Stones SACDs - the verdict on the mastering quality?

Not that way at all Chris, please read above.

 

That isn't what happened, though. Andreas said you must have misunderstood Roland, and you disagreed:

Again, you're trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. Everyone was talking about *mastering* differences, including you:

Boosting the top end is a *mastering* difference that can *always* be verified through a tool like EAC.

Can variations in *pressings* of identical data alter the sound? Apparently so. That doesn't invalidate anything that has been said here though.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't rely on "unless you don't believe Barry Diament", either, Dave. I believe Barry has stated that CD-Rs can sound *better* than the originals, yet I've seen you argue that that isn't possible.

 

I'd also point out the subject of this thread is "mastering quality". CDs that contain identical data contain the same mastering. Whether an issue with the *pressing* can affect the quality is another topic.

 

I have a question, and pardon the lack of technical knowledge. If I understand this correctly, people here believe that if one pressing is bit-identical to another, then the sound will be identical, correct? Under this theory, is the quality of the material that is used to manufacture the CD irrelevant to audio quality? Instinctively, that sounds wrong.

In Japan, SHM-CD's, which feature an "advanced polycarbonate layer" are very popular -- all the claims of the manufacturers are specious?

 

CDs from Japan may be of supposed higher quality due to marketing schemes, but as long as they are bit-wise identical, the sounds produced should be too.

If that's not true, the DCCs pressed from Japan would be different from DCCs pressed in the USA. I would like to hear someone substantiate that fact.

 

I don't believe that has been put forward in this thread, nor am I suggesting it at this time.

EDIT: I see the post immediately before mine (but after yours) put forward this suggestion.

I'm kind of amazed this keeps coming up.

Instinctively to me, the material shouldn't matter at all, as long as everything is within reasonable tolerances. If I type "1" on a typewriter and write "1" in chalk on the sidewalk, is the "1" on the typewriter somehow better or more accurate than the one on the sidewalk? "1" + "1" always equals "2", does it not?

In theory, as long as the data can reliably be read from the disc, the pressing material, glass master speed, etc., shouldn't make any difference. And with the right equipment, this is apparently possible.

However, there's an "x factor" that, to my knowledge, is as of yet unknown, that can manifest itself as differences in sound, even when the data is the same. One theory I've seen is that the physical differences cause the servo to react differently, which in turn causes fluctuations to the power supply, which alters the sound. I don't believe that has been substantiated, however, nor do I believe anyone has figured out *why* this happens.

 

If two digitally identical CDs sound different, then the CD player is doing something it wasn't designed to do IMO. I've been there; my old Sony CD player was bizarre in this regard. But why should the computer have to recreate a phenomenon that crops up in CD players ? Do all CD players do this? Of those that do, will they all make the CDs sound different in the same way? I would have thought that the ability of a computer to tell it like it is and eliminate player based varibles would be more desirable.

Now lets look at that last paragraph in full:

If Barry levelled that criticism at a computer, then I missed it. I do note he is an advocate of using a computer to play wavs from CDs to determine if the discs contain the same mastering or not. The abridged version of what Barry posted (with regards to discs containing a mastering he did):

Here's the thread:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...d.php?t=122097

 

Hi Chris,

Are you referring only to digital compression when you say "None of the Stones SACD are compressed"?

If you have some inside knowledge, please share it if you can.
I strongly suspect that statement is incorrect.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Wow, thanks for that. Specifically (all quotes from Barry):

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=2770242&postcount=28

"This weekend, I hope to have some time checking these out a bit more and subjecting them to the "big" system, where I'm sure the differences will be more easily heard than the system I've used so far (where the differences were immediate -- as in the first bell at the start of the record)."

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=2771587&postcount=71

"Geez, even in the car they don't sound the same!"

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=2775599&postcount=108

"And now, the bottom line: I was wrong.
On the big system, I could not reliably tell the files apart. Switching between them made no change in the sound. These are both from the same mastering - my mastering. When I subjected the files to my own analysis tools, this was reinforced."

As I've said before, I won't suggest that different pressings can sound different, but I will question anyone that suggests that this is "good" or "correct". If I'm reading Barry correctly, both CDs - when copied to his hard drive - sounded correct on his big system. Why on earth would anyone want a system where one sounds wrong?

 

Did Dave say Roland did the changes in EAC? Roland wouldn't use EAC for that, would he? (Is that even possible? I don't have EAC).

Most members only use the peak levels to determine how something sounds. They don't do cancellation tests from what I am reading.


Hey Luke, welcome back. Long time no see. All we need is John Cantrell back. Where is he these days?

 

Taking a break.

 

That was my impression (emphasis mine):

And, no, I'm not aware of that being possible in EAC.

