Post by urbo73 December 3, 2009 (31 of 234)
|
|
jzpchen said:
I assume you were listening to the two channel mode. The mutli-channel uses a different DAC: Cirrus Logic CS4382A.
I did find recently DAC has evolved a lot. I cannot claim the old heavy duty SACD from Sony is worse than the newer ones. However, I do find my recent electronics are going backwards for the sake of price. Have you got a better sounding cordless phone at home? Is your cell phone sounds better than 10 years ago? They have other features but not good sound.
I am not suggesting OPPO is bad. I just cannot assume it is great without seeing an in depth review of its sound subsystem. Using it to benchmark is risky.
My friend is using a Denon DVD with SACD. The SACD is plain bad. Nowadays it is easy to claim SACD since every DAC has it.
Yes, I was comparing 2-CH only as I stated. I agree that electronics (and most things) are going backwards for the sake of price, but only insofar as build quality/cheap plastics/buttons, etc. But DACs and chips are only going forwards. And that is really what produces the sound, not the other stuff. For the most part. That's why you can get an OPPO for $500. They could have made a heavy case with the same guts and charged $2-3k! It happens all the time. I remember when DVDO came out with the iScan doubler in 1999 for $800 or whatever it was - I forget. I got one to use on my CRT projector. The guys who had paid $5000 for their Faroudja line doublers had nothing but bad things to say about the iScan. Again, human nature. The iScan looked like a toy next to the Faroudja, but on film-based material, produced identical results. Faroudja had the edge on video material, but that also went away after a while. Just saying..!
|
|
|
Post by jzpchen December 3, 2009 (32 of 234)
|
|
urbo73 said:
Yes, I was comparing 2-CH only as I stated. I agree that electronics (and most things) are going backwards for the sake of price, but only insofar as build quality/cheap plastics/buttons, etc. But DACs and chips are only going forwards. And that is really what produces the sound, not the other stuff. For the most part. That's why you can get an OPPO for $500. They could have made a heavy case with the same guts and charged $2-3k! It happens all the time. I remember when DVDO came out with the iScan doubler in 1999 for $800 or whatever it was - I forget. I got one to use on my CRT projector. The guys who had paid $5000 for their Faroudja line doublers had nothing but bad things to say about the iScan. Again, human nature. The iScan looked like a toy next to the Faroudja, but on film-based material, produced identical results. Faroudja had the edge on video material, but that also went away after a while. Just saying..!
I do agree DAC is getting better. That's why I like my Onkyo. It uses Wolfson DAC. It is now only $370. But I do hear more expense gear sounds a lot better. Be happy. I am fine with my system. Just got a new Chesky SACD. Enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 December 3, 2009 (33 of 234)
|
|
armenian said:
If you are into digital photography you can use the comparison of the image quality taken with a point and shoot camera with tiny CCD chip vs a pro DSLR with full frame CCD, a 5x7 image is about equal from both cameras but try enlarging the tiny CCD image to a 16x20, you will get a pixelated image (small squares) while the full frame CCD will produce a clear and sharp image.
The same principle applies to digital audio, the low resolution audio begins to break down at very high volumes (pixelated) while the high rez can take high volumes with smoother sound.
Vahe
This is a bad analogy I'm afraid. And stated wrong too. But I'm glad you brought it up! Seriously! I hope you can see why after reading the below.
Firs of all, CCD sensors are used in digicams - DSLRs use CMOS sensors. And it's not a pixelated image you'd see on a blow up - that is megapixel dependent. You'd see reduced dynamic range effects, chromatic aberrations, and most of all, more noise. Many other things too. I can talk about this at length, but would go on a different tangent. But you know, not nearly as many as people love to point out. Because people talk about those things while viewing pictures at 200% or whatever on their computer screens. A 200% crop of a tree branch against a sky ;) In reality, you don't live life at 200% or look at a 16x20 from the same distance as a 4x6. But anyway, I digress...The issues are there, but whether you'd ever seem them or not is another story. But they are there. That much is clear.
