Slashdot Mirror
Super Audio CDs Rolling Your Way
donutello writes "Slate is running an article about the Rolling Stones Remastered series discs having two layers: CD and SACD. The article contains some interesting information about how Sony is sneakily distributing SACD players without the buyers noticing it. This FAQ provides some information about SACDs. Don't expect to be able to play or reproduce these on your computer anytime soon. The SACD format contains a physical watermark on the disc. SACD players will only play discs with valid watermarks. Music watermarks had two opponents: The audiophiles who didn't like their music distorted and people who didn't like the watermarks preventing copying of the music. With the physical watermarks, they have found a way to appease the former while still stopping the latter thus causing a break in the ranks of the opposition."
>Thank you for the very informative post. I'd give it a +5 if I could.
.)
>EVERY "vinyl is better" fanatic should read this.
Thanks! Glad you found it to be of some use.
Actually, I can think of several reasons for preferring the "sound" of vinyl, but none of them have to do with its superior *fidelity*:
* The dynamic range is compressed, sometimes pretty severely at certain frequencies. This can make it easier to hear certain soft details that might be obscure on a CD, particularly if your hearing isn't perfect (and most Americans have pretty poor hearing, due to all the loud noises we're exposed to during our lifetimes, particularly amplified music). For example, I've heard vinyl lovers say they've been able to hear the air conditioning in a concert hall from a quality, virgin vinyl pressing on a high-end turntable. While such feats are possible with CDs (if you crank the volume during a quiet passage - CD's 90dB dynamic range makes it possible to hear all sorts of otherwise inaudible background noise if you crank the volume high enough), it's simply impossible with vinyl's 60dB of dynamic range (max) unless the material was compressed before being mastered. (Well, I suppose if the concert hall had an amazingly noisy air conditioning system . . .
* The music is typically heavily equalized by the mastering engineer. Not only do these guys compensate for the limits of the vinyl format (for example, eliminating any loud low bass that could pop the mastering cutter right out of its groove - not to mention your poor stylus), they frequently "sweeten" the sound to suit their own tastes.
* The high end hiss, high-frequency clicks and pops and high-frequency harmonics generated by the stylus and pickup as they vibrate enhance the perceived high-midrange and treble response. While the hiss and clicks can be annoying when the music is soft, when it's loud the music pretty well drowns them out as distinct entities, and your ear perceives them as part of the high-end of the music. Harmonics also increase as the music grows louder, further enhancing the apparent high-end. I suspect this accounts for why many vinyl enthusiasts say CDs sound "flat" to them. They do!
You can demonstrate this effect for yourself - generate or record some white noise extending out to at least 20kHz, then filter everything below about 5000 Hz by around 20dB. Finally, mix this in with some audio recorded off of CD (make it a CD that you own, in order to avoid the wrath of the RIAA!). Experiment with the levels until you find you can no longer hear the hiss as a distinct component of the overall sound during the louder passages of the song. Finally, compare the original to the "hissy" version. You'll find that the original sounds dull in comparison, with a flat high end. This is one of the reasons why audio cassettes sounded so flat when you used Dolby noise reduction. People thought the Dolby killed the high frequency response of the tapes. While Dolby did dull the high end a little bit, that wasn't responsible for most of the perceived reduction. All that hiss on cassettes made it sound like there was more high frequency signal recorded on the tape than was actually present, and when that noise was squashed, the sound was very dull compared to a cassette without noise reduction. Of course, the loud hiss was so annoying in the softer passages, most people were willing to put up with the perceived high frequency reduction in trade for effective hiss mitigation.
Unfortunately for certain overly-enthusiastic vinyl lovers, CDs sound more like the original master tapes than vinyl, and that's the true meaning of fidelity. Folks may prefer the sound of a low-fidelity medium for any number of reasons, and that's their business. But trying to pass off a medium with inherently poor fidelity as somehow superior to a higher-fidelity medium is just wrong.
I've been "into" home audio as a hobby since I fixed my uncle's broken Magnavox turntable when I was 5. That same uncle had a friend when I was in high school who was a big audiophile - he was invited by Rockford Fosgate to go to the 1985 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, and I got to tag along. It was like being a kid in a candy store (literally, I suppose!). I used to look at catalogs and visit the local audiophile shops whenever I got a chance. I even subscribed to the late, lamented Stereo Review for over half a decade - longer than I've ever subscribed to any other magazine - and graduated from college with a degree in broadcasting (though I now perform business intelligence work - no oxymoron jokes, please).
My own stereo system is very modest, though. I'm far more interested in bang for the buck, and am far too cheap to blow more than $500 on any single piece of equipment (I'd have to win the lottery first). I've seen so-called audiophiles spend thousands on crap I wouldn't donate to the Salvation Army. Ultimately, it's about the music for me - not the technology. And I have no need to show off with my money, unlike a lot of rich idiots out there who must have 2" peckers.
My knowledge isn't so impressive - I know just enough to find more detailed information on the Internet (a legacy of my business intelligence background I suppose - dig through the database for more relevant information). For example, I knew the microphone the Beatles used is still in heavy use today for vocal recording, but couldn't remember its name. Once I tracked its name down, it was easy to get the specs on it, and confirm a couple of hunches I had, based on my past experience shopping for a microphone - namely, that mics with anything like a usable frequency response out to 20kHz are rare as hen's teeth and hellishly expensive, and that the most commonly-used studio mics are physically incapable of recording the vinyl-fanatics' much-cited "ultrasonic information".
The Internet can be a great tool for debunking junk science, marketing spin and urban myths, if you're willing to expend a little effort. Unfortunately, it can also be a great tool for spreading them, with little effort . . .