You may follow things more closely than I do, but my impression is people use peak levels as a tool to help determine if multiple discs contain the same mastering. A guide, if you will, that can easily be compared. Obviously something like the "compare WAVs" function is necessary for an accurate comparison. I don't think people are saying "hey, this disc has these peak levels, therefore it sounds good".

Thanks.

 

Yes, I'm only referring to digital compression. Of course, analog compression was adding during mixing back in the 60's. Bob Ludwig has said he used some analog compression on some of the tapes when mastering the SACD's.

 

I believe some compression was used - just far less than most modern CDs.

Whether it is enough to matter to you or not is a personal matter I suppose...

 

Is see. Maybe a slight rewrite. I'll switch the word "and" for a whole new meaning:

"Not true. Roland in another thread talks about how he boosted, ever so slightly, the top end on a file and using EAC when compared to the original showed no difference what so ever".

Dave, check your post before you hit "submit". One word out of order and look what happens. Not an easy mistake to forgive.

 

Hi Dave,

First, thank you for your confidence but my reports are based on what I hear. I can't speak for anyone else and certainly don't present my findings as Universal Truth - for anyone but me.

If folks hear the same thing (as many of my friends and colleagues do) great but as we know from this forum alone, many folks will hear it differently.

Now, as to what a computer program can or can't do, I must say there are some programs I trust to tell me if one digital file contains the same data as another digital file. (I do not use EAC, which while it has its uses, does not serve this particular purpose.)

I also find these useful for seeing just how bad most audio software is, including a lot used in professional situations (much of it can't pass a "bit clean" 24-bit signal).

What I don't use them for is to tell me what I hear.
There is still much debate about whether two files -or two disks- containing the same data can sound different. Interestingly, I don't see this debate among mastering engineers who get to listen to master tapes and the CDs resulting from their work every day of the week.

Often, I'll hear a pressing and within the first few notes say "What'd they do to the master?". Many pressings sound so different from the sound I hear in the mastering studio, no A/B is necessary other than to confirm what I already know. Yet a look at the data shows a full match with the CD master on the hard disk or with the CD-R ref I always make for myself at each session.
Yes, CD pressing plants must be chosen as carefully as vinyl pressing plants. Some do a distinctly better job than others.

***

Sorry for the digression from the topic. I was reading through this thread and just want to be clear and avoid any misunderstanding. I hope I've done this.

To get back on topic, as to the Stone's disks, I've got 'em all and enjoy them for what they are.
I've never felt any Stones recording might be confused with something Keith Johnson did.
I also have a UK London pressing of "High Tide, Green Grass". Haven't heard it in years. Sometimes I wish I still had a turntable (long story for another time).

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Barry

 

Hi Luke,

Keep rubbing it in.
I was wrong. I said as much for all to see.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Do you mean you simply don't use EAC to do this, or EAC *can't* do this? Because it most certainly can.

 

That honestly wasn't my intention, Barry. Rather it was to highlight the issue that has (once again) come to the forefront.

 

Barry, could you clarify this a little for us, please? It could be taken to mean that you don't use computers to evaluate sound quality. Is this what you meant? Thanks!

 

Emphasis is mine in the above quote. There is NO debate amongst scientists/engineers/rational people that digitally identically files sound exactly the same on a computer. This place is the only place where this topic comes up over and over again.

I think some people here need to go to college and take a few math/science classes to understand how computers, CDs, checksums, error correction, etc. work.

 

Conceptually and scientifically, yes, actually. I mean, the claims themselves may not be specious per-se...if the claim is "they improve reflectivity" and they do, that isn't specious. If the claim is "and this makes a lick of difference"....well, that's another story.

 

Hi Luke,

I don't use EAC.
Do you use it to flip the polarity of a file, slip it against another and see if they cancel?

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Hi Saatvik,

Perhaps I was not clear. When I said there is no debate among those who master records for a living, I did not mean to imply this is because they don't hear a difference. On the contrary, it is because they know that a pressed CD does not sound like the master they send to the replication facility. They also know that file comparisons will show these are bit identical.

Theory is very interesting and checksums are good for ensuring the plant uses the same data the mastering engineer intends for them to use in manufacturing the disks. But how these disks compare sonically to the masters from which they are made is another story altogether.

Have you ever sent a master to a replication facility and compared what comes back with what you sent?
Have you ever compared any CD to the master from which it was made?

The argument that they "can't" sound different invariably comes only from those who cannot answer "yes" to either of the above questions. It assumes we already know everything there is to know. When I meet someone who believes he can't learn anything new, I always agree.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

I can't tell you exactly how the internal logic works, but I believe it simply compares the values of the samples in the two files, sample by sample. If there's an offset (say one file has 50 samples of leading silence, followed by data identical to the other file), it will indicate as such.

I *have* seen it get tripped up if the offsets are too large, so it is helpful to have another way to compare things if necessary, but if it says two files are identical, I've got no reason to believe they aren't.