Esoteric SA-50 SACD player

[deepak]

That graphic is a crock of shit because that signal would have to be down in the -90db range to be that small. I don't own and DCC stuff but my impression is that lots of "well mastered" stuff has compression issues.

All I'm saying is that it's very likely don't like the data that's on the CD not that it's more accurate to the original source. A whole lot of people hear what you hear and don't like it but it's not the CD players fault it's the mastering. If your player smooths this and you like it fine but it's not more accurate to the recorded media (I can't speak to the original source material).

Yes I know the image is grossly distorted, running a GIS I couldn't find a better image of a RBCD sine wave.

The DCC Gold CDs use no compression in the digital or analog domain. You can pop into the Steve Hoffman forums and ask him yourself if you doubt this.

Did you hear the SA-50? Or was it the older SA-60 or DV-60 or even older DV-50? Just wondering as the SA-50 is pretty damn new. Oh, and the DCC stuff I have seems to be very well mastered and isn't overly compressed (in general).

You are correct I listened to the SA-60 and the DVD-V playing variant

Dreadhead which Esoteric players have you listened to to defend them so much?

Edited April 20, 2009 by deepak

[Dreadhead]

Yes I know the image is grossly distorted, running a GIS I couldn't find a better image of a RBCD sine wave.

The DCC Gold CDs use no compression in the digital or analog domain. You can pop into the Steve Hoffman forums and ask him yourself if you doubt this.

Really, the ADC's don't have build in compressors like nearly all of them do?

When were these CD's made? It appears to be in the 90's, there is also a particularly annoying harshness that some of the older ADCs had that comes through a lot of the time.

I haven't heard the Esoterics and I can entirely believe their players sound like crap. I'm just talking in general because what you describe falls squarely within what most people call the "digital sound".

Edited April 20, 2009 by Dreadhead

[Dreadhead]

somebody share a DCC sample with this poor ignorant heathen.

Please

[grawk]

as soon as my idisk syncs up, I have the dcc vs original versions of the beach boys, caroline no up

[grawk]

you have email chris

[deepak]

Really, the ADC's don't have build in compressors like nearly all of them do?

When were these CD's made? It appears to be in the 90's, there is also a particularly annoying harshness that some of the older ADCs had that comes through a lot of the time.

I haven't heard the Esoterics and I can entirely believe their players sound like crap. I'm just talking in general because what you describe falls squarely within what most people call the "digital sound".

When you said "well recorded and mastered stuff", I took it as compression that isn't added by the hand of the mastering engineer.

I assure you there is no harshness in the DCC CDs, and there wasn't any harshness in the Esoteric gear with them either. I just don't think the Esoteric players I have heard, sound natural tonally even with reference level CDs.

The DCC CDs were made in the 90s. However the music on his current label- Audio Fidelity sounds just as good as those 90s CDs and they were released between 2005- present day.

[Dreadhead]

you have email chris

Thanks Dan. I am comparing away now. The DCC is slightly louder (3dB or so) and enhanced in the bass and highs but as Deepak says it isn't close to needing compression.

I'm not entirely sure after 3 minutes that I don't prefer the original. That said it certainly is wonderfully mastered.

[deepak]

as soon as my idisk syncs up, I have the dcc vs original versions of the beach boys, caroline no up

Ehh, Pet Sounds isn't an audiophile recording, IMO the DCC Gold disc is fairly average in showing off sound quality.

I can see Dreadhead being unimpressed

Here is a sample from Miles Davis - Cookin' With the Miles Davis Quintet. 1950s hard bop, so maybe I'm shooting myself in the foot by saying this is well recorded (oh well at least it's well mastered)

Send big files the easy way. Files too large for email attachments? No problem!

[morphsci]

Ehh, Pet Sounds isn't an audiophile recording, ....

[Dreadhead]

Hoffman uses shatki stones for me that throws the entire thing into doubt. I also have noticed there appears to be a bit more distortion on the DCC master than the original Dan sent me. The highs are also up as well as the background noise. I've used ABX and it's definitely the case. I wish the foobar ABX did exact volume matching.

The jazz is sounding good. Unfortunately I don't have Deepak's ears/sensibilites to really know exactly what he's having issue with but when he said "newer digital devices" I thought I knew what he was talking about.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Dreadhead

[grawk]

Pet Sounds is perhaps the best recorded album I've ever heard, so I don't know how you get much more audiophile than that.

[AlanY]

I assure you there is no harshness in the DCC CDs, and there wasn't any harshness in the Esoteric gear with them either. I just don't think the Esoteric players I have heard, sound natural tonally even with reference level CDs.

This is the thing. Esoteric gear isn't harsh. It's just bone dry.

[Hopstretch]

Hoffman uses shtaki stones

Shakti Innovations

Only to make his car go faster.

[deepak]

Pet Sounds is perhaps the best recorded album I've ever heard, so I don't know how you get much more audiophile than that.

The music is great and it is meticulously arranged, but the sound quality has never blown me away.

Let me add this- I have only heard the mono (obviously the reference) versions on headphones. This goes against what you'd think, but I've preferred the majority of mono mixes I've heard on good speakers instead.

