hands of audio-conscious listeners. Unfortunately, since the set may not be available in stores here, coupled with the decline in both the audiophile and classical-music print media, you're going to be unlikely to find a "front-page" advance review covering all the sonic details in a Stereophile or The Abso!ute Sound nowadays; instead, you'll have to eventually be getting your info from other Internet users of whom you know nothing.

Amfibius wrote on page one of this thread:
The Esoteric remaster was made in 2009. The Japanese engineers obtained the original master tapes from Decca and remastered it on DSD using their own equipment.

I reply:
I also had the SACD set from Esoteric that I bought when it first came out (the very first recording that I ever bought which actually appreciated in value). I just sold it to someone in anticipation of the Blu-Ray version. What Amfibus wrote was inaccurate. The Esoteric Company of Japan, after much prodding, after many lies and inferences, and after much deceptive advertising, admitted that the source of their SACD's was the 96/24 digital master prepared by Universal/Decca, NOT the unequalized analogue master tapes. I have a sneaking suspicion that they took that 96/24 digital master and converted it to DSD without doing much "mastering" at all. I believe that the Blu-Ray will have the same exact sound (or perhaps better since it didn't undergo a PCM->DSD conversion) than the Esoteric since they both derived from exactly the same digital masters.

Esoteric, in the best Japanese tradition, has found a way to deceive both their domestic and foreign customers by deceit. I must admit that I've paid out their $60.00 per SACD price for simple DSD transfers (as well as for the $800 Ring set), taken from digital masters, not the original analogue recordings. It's amazing how audiophiles (including myself) are willing to "walk into the lion's den" with their eyes and wallets wide open to buy crap that's purveyed by these charlatens such as Esoteric.

Originally Posted by feinstei

Amfibius wrote on page one of this thread:
The Esoteric remaster was made in 2009. The Japanese engineers obtained the original master tapes from Decca and remastered it on DSD using their own equipment.

I reply:
I also had the SACD set from Esoteric that I bought when it first came out (the very first recording that I ever bought which actually appreciated in value). I just sold it to someone in anticipation of the Blu-Ray version. What Amfibus wrote was inaccurate. The Esoteric Company of Japan, after much prodding, after many lies and inferences, and after much deceptive advertising, admitted that the source of their SACD's was the 96/24 digital master prepared by Universal/Decca, NOT the unequalized analogue master tapes. I have a sneaking suspicion that they took that 96/24 digital master and converted it to DSD without doing much "mastering" at all. I believe that the Blu-Ray will have the same exact sound (or perhaps better since it didn't undergo a PCM->DSD conversion) than the Esoteric since they both derived from exactly the same digital masters.

I have a strong suspicion that ALL dsd goes through pcm before it is pressed to sacd. It makes no sense to process audio in dsd, and i doubt very much that they would release a raw recording.

All of this is moot because redbook audio CD copies are just as good sounding as the original master tapes for normal listening.

Well, the set should be out by now -- anyone heard it yet?