Post by tiggers April 4, 2008 (11 of 71)
|
|
"As to human hearing and the supposed benefits of much higher sampling rates (48 kHz, 96 kHz and higher vs the standard CD rate of 44.1 khz/16-bit) there isn't any point, because the conventional 44.1 kHz sampling rate of standard CD recordings will fully cover the uppermost limits of human hearing. Indeed, after our teen years, most males can't hear anything above 15 kHz. Not that it matters, because there is little or no musical information of interest in those ultra-high frequencies."
The only point I have with this statement, or am I reading it wrong, but I believe 48khz (or 44.1 or 96) sampling rate is not the same as the sound that is reproduced at 48khz, as implied by the article. Rather, it is the frequency at which a data point is sampled to make a curve of information (i.e. sound wave). Where as bits (16bit, 20, 24, etc) is how much data is sampled at each time.
Right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
dkdc said:
Anyone have any research to counter this info - and to support my investment in SACDs?
From http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=200060#Post200060
As to human hearing and the supposed benefits of much higher sampling rates (48 kHz, 96 kHz and higher vs the standard CD rate of 44.1 khz/16-bit) there isn't any point, because the conventional 44.1 kHz sampling rate of standard CD recordings will fully cover the uppermost limits of human hearing. Indeed, after our teen years, most males can't hear anything above 15 kHz. Not that it matters, because there is little or no musical information of interest in those ultra-high frequencies.
The best DVD-A and SACD recordings sound "better" to many enthusiasts mostly because greater care is taken in the recording and engineering. These formats also permit a bigger dynamic range, but even here, conventional CD will cover the audible dynamic range of the most extreme orchestral or instrumental dynamics.
In fact, a recent study presented at a meeting of the Audio Engineering Society showed that a large sample of recording engineers and enthusiasts were unable to detect the presence of a 44.1-kHz, 16-bit A-to-D and D-to-A converter in a line-level music signal. ---->>>> In other words, they couldn't distinguish any difference in standard CD recording and the high sampling rate DVD-A and SACD standards.
Rather than believe others, why not try listening for yourself?
If you go here: http://www.freemosquitoringtone.org/ one can have some basic understanding of your own ears response to various high pitch frequencies (subject of course to the limitations of the sound card and speakers attached to your computer).
Yes, most adult humans cannot consciously hear much above 20kHz (or thereabouts) but that is not to say that we cannot hear the frequencies far above that level unconsciously#. For those that do react positively to the enhanced reproduction - great. If you don't - never mind. In either case, the sound of an SACD is far more detailed (which is highly desirable in almost all but the most basic non-acoustic music) and is the easiest and cheapest way to upgrade your listening experience (and that is before getting immersed in MCH).
Secondly, a RBCD cannot adequately reproduce the dynamic range of a great orchestra; this explains why many recordings of the BPO and VPO amongst others sound no better than ensembles that can't get bookings in my local concert hall. It certainly cannot properly reproduce the ambience of the acoustic - a fault of all non-surround sound recordings.
Thirdly, greater care *needs* to be taken with hi-resolution formats, because the faults are more audible. This is why the engineers take greater care. Bear in mind that in a stereo (layer of a) disc, the acoustic information is blended with the sound of the instruments intentionally to give a sense of the space - in a MCH recording, this narrowing of depth is simply not needed. This blurs the sound of the instruments in any stereo medium (hi or low resolution).
Fourthly, just because some (self-proclaimed) "golden ears" can't tell the difference between MP3's and SACD's doesn't mean others can't or won't. As with any purchase that one hopes to derive a great deal of usage and satisfaction from, one should try before you buy and ignore what anyone else tells you...
#: If you've ever had the pleasure of messing about with a beautifully tuned grand piano, you will know that they contain harmonics far above the notional range of the pitches for which there are keys...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suggestion (to the OP):
Have a look at /faq#audio4 -- "Wasn't CD supposed to deliver perfect sound?"
|
|
|
Post by eesau April 4, 2008 (14 of 71)
|
|
The Seventh Taylor said:
Suggestion (to the OP):
Have a look at /faq#audio4 -- "Wasn't CD supposed to deliver perfect sound?"
Oh boy ... now that you remind me about this again ... I think ... DVD-A is much better that SACD/DSD ... but let's just forget that bull shit ... I don't think I can tell the difference in real double blind testing after all.
Esa
|
|
|
|
|
|
EVERY review I have read for my speakers, which contain a super-tweeter which allows signals over 20kHz, state that with the super-tweeters covered, there was something "missing" from the sound. In other words, higher-than-directly audible frequencies add a tangible "sparkle" to the treble.
