Post by Tobias April 6, 2008 (31 of 71)
|
|
GROOT GELUID said:
It is interesting to read the reactions on this forum of SA-CD enthusiasts. There are lots of acoustical and psycho acoustical explainations to why SA-CD and higher resolution pcm sounds better than CD quality (pcm 16bit, 44.1kHz sampling). And having been part of the devolopment of the SA-CD format, I have witnessed many listening tests where my colleagues and myself were able to identify the difference between the different formats. It is still obvious when we make dsd recordings or pcm at 24 bit, 88.2kHz, that when we make the sample rate conversion to 16 bit, 44.1kHz, that the sound quality suffers. This is not in the imagination.
Maybe you should team up with Meyer and Moron to find out why their test subjects failed to detect an audible difference between the high-resolution signal and the down-sampled signal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave, You said:
" It has been stated before that the acoustic of a recording venue and reverberation etc was more often a criticism of a recording,rightly or wrongly.That applies equally on stereo Cds,so the capability of adding or subtracting any amount at the time of recording is easily possible as well you are aware.If you are trying to tell me this information suddendly becomes BETTER when its piped along rear channels?."
Although commonly used to quickly name the aural component under discussion, "rear" isn't really correct as the proper speaker location at 105 degrees is to the rear and side and the corresponding microphone(s)are assigned the task of capturing reflections from the rear and side.
The correct answer to your question is obviously YES, it becomes significantly and outstandingly BETTER if that information under consideration had its origin as acoustic reflections from the rear and or side of the chosen image center or listening seat. When that information that originated from the rear or sides is conveyed from the front, it contributes an "error" because it is misplaced.
Also, certainly you realize that several pipes transmitting the same volume experience less resistance in each pipe - this is true of fluid mechanics as well as of electricity.
Properly realized surround sound is a huge advance toward the realization of reproduction of concert hall sound.
Finally I think your dismissive statement to Groot Geluid: "and one that you would expect from someone who is in your position." is inappropriate. His position as a pioneer of one the biggest advances ever in reproduced sound (of course you fail to recognize that) deserves more respect.
|
|
|
Post by raffells April 6, 2008 (33 of 71)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
Dave, You said:
" It has been stated before that the acoustic of a recording venue and reverberation etc was more often a criticism of a recording,rightly or wrongly.That applies equally on stereo Cds,so the capability of adding or subtracting any amount at the time of recording is easily possible as well you are aware.If you are trying to tell me this information suddendly becomes BETTER when its piped along rear channels?."
Although commonly used to quickly name the aural component under discussion, "rear" isn't really correct as the proper speaker location at 105 degrees is to the rear and side and the corresponding microphone(s)are assigned the task of capturing reflections from the rear and side.
The correct answer to your question is obviously YES, it becomes significantly and outstandingly BETTER if that information under consideration had its origin as acoustic reflections from the rear and or side of the chosen image center or listening seat. When that information that originated from the rear or sides is conveyed from the front, it contributes an "error" because it is misplaced.
Also, certainly you realize that several pipes transmitting the same volume experience less resistance in each pipe - this is true of fluid mechanics as well as of electricity.
Properly realized surround sound is a huge advance toward the realization of reproduction of concert hall sound.
Finally I think your dismissive statement to Groot Geluid: "and one that you would expect from someone who is in your position." is inappropriate. His position as a pioneer of one the biggest advances ever in reproduced sound (of course you fail to recognize that) deserves more respect.
A number of corrections to your thinking or lack of it are required.
Stereo playing a a normal listening room also produces reflective sounds which are added to and can cause even more confusion to an image.Again this is for someone who seems to be obssesed by the room acoustics rather than the music.
You statement about pipe flow is totally laughable.
I know you have little electtronic understanding but I doubt if anyone who has even a basic understanding of it or how much headroom there is even in the present mono recording system will be rolling over in stitches.
You comments might apply to a limited CD system BUT this is not what you are arguing about unless you are getting even mre confused and desperate to prove you incorrect statements.
Another of your misunderstandings is about my response to GG.
His position is obvious as a person who is joining a forum on equal status to other forumites and is in the business to promote his product.