Resolution in digital audio is NOT the same as resolution in photography or video. More bits give you more dynamic range - not a better sine wave reconstruction. Not a "sweeter" note, etc. I think this is a main point of confusion for many. In essence the extra bits give you more dBs by lowering white noise and thus the noise floor. This essentially gives you more dynamic range. It has to do with how more bits reduce the white noise that is added in the ADC stage to reduce/randomize quantization errors that occur - dithering, etc. So it's VERY different. It has nothing to do with volume as you state it. In fact, as I said earlier, if the softest note on a CD is at 30dB (and that's damn quiet BTW), then in theory you have +96dB on top of that, = 126dB of dynamic range. IF the CD has that to begin with. 96dB is in the spec, but most CDs don't even use half of that! It's sad when done by bad mastering - i.e. squash the dynamic range to make the CD louder. But it's not sad when the source (analog tape for instance) simply doesn't have it - on average 60dB of range is what it's capable of holding. So how can you hear more? It's not in the source!
But let's say you have a digital recording of an orchestral piece. One mastered well and with a nice dynamic range of 96dB on a CD. Softest note at 30dB. This is pretty damn ideal to be honest and I don't think even in existence (I could be wrong - but this is the limit I'm talking about). Now would you have the power/watts necessary to pump out 126dB? You'd not be in pain after 30 seconds of listening at that volume? Think about it! It's nuts!
SACDs have 120dBs in the spec. Sounds good. But assuming the softest note is again at 30dB, now we can go up to 150dB! Check out how many watts your amp needs for that. And check yourself into a hospital for ruptured eardrums, if not worse! See where I'm going?
Now, having said all of this, I said in my first post that it's good for production. More dBs give the engineer more headroom. You want as many as you can get for production purposes. But for playback? See the above.
So yeah, I'm tired and hungry now! It's an interesting thing, because while we may disagree, I think we all are looking for the best sound we can get. And the journey should never stop, but we need to understand things better too. And not put this down or praise the other too much. But to me, it starts with the performance, then the production/mastering, and lastly the medium for playback.
|
|
|
Post by Petrus  December 3, 2009 (34 of 234)
|
|
armenian said:
If you are into digital photography you can use the comparison of the image quality taken with a point and shoot camera with tiny CCD chip vs a pro DSLR with full frame CCD, a 5x7 image is about equal from both cameras but try enlarging the tiny CCD image to a 16x20, you will get a pixelated image (small squares) while the full frame CCD will produce a clear and sharp image.
The same principle applies to digital audio, the low resolution audio begins to break down at very high volumes (pixelated) while the high rez can take high volumes with smoother sound.
Vahe
Not so. With photographs you can enlarge them until the resolution limits become apparent. The same thing with audio would be slowing down the file untill the sampling rate begins to "break up", not playing louder.
Like urbo73 says, with typical, actually good, ambient noise in the listening room around 30 dB SPL it is possible to achive levels of 126 dB SPL with RBCD. Actually even 130 dB SPL. Extremely few home hifi systems can achive that, like maybe a hundred in the whole world. With typical speaker efficiency you would need 2 to 10 kW of amp power per channel. And nobody can listen at that volume. With typical loud listening level with peaks at 105 dB SPL (professional monitoring standard) the RBCD noise floor sits under 10 dB SPL, while the ambient noise floor is typically at least hundred times higher. I can no think of any situation where more dynamic range would be needed in music reproduction than what RBCD can give.
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 December 3, 2009 (35 of 234)
|
|
zeus said:
Partly. It's also the removal of artifacts that get in the way of what the ear would regard as "natural" sound (phase errors, pre-echo on transients, jitter rejection etc). DSD is a tad more complex than the simplistic analysis we've had to put with here of late would imply.
