Crystal Disc US$1600 was played with Genesis Speaker

Call me dense : What does AQ stands for ? AudioQuest?

AS for the worth of the Crustal disc> The answer doesn't surprise me or I 'll surmise, anyone who has been following this thread.

I was under the impression from posts made at the beginning of this thread that the Crystal Disc could not be ripped or did I mis-read

FrantzM said:

Call me dense : What does AQ stands for ? AudioQuest?

AS for the worth of the Crustal disc> The answer doesn't surprise me or I 'll surmise, anyone who has been following this thread.

Click to expand...

i just want to be clear that my answer to your question is only for me....it's not "the Answer".

it's an answer.

and my little world has so many format choices that others might not have. so my answer is in that context and only in that context.

Steve Williams said:

I was under the impression from posts made at the beginning of this thread that the Crystal Disc could not be ripped or did I mis-read

Click to expand...

for Bruce, if his gear can read it, he can rip it.

Steve Williams said:

I saw that Mike but what was the AQ disc used as #1? Did it also come from Andy

Audioquest??

Click to expand...

The AQCD came from Andy too - it stands for Analog Quality CD. It is a process that has its genesis in this: http://genesisloudspeakers.com/archive/Black_CD_Paper_v1.pdf

On page two - Arnie Nudell is holding one of the first versions of it. I thought that the factories that could make these "black" CDs had closed down over 5 years ago, until Andy gave me one of his AQCDs and I was quite astonished.

so was the AQCD a better sounding disc than the crystal disc

Thanks for that link Gary . All very interesting

Steve Williams said:

so was the AQCD a better sounding disc than the crystal disc

Click to expand...

at this point based on listening yesterday, i'd call the AQCD different sounding than the Crystal Disc. and that I preferred the Crystal Disc to the AQCD for that session and recording.

OTOH if we were comparing a number of recordings, some analog based, some dsd mastered, with different types of music in my system I would not be surprised if I overall preferred the AQCD to the Crystal Disc. but this is just a SWAG based on what I heard.

that is the best I can say based on what my ears heard.

I suspect that other recordings especially mastered in analog would allow the attributes of the AQCD process to rise above the Crystal Disc. but i'm not 100% certain of that.

maybe Gary has experience with AQCD and could offer his opinion.

garylkoh said:

The AQCD came from Andy too - it stands for Analog Quality CD.

Click to expand...

This will drive some of digital boys straight to the nut house! Analog Quality CD! Ya gotta love it.

Mike Lavigne said:

at this point based on listening yesterday, i'd call the AQCD different sounding than the Crystal Disc. and that I preferred the Crystal Disc to the AQCD for that session and recording.

OTOH if we were comparing a number of recordings, some analog based, some dsd mastered, with different types of music in my system I would not be surprised if I overall preferred the AQCD to the Crystal Disc. but this is just a SWAG based on what I heard.

that is the best I can say based on what my ears heard.

I suspect that other recordings especially mastered in analog would allow the attributes of the AQCD process to rise above the Crystal Disc. but i'm not 100% certain of that.

maybe Gary has experience with AQCD and could offer his opinion.

Click to expand...

I think Mike's comments are appropriate....

In the end, the group agreed that our findings could well be unique to that particular system in that particular room. As Gary mentioned, this was unfamiliar Chinese music, using unfamiliar instruments performed an unfamiliar musical scale. I'm uncertain if this helped or hindered our analysis.

Keep in mind Bruce's analysis; the recording seemed a little 'hot'; especially on the top end. This could account for my personal preference on one track; some instruments were preferred on one disc, i.e. percussion, while woodwinds were preferred on another disc.

Certainly there was discussion about the qualities of each disc, however, the group did achieve amiable consensus. Ergo, the dynamics of group decision making were definitely present. Individuals might well have had slightly different opinions.

Mike Lavigne said:

based on my personal experience and format listening choices the glass disc does not present a rational cost-benefit relationship. I liked what it did, and what the copy of it that Bruce made did......on this recording. but the dsd files were better even on this recording.

so no, it's not worth $1600 to me personally.

however; we are not the target of this product. the Asian market is focused on CD and a physical disc fixation. and owning the best, newest, 'special' thing. and I see that in that particular situation the glass disc does deliver on a high quality performance. if my world was CD only, and I just had to have the best, then this product seems to deliver. so I do see it's place in that particular 'fish bowl'.

Click to expand...

Mike,

The DSD were remasters, if you had to pay for all Bruce work in this session, thinks would not be so easy. For me as soon as I read remaster I think apples versus oranges, and it seems you oranges are fabulous...

Anyway it is not clear for me what was the original version that Bruce used as a source for his remasters - perhaps we can ask him to go this subject. Also I would like to know exactly what was done at "remaster" to obtain these DSD recordings.