I have spent too many years involved with people and developers of hifi and very rarely will they ever admit to anything that doesnt promote their philosiphy even when they know the facts.Neither are they averse to making statements that are hype.
IF you surround fanatics want to continue adding the word better at every opportunity then you wont mind stereoites referring to the surround systems as inferior on every occasion.
Then we will have lowered the level of discussions to what you want and what YOU keep doing.
Im sure you may be able to understand this..
|
|
|
Post by Daland April 6, 2008 (34 of 71)
|
|
raffells said:
Another of your misunderstandings is about my response to GG.
His position is obvious as a person who is joining a forum on equal status to other forumites and is in the business to promote his product.
I have spent too many years involved with people and developers of hifi and very rarely will they ever admit to anything that doesnt promote their philosiphy even when they know the facts.Neither are they averse to making statements that are hype.
You have not refuted a single argument put forward by GG. Your reply was unfair und tactless. Ironically, you have described here your own attitude because you are one of those people who will rarely "admit to anything that does not promote their philosophy even when they know the facts".
I collect SACDs regardless of whether they are stereo or multi-channel (the term "surround sound" is misleading). Both have their merits, but it is clear to me that multi-channel often adds a new dimension to the sonic experience.
It is also disingenuous to claim that those who prefer multi-channel recordings attach more importance to the sound than to the music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am skeptical of any benefit to producing pitches above about 20khz, but I can still tell very quickly whether something is an original SACD or an otherwise identical DSD to CD master. It may very well be that a super high-end DAC could make the CD sound as good, but not many SACDs are avail on DSD mastered CDs anyway so I am happy to pay SACD prices for the better mastering and ability to sound great on even a super cheap player (SACDs on my oppo 970hd sound way better than cds on it or cds on my linn classik or 16/44 files played through my ak4396 based e-mu 0404 DAC). Ultimately, I think SACDs are what CDs were supposed to be, the last copy you will ever need to have of a particular mastering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffells said:
Interesting response and one that you would expect from someone who is in your position. However.
If you consider you remarks that there are sonic errors in a two channel system because of the inherent limitations of the systems ability to seperate the details? (piping) Im afraid the use of 5 or more channels could equally be used against your argument.ie surround could be worse. Same applies to your later statement.
If you read my statement I partiulaly make reference to the quality of the systems capabilities.I would agree that correctly compare two systems the same exteme lengths of quality would have to be spent on each part of both sysems,hence mby 2 to 3 times the cost comment.There is no evidence of that by some of those participating in the surround discussions?
The main objections I have is the constant misuse by surround enthusiasts is the frequent misuse of the term Better.NOT A FACT an opinion often erroneously stated. Its just a different sonic presentation. Nothing more.
The fact that some people enjoy a surround presentation is often that reason.Its different.
I do as well.Mainly I like to listen to the Music.Have become less intereted over time in sound effects.
I also dislike some surround presentations when its obviously wrong,similairly I dont like some stereo hi res presentations BUT I DONT STATE THAT THE STEREO sytem is worse or better from these occasional recordings.
It has been stated before that the acoustic of a recording venue and reverberation etc was more often a criticism of a recording,rightly or wrongly.That applies equally on stereo Cds,so the capability of adding or subtracting any amount at the time of recording is easily possible as well you are aware.If you are trying to tell me this information suddendly becomes BETTER when its piped along rear channels?.
You can quite clearly see from within these threads that some people have the MUSIC as their priority,others the presentation.I have found over the many years that music will be the long term winner.
To dismiss all who listen in surround as not interested in music is ridiculous. I don't know anyone who disliked the RCA Living Stereo 3 channel SACDs simply because of the fact they were originally recorded in such a way. I also would love to have the enormous catalog of 4 channel recordings from the 70s available to us. However, I love music...period and I buy recordings because I love to hear great performances in surround, stereo, mono, etc. As for people who tell those who love multichannel that stereo is better, it too is an opinion and not a fact. Get over yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Geir April 7, 2008 (37 of 71)
|
|
dkdc said:
...
The best DVD-A and SACD recordings sound "better" to many enthusiasts mostly because greater care is taken in the recording and engineering.