So it's not jsut about the resolution of SACD - extended frequncy response DOES make a difference - and to normal CD's too.
|
|
|
Post by Karlosak April 4, 2008 (16 of 71)
|
|
dkdc said:
...Not that it matters, because there is little or no musical information of interest in those ultra-high frequencies...
I suggest reading this insightful, albeit a bit technical paper "There's life above 20 kilohertz" : http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've forgotten the numbers stated, but wasn't there something on the thread about DXD and also in some other threads indicating that the sampling frequency has to be several times the highest notes humans can hear, in order to avoid "brick wall" filters common to rbcd that account for most of the deficiencies in rbcd sound? I seem to recall something like 384K samples per second being the minimum necessary.
|
|
|
Post by dkdc April 4, 2008 (18 of 71)
|
|
Hmmm - well thanks for all the responses. And all civil! Well done!
A lot to mull over. I suppose there is no definitive proof of either position at present.
At least with SACDs and DVD-As you do usually get well done production/engineering and true surround sound. So, it ends up sounding better if only for those reasons.
I have seen some other technical writing that would prove that one can hear a difference with higher resolutions. I guess I will leave the question open in my mind for now.
|
|
|
Post by raffells April 5, 2008 (19 of 71)
|
|
dkdc said:
Hmmm - well thanks for all the responses. And all civil! Well done!
A lot to mull over. I suppose there is no definitive proof of either position at present.
At least with SACDs and DVD-As you do usually get well done production/engineering and true surround sound. So, it ends up sounding better if only for those reasons.
I have seen some other technical writing that would prove that one can hear a difference with higher resolutions. I guess I will leave the question open in my mind for now.
Interesting posting.
Whilst you sit in judgement of the whole great debate I would suggest you try to consider extracting facts from opinions as a basis for your great pronouncement.
A set of tests done on people to see if they respond to known scientific different recording and playback techniques is A MEASUREMENT OF THOSE TESTED and not the systems.......FACT.
The interpretation of the statistics gathered IF ANY ONE PERSON can identify the differences then becomes JUST AN OPINION.This opinion, even based on scientific facts will be variable. EG. If the random sample people ar specifically good listeners and the the majority of the listeners readily identify the superior version.Then the resulting interpretation that the super version IS beneficial IS TOTALLY Irrelevant to those who cannot hear the difference. FACT .
The interpretation for those tested that, It is not a worthwhile improvement is a marketing/investment type decision rather than an exact scientific assesment.To any of those listeners who could identify improvements AT ANY TIME then those listeners would benefit even if only occasionally.
As regards your statement,proof of position ?
You will now see that both are correct.You could take the whole judgement a bit further and say.Lets test a gang of deaf muzzos with MP3 and compare them against normal CD. Again would the results be relevant when they cannot hear the difference readily..NOT really.
I emphasize Normal CD as I have observed some people mistakingly stating that these test proved NORMAL CD was compared.I dont think it is.
Your final statement is wrong.Think about it.There are just as many if not more reasons for a multi session recording to go wrong.Some of the worst discs I have are DVDA because the higher resolution only highlights the failings.
Amongst the responses you have had to this thread,I would sugget you take heed and LISTEN FOR YOURSELF. If you hear the difference its worthwhile.If you dont IT COULD BE YOU and therefore not worthwhile.
I would also repectfully suggest suggest you do not sit in Judgement on those who DO find a benefit. Dave
|
|
|
Post by Julien April 5, 2008 (20 of 71)
|
|
Raffels, good post my friend. I also urge people not to go to far with these comparisons. In stereo, as better as SACD can be than CD, even a very good 4000$ Marantz SA11 playing SACD will not fare well against the best CD players on the market. It will be a lot worse on every aspect. Because apart from some ultra high frequencies the amount of information coming out of even mid-priced SACD player is far from the amount of information there is even on a CD. Change just one pair of cables and you might hear a difference similar to the CD/SACD difference you heard.
The potential of SACD on stereo is a lot bigger that CD, it just will be obvious on some players and not on some others. If you really want to experience something closer to a live experience for not too much money, then I agree with Poly mch is the way to go. It is literally a lot more information than stereo. But every time I've seen people trying to set a multichannel system here in China, it sounded awful. I would come, change a few things, and it would sound great.
My experience is that I think multi channel is very hard to sound properly in a small room. Because you have to be so close to the speakers that there is no way you forget about their existence, which basically means loosing the whole point of it. You just hear the speakers too much.
|
|