Edited April 20, 2009 by deepak

[grawk]

I guess we look for different things in recordings, because to my ears, it doesn't really get better than that for studio albums. Music completely aside.

[Dreadhead]

Only to make his car go faster.

:D:D:D

[Dusty Chalk]

What? I assumed you meant that the instruments compressed the music

Actually, you can do that. It's called "there's only so many molecules of air". Edited April 20, 2009 by Dusty Chalk

[Dusty Chalk]

Then again it could be the Esoteric being true to the RB 44.1 KHz sampling rate in which case it will make any RBCD sound like shit anyway

Uh, no. That's just marketing propaganda -- the output of any but incorrectly designed CD players should filter that signal, and it should never look like juxtapozed square waves. If one were to compare the filtered signals of each, they'd be much closer. Edited April 20, 2009 by Dusty Chalk

[morphsci]

with woodwinds it's called "i can only blow so hard."

That's what she said ... Ba-dump

it's wonderful music, but it's horribly recorded, from a fidelity stand point.....

Edited April 20, 2009 by morphsci

[aerius]

When were these CD's made? It appears to be in the 90's, there is also a particularly annoying harshness that some of the older ADCs had that comes through a lot of the time.

I haven't heard the Esoterics and I can entirely believe their players sound like crap. I'm just talking in general because what you describe falls squarely within what most people call the "digital sound".

I've heard more CD players than I care to count, the main issue I have with many (not all) of the CDP's which emphasize detail retrieval & accuracy is that they aren't. Accurate that is. To use a visual analogy, what they're doing in my opinion is taking a photo and really cranking up the sharpening filter and giving the contrast a good bump. This will make the picture look super-sharp and reveal every little detail, but it's not accurate and isn't a true to life reproduction of the original picture. Edges are unnaturally outlined, colours look wrong, and subtle shadings & tonal changes are gone.

It's much the same way in the audio world, push for ultimate detail retrieval and the tonal aspects of the music usually suffer and it ends up sounding dry & unnatural. The best gear can excel in both aspects but it's very rare.

Also, obligatory sample of good recording & mastering quality.

CJ - Blues sample

[Dreadhead]

The difference in audio compared to optical is that our eyes unfortunately outperform the ability of the system to capture the information (well if we are cropping and or using sharpening). Our ears unfortunately don't.

I'm not arguing that it's more accurate to the original band I'm just saying it's what's on the CD (good or bad).

For an example of a wonderfully recorded and mastered classical cd I will use the Linn recording of the SCO playing Motzart's symphonies (I have the hi-rez download). That CD/SACD was recorded well, has an insane amounts of detail, is accurate and isn't digital sounding at all with even the most "digital" sounding DAC.

That's the problem with accurate DACs, 95% of the stuff out there has flaws and they go ahead and point it out. I personally rather see the flaws and ignore them (I have no problem enjoying music even when there is obvious distortion and or other problems). To use a visual reference I would rather see the actresses flaws and still think she's beautiful than have Vaseline on the lens. YMMV

[aerius]

The difference in audio compared to optical is that our eyes unfortunately outperform the ability of the system to capture the information (well if we are cropping and or using sharpening). Our ears unfortunately don't.

I'm not arguing that it's more accurate to the original band I'm just saying it's what's on the CD (good or bad).

I couldn't disagree with that more, especially since I've had a few opportunities thanks to one of the local audio guys to compare the direct microphone feed in his recording studio to the 24/192 master and the 16/44 CD. The direct feed & master were fairly close on the studio's monitor setup, but the CD is like trying to compare the resolution of a good DSLR to that of the Gigapixel camera. Not even close. Hi-res would be the equivalent of a good 5x7 or 8x10 large format camera, damn good, but still not as good as 9x18.

[Dreadhead]

I couldn't disagree with that more, especially since I've had a few opportunities thanks to one of the local audio guys to compare the direct microphone feed in his recording studio to the 24/192 master and the 16/44 CD. The direct feed & master were fairly close on the studio's monitor setup, but the CD is like trying to compare the resolution of a good DSLR to that of the Gigapixel camera. Not even close. Hi-res would be the equivalent of a good 5x7 or 8x10 large format camera, damn good, but still not as good as 9x18.

[morphsci]

I couldn't disagree with that more, especially since I've had a few opportunities thanks to one of the local audio guys to compare the direct microphone feed in his recording studio to the 24/192 master and the 16/44 CD. The direct feed & master were fairly close on the studio's monitor setup, but the CD is like trying to compare the resolution of a good DSLR to that of the Gigapixel camera. Not even close. Hi-res would be the equivalent of a good 5x7 or 8x10 large format camera, damn good, but still not as good as 9x18.

x2

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Icarium]

That's the problem with accurate DACs, 95% of the stuff out there has flaws and they go ahead and point it out. I personally rather see the flaws and ignore them (I have no problem enjoying music even when there is obvious distortion and or other problems). To use a visual reference I would rather see the actresses flaws and still think she's beautiful than have Vaseline on the lens. YMMV

This seems in contrast with your take on the two versions of Pet Sounds where you did not prefer the DCC version with its added distortion/less nice percussion which was probably from the original master tapes.