...
As for classical hybrid SACDs, why would that be? Most people, including many reviewers, will listen to the CD-layer; I just can't see any reason why they would not be interested in making the CD sound as good as possible too.
As for pop/rock it's a different story as some people seem to prefer compressed audio for this kind of music.
|
|
|
Post by Daland April 7, 2008 (38 of 71)
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
To dismiss all who listen in surround as not interested in music is ridiculous. I don't know anyone who disliked the RCA Living Stereo 3 channel SACDs simply because of the fact they were originally recorded in such a way. I also would love to have the enormous catalog of 4 channel recordings from the 70s available to us. However, I love music...period and I buy recordings because I love to hear great performances in surround, stereo, mono, etc. As for people who tell those who love multichannel that stereo is better, it too is an opinion and not a fact. Get over yourself.
I fully agree. But no argument however telling will convince people like the inimitable Teresa, once a member of this forum, who proclaims in the Hi-Rez Highway forum:
Give me stereo or give me silence!
|
|
|
Post by raffells April 7, 2008 (39 of 71)
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
To dismiss all who listen in surround as not interested in music is ridiculous. I don't know anyone who disliked the RCA Living Stereo 3 channel SACDs simply because of the fact they were originally recorded in such a way. I also would love to have the enormous catalog of 4 channel recordings from the 70s available to us. However, I love music...period and I buy recordings because I love to hear great performances in surround, stereo, mono, etc. As for people who tell those who love multichannel that stereo is better, it too is an opinion and not a fact. Get over yourself.
to FD
I am almost totally in agreement abount dismissing non surround however as I have most of the 3 channel releases I want on vinyl,I found the tape hiss level has incresed on the remasterings and the Julian Bream disc got tubbier?.So Ive only got 2 of these issues left.If you tried measuring these releases you may find limited badwidth and compression. I would like the remainder to be issued in sacd though.Especially the american works.
I would suggest you re read the post and you may realize that I have said that no multichannel listeners are in a position to state that it is better than stereo and IF they continue ,then people could not object if stereo listeners state that stereo it is better.This would lower the level of posts to your typical type of response that you appear to have finished up with.I think my point has now been well proved.
response to the other threads.
Firstly, A disadvantage of digital recordings is that distortion is in the inverse proportion of signal level which is the opposite of normal analogue sounds.
ie.At Full 0 Db levels it is zero. At minus 55 db it is very very poor.
You may have noticed on CDs that very low signals like a piano solo fading away is curtailed/chopped off by the engineer. USUALLY FOR THIS REASON.
The more sensitive the playback system the more obvious it becomes.
Now some of the benefits of high rez recordings are that this is lowered for two reasons.
It is somewhat dependant upon how sensitive you are to this type of distortion and at what frequencies.Darland please note..It partly answers your "refute suggestions."To me the inherent problem of additional noise and distortions from 5 amplifiers has more of a masking effect than anything.Even at the levels of my equipment.
Anyone who has biamped speakers,try turning off both bass units and listening to a female choir in CD SACD and DVDA. You will find the results revealing.
You can of course do this even with conventional speakers and its especially effective when only two drivers are used.I would be interested on comments made by surround listeners.PS
Ive done it.
|Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
orborborb said:
I am skeptical of any benefit to producing pitches above about 20khz, but I can still tell very quickly whether something is an original SACD or an otherwise identical DSD to CD master. It may very well be that a super high-end DAC could make the CD sound as good, but not many SACDs are avail on DSD mastered CDs anyway so I am happy to pay SACD prices for the better mastering and ability to sound great on even a super cheap player (SACDs on my oppo 970hd sound way better than cds on it or cds on my linn classik or 16/44 files played through my ak4396 based e-mu 0404 DAC). Ultimately, I think SACDs are what CDs were supposed to be, the last copy you will ever need to have of a particular mastering.
Obviously (I think), resolution is more important than frequencies above the audible spectrum.
However, it is fact and VERY easily tested, regardless of WHY, that sounds above 20kHz affect the treble sounds BELOW 20kHz, that whether you are anyone is sceptical or not, is totally irrelevant.
|
|