This whole thread will drive the objectivists and the digititists into a feeding frenzy. I have no wish to turn the clock back 10 years where I got no end of abuse from the "bits are bits" crowd who insisted that the absolutely insane notion of making "better" copies could make absolutely no difference in the sound, and then they turned around to say that they made a copy and it sounded worse than the original. Bruce had confirmed that the CDs are identical, and they null to infinity. The digital files recorded are identical - so the "bits are bits" crowd should be hearing that the discs are identical. Unfortunately, if any of them were around yesterday, they didn't say anything.

Bruce had brought his identical Playback Designs player, and we initially thought that we could quickly switch between two discs. However, the first time we switched, the difference was so huge and startling that jazdoc and I said that there was too much of a difference. We attributed this to the fact that different interconnects were used between the identical players and the preamp. So, the "cables sound alike" crowd will need to check out or re-examine their beliefs. I didn't hear any cries of anguish yesterday.....

Which meant that the 5 of us at the session were the "listening and feeling" crowd.......

Based on yesterdays session, I felt that #1 sounded warmer and richer than the more accurate and more highly resolved #3. I did not like #1 as the bamboo flute on one of the tracks caused a jarring resonance in my ear canal. However, I have heard a real bamboo flute do this to me and I mistakenly thought that it was the more accurate until we played the DSD master and this resonance did not materialize. Nevertheless, overall for this particular album, I would have preferred #1 because the warm richness gives the Chinese instruments a body that made music more pleasurable.

Overall, though, if it was for a wide genre of music my preferred format would have been #3. #4 was very, very close to #3, but had some of the characteristics of #1. However, for me it was a case where it was not warm and rich enough to be more pleasurable, but lost some of the resolution and detail that attracted me with #3.

The music from #3 also seemed to me more relaxed. It's as if the musicians were not as tense and stressed when they were performing. For me at least, the reason why I rejected #2 and #5 most easily was because I felt tense with the music. Part of this tension was also in #1 - which is why I stated that if it was a format to put all the music I listen to from jazz to classical to EDM, I would go with #3 as my format of choice.

Even when we were comparing the DSD source to #3 (this was not blind as the DSD source was about 2 dB softer), there was detail in #3 that resolved better. In particular, on one of the tracks what we initially thought was a rain stick turned out to be a bunch of bamboo sticks that was "swept" by the percussion player (I guess that only Andy can verify this). I could hear easily the sway of the sticks on #3, whereas the DSD source sounded more like a muffled rainstick.

The best thing that I took away from yesterdays session was the spirited and objective discussion of what we heard, and the friendship and camaraderie of like-minded music lovers. So, all in all, it was a good time to be had spent being away from my young and beautiful trophy wife

Steve Williams said:

I was under the impression from posts made at the beginning of this thread that the Crystal Disc could not be ripped or did I mis-read

Click to expand...

The Crystal Disc is Redbook. So, it can be ripped and played like any other CD. However, as was stated in the White Paper I linked earlier (and the later 3 generations of that paper) the process of ripping and burning makes a difference. With the development of EAC and dbPowerAmp, the ripping process is made much easier, but the burning process still makes a big difference in the quality.

Steve, I'm coming to your room in a few days. PM me a list of some of your favorite CDs and if I have one or more of them, I'll burn you a "better" version (I promise that it will be bit-for-bit identical) and we can have some fun next Saturday.

sounds like fun Gary

I will be intouch

I would like to thank Bruce for putting this event together and Mike for hosting. It was an interesting exercise and a fun get together.

In order of preference I liked 1,3,4,2 of the redbook CD's. From my listening position #1 sounded like it had more space around the instruments and more clarity than the other disc's. #1 also stood out as being more different sounding than the others for some reason. #3 was very good also but less defined than #1. The DSD files played from the server where very good but at a little bit different volume so it was difficult for me to come to a conclusion on were to rank them.

We all listened from different positions from each other and stayed in those positions for the whole test. I sat in the back on the right hand side. I may have come to different conclusions if I had sat in a different location.

I had not done any test on cd's like this myself before so I did not know what to expect. I was surprised by the differences in the different disc's. I expected to hear little difference if any but differences were easy to hear. That's my 2 cents.

Andy, I hope you and yours make it though the storm safely.

Cheers.

-

First, thank you gentlemen for the sharing of your overall impressions. :b ...I gained something valuable from reading them.

* Am I right; from left to right:
Sean A (blue shirt with white stripes) - Gary K (biggest smile with teeth showing) - Bruce B (analog shirt) - Mike L (black shorts) ?
{And jazdoc is behind the camera taking that picture?}

P.S. Is there also a video of that meeting & experimenting (DBT)?

I am curious to know what the effect on the sound is when you rip these discs to files? Do they still sound different from each other or do they all sound the same after that?

audioarcher said:

I am curious to know what the effect on the sound is when you rip these discs to files? Do they still sound different from each other or do they all sound the same after that?

Click to expand...

of course they sound different... we're Audiophiles!!

Ripping to the discs to a computer makes them all sound the same, but different from the discs, in a subjectively better way.