If you're keen on guitar you'll find the following a real sonic treat:
Windminister: Bootsmann
Yes, I was mentioning it in response to "high-rez". I admit I need to learn more about DSD, and I plan to read up on it. I know AES has some technical papers from Philips on it, but that's probably the surface. I'm not sure what simplistic analysis you're referring to - perhaps in another thread? In any case, the technical things are interesting to me as well. I don't want to say or attribute something that's incorrect about any format, including DSD. It may be the best, it may not. I'm sure as I look into it there will be 2 camps :)
But as much as I like reading these technical details, and knowing exactly how things work, I do have to take into account theory vs. reality. For all I know (and I'm just using this as an example because I don't know right now), DSD may very well be the best digital audio format. Maybe better than PCM, which I'm more familiar with. But I guess what I'm saying is that if it's true only in theory, and on playback it doesn't manifest itself, then it's sort of interesting but nothing more, know what I mean? The more I read on 24/192 PCM, the more I'm convinced it's something that we simply can't hear. I don't believe in "intangibles" - there is always an explanation, even if we may not know it yet. Again, obviously 24/192 is superb for production/mastering, but for playback? See my posts above r.e. dynamic range and bits, etc. Same with the sampling rate.
I'll have to check out that disc. I played (and still play when I have time these days) mostly nylon string classical, jazz, and some flamenco. But good music is good music. I certainly know the sound of good steel string guitars. And although I've listened, and continue to listen, to so much music, it's always refreshing to find something new and original. So thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
urbo73 said:
Yes, I was mentioning it in response to "high-rez". I admit I need to learn more about DSD, and I plan to read up on it. I know AES has some technical papers from Philips on it, but that's probably the surface. I'm not sure what simplistic analysis you're referring to - perhaps in another thread? In any case, the technical things are interesting to me as well. I don't want to say or attribute something that's incorrect about any format, including DSD. It may be the best, it may not. I'm sure as I look into it there will be 2 camps :)
But as much as I like reading these technical details, and knowing exactly how things work, I do have to take into account theory vs. reality. For all I know (and I'm just using this as an example because I don't know right now), DSD may very well be the best digital audio format. Maybe better than PCM, which I'm more familiar with. But I guess what I'm saying is that if it's true only in theory, and on playback it doesn't manifest itself, then it's sort of interesting but nothing more, know what I mean? The more I read on 24/192 PCM, the more I'm convinced it's something that we simply can't hear. I don't believe in "intangibles" - there is always an explanation, even if we may not know it yet. Again, obviously 24/192 is superb for production/mastering, but for playback? See my posts above r.e. dynamic range and bits, etc. Same with the sampling rate.
I'll have to check out that disc. I played (and still play when I have time these days) mostly nylon string classical, jazz, and some flamenco. But good music is good music. I certainly know the sound of good steel string guitars. And although I've listened, and continue to listen, to so much music, it's always refreshing to find something new and original. So thanks!
Guitars & Harps are easy to record and sound equally good whether on RB CD or SACD
|
|
|
Post by zeus December 4, 2009 (37 of 234)
|
|
Disbeliever said:
Guitars & Harps are easy to record and sound equally good whether on RB CD or SACD
Maybe you should instead listen (there's a thought!) to the disc in question ... it may not be quite what you expect.
On second thought given your negativism, don't bother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
urbo73 said:
But let's say you have a digital recording of an orchestral piece. One mastered well and with a nice dynamic range of 96dB on a CD.
urbo73,
the 96dB dynamic range of a CD is a myth, not all bits on 16bit CDs are used for audio.
|
|
|
Post by Petrus December 4, 2009 (39 of 234)
|
|
audioholik said:
urbo73,
the 96dB dynamic range of a CD is a myth, not all bits on 16bit CDs are used for audio.
Actually it is possible to get over 100 dB of dynamic range on a 16 bit CD. Dither is the magic word. Without dither the theoretical maximum is 16x6.02 dB + 2 dB or so (forget the exact additional number) = 98.3 dB aprox.
To find a performance (and recording venue) where this is possble to achieve and record is another matter. I do not know of any CD, or SACD for that matter, with over 70 dB dynamic range (as measured from peak to minimum RMS). That is not the limitation of tecnology, but of recorded material.
What are the bits used for if not audio, Audioholik? This must be some new discovery. Please enlighten me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petrus said:
What are the bits used for if not audio, Audioholik? This must be some new discovery. Please enlighten me.
one bit is used also for the sign and the lowest significant bit is used for quantization. Petrus, give it a rest, even Bissie, your Guru, admitted that the difference between "16bit" audio CD and 24bit audio is audible.
|
|
