Post by sacdscor April 20, 2004 (11 of 14)
|
|
nora10040 said:
For sure.
20 years ago, when CD was introduced, everybody asked you:
is your equipment ready for CD ?
Especially low frequencies cannot do any harm neither to your amp nor to your speakers. If your amp (and I don´t think your musical fidelity has any problems with it) isn´t capable of low frequencies beyond 15 Hz, the unit simply will not amplify these frequencies. There is furthermore no danger that your speakers can be damaged (that would be a problem, if your amp went into High-frequency clipping due to overload).
Ask Marantz, why cheap units with built-in CD/DVD/SACD players at 300 EUR overall price including speakers are sold as SACD ready?
I´m sure this is a price everyone who is addicted to music spends for speaker cables.
So don´t worry and much fun with your SACD.
So basically the answer is that no damage will be done to speakers that do not reproduce frequencies above 20-30khz? My follow-up question based upon this answer is: Will speakers manufactured to reproduce frequencies up to 70khz really add that much more to fidelity of the recordings?
|
|
|
Post by Khorn April 20, 2004 (12 of 14)
|
|
Remember, the custom setting effects SACD playback only. My machine has four "other" filter settings for redbook CD playback. Believe it or not I prefer the "standard" or "brick wall" filter choice of those four.
Most have chosen the custom SACD setting after trying but, I suppose it would be system dependent as well as personal choice.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp April 21, 2004 (13 of 14)
|
|
sacdscor said:
So basically the answer is that no damage will be done to speakers that do not reproduce frequencies above 20-30khz? My follow-up question based upon this answer is: Will speakers manufactured to reproduce frequencies up to 70khz really add that much more to fidelity of the recordings?
scor,
Could you fry a tweeter with too much persistent HF information? Sure, but people have been blowing tweeters long before SACD.
For your follow-up question I offer this observation that is not scientific but seems consistent. All the equipment I have in my studio that will pass 80 or 100k sounds _much_ better than equipment that is flat to 20k. Bigger, fuller, more 3-dimensional. This could be because the designers of this equipment also care about all the other aspects of their designs and just build better boxes. IOW, the higher frequency response may not be the direct cause of the desireable effect.
Based on the sheer number of times I've seen this phenomenon and (as mentioned above) the fact that I can easily hear the difference in the Marantz "ultrasonic" filter, my guess is that you could indeed hear a difference with a wider-bandwidth speaker.
I hasten to add that you may or may not like the difference. If the guys on the front end were recording and mixing with 2 fewer octaves on the tip-top, they might have created something that will sound screechy to you.
This is the subject of hot debate in recording circles, but the manufacturers of the best gear and the makers of the best recordings are almost all in the camp of "we don't know why it sounds better with the 'inaudible' information intact, but it does definitely sound better."
|
|
|
Post by mdt April 22, 2004 (14 of 14)
|
|
Dan Popp said:
scor,
Could you fry a tweeter with too much persistent HF information? Sure, but people have been blowing tweeters long before SACD.
For your follow-up question I offer this observation that is not scientific but seems consistent. All the equipment I have in my studio that will pass 80 or 100k sounds _much_ better than equipment that is flat to 20k. Bigger, fuller, more 3-dimensional. This could be because the designers of this equipment also care about all the other aspects of their designs and just build better boxes. IOW, the higher frequency response may not be the direct cause of the desireable effect.
Based on the sheer number of times I've seen this phenomenon and (as mentioned above) the fact that I can easily hear the difference in the Marantz "ultrasonic" filter, my guess is that you could indeed hear a difference with a wider-bandwidth speaker.
I hasten to add that you may or may not like the difference. If the guys on the front end were recording and mixing with 2 fewer octaves on the tip-top, they might have created something that will sound screechy to you.
This is the subject of hot debate in recording circles, but the manufacturers of the best gear and the makers of the best recordings are almost all in the camp of "we don't know why it sounds better with the 'inaudible' information intact, but it does definitely sound better."
When driving 100 km/h in a car that could do 200 km/h or in one that can just do those 100 km/h, which will be the safer an more comfortable ride ?
|
|
