Post by dcramer December 4, 2009 (51 of 234)
|
|
Ah, the ghost of Julian Hirsch is visitng for the holidays. (chains shaking, "you foooools, everything sounds the saaaaame, waaaaaaahhhhh"). No, I probably could not tell the diffference between well done CD and SACD in a short double-blind test; however, I WILL say that unlike SACD and vinyl, I become uncomfortable listening to CDs for extended periods of time (like there is something nibbling at the anvil and stirrup of my inner ear) and there is definitely a feeling of relaxing back into the music when I return to SACD. How you measure THAT I don't know. It's not that I think the CD medium is BAD (I still own quite a few more CDs than SACDs), I just simply find myself reaching for my SACDs and LPs first.
|
|
|
Post by canonical December 4, 2009 (52 of 234)
|
|
urbo73 said:
I thought I stated why it's a bad example quite clearly.
Not really. Your posting is all about bits ... not about recording resolution / sampling frequency.
> Yes, softest note at 30dB. That may never even happen w/o you turning up the volume like mad. Why?
> Because the noise floor in your room is at least that. See this chart if you wish for reference.
Your reply is incorrect, on not one, but two different counts. First, the noise level in a quiet living room can be as low as approx 20 dB (not 30 dB). See, for instance:
http://www.coolmath.com/decibels1.htm
A quiet recording studio is stated at 10 dB.
Second, your insinuation that one cannot hear sounds below the ambient noise floor appears to be most confused. Sounds are additive.
|
|
|
Post by Petrus  December 4, 2009 (53 of 234)
|
|
canonical said:
Your reply is incorrect, on not one, but two different counts. First, the noise level in a quiet living room can be as low as approx 20 dB (not 30 dB). See, for instance:
http://www.coolmath.com/decibels1.htm
A quiet recording studio is stated at 10 dB.
Second, your insinuation that one cannot hear sounds below the ambient noise floor appears to be most confused. Sounds are additive.
It has to be one darn quiet living room (but nobody livin in it) to have 20 dB ambient noise level. My "studio" is in a quiet neigbourhood with no traffic, no AC, no appliances running and still the ambient noise is around 30 dB, mostly low frequences from somewhere. You should always measure with C weighting, or all the low rumbles are not accounted for. 10 dB SPL requires really heavy building materials, even floating construction. 0 dB is actually the sound of individual air molecules hitting the ear drum.
Still, from 20 dB to RBCD theoretical peak is 120 dB SPL. With my old system I could put out 117 dB peaks, and that was LOUD! Now, with calibrated monitoring (0 dBVU/-20 dBFS at 85 db SPL) the peaks hit 105 dB. With classical this is fine and could be even a bit more, with poprock it is too much (for me).
I venture to say that nobody is going to hear any detail at 20 dB SPL level if the peaks are hitting 120 dB SPL and RMS is around 90 dB like it would with classical at that level. And like I said, please tell me if you can find a classical recording with more than 70 dB DR to replace my present record holder, a Kroumata percussion CD by, you guessed it, BIS...
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 December 4, 2009 (54 of 234)
|
|
canonical said:
Your construction re associative memory seems (i) somewhat artificial, and (ii) I'm not sure that it has any relevance.
You argue that there are *no unknowns* in the output of a SACD and a CD.
Clearly, there are no unknowns if you are holding the control buttons deciding which layer (SACD or CD) to play, but as soon as you do a blind test (as you were doing), there are plenty of unknowns. In fact, the problem is very much like being given two glasses of wine, and being asked: which is the Mouton Rothschild? Or which is the 1986 vs 1991? You can do the test with you pouring the two glasses from the two bottles (no unknowns), or with someone else pouring the glasses. Some people will get it right almost every time ... others won't have a clue. Buying myself fancy Riedel wine glasses probably won't improve my score.
Another example: I can't reliably pick a Canadian accent from an American accent. To me, they sound basically the same. But many people clearly can tell a difference, and they find it very obvious indeed. It would be rather folly of me to suggest that there is no difference, simply because it is not apparent to me.
Artificial? No relevance? People very harsh around here...
I can spell it out for you in a lengthy post, but it won't matter. Sort of sad the way this thread is going..
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 December 4, 2009 (55 of 234)
|
|
canonical said:
Not really. Your posting is all about bits ... not about recording resolution / sampling frequency.
> Yes, softest note at 30dB. That may never even happen w/o you turning up the volume like mad. Why?
> Because the noise floor in your room is at least that. See this chart if you wish for reference.
Your reply is incorrect, on not one, but two different counts. First, the noise level in a quiet living room can be as low as approx 20 dB (not 30 dB). See, for instance:
http://www.coolmath.com/decibels1.htm
A quiet recording studio is stated at 10 dB.
Second, your insinuation that one cannot hear sounds below the ambient noise floor appears to be most confused. Sounds are additive.
I think you truly don't understand how digital audio works. Anyone comparing audio resolution with video/image resolution doesn't. It's as simple as that really. Sorry if that offends, but its part of the problem - the analogies and incorrect comparisons. I'm taking my time to explain what is correct and logical, and get these snippy answers. That I'm incorrect, confused, etc. No, I'm not in fact. I'm quite correct and very clear. People seem upset. First the equipment was attacked. Then I pointed out that wasn't it. It's like I need to convince people of everything, every step... Tough crowd here...But curiously I don't see any replies explaining WHY SACD sounds better. Just that it does. OK.....
Yes, I was talking about bits. Even that seems hard to get across. It's so simple! - Petrus has already answered it above. It's NOT rocket science. Read more about bit, dBs, etc. You are the one that's confused. If the sound floor is 30dB, and the softest note is 30dB, will you hear it? That's why I said you have to turn the volume up! The volume needs to be set so the quietest note is just heard above the sound floor of the listening room. And then what will happen when you hit say 90dB at that volume level? "911, my ears are not working!" :) Think about that for a bit, then you'll maybe understand. And good luck finding a 20dB quiet living room, and hearing 10dB above that LOL. Funny stuff...Petrus is labeled as TROLL, but he explained it pretty well.
You want to talk about sampling frequency? OK. What is there to talk about? Read the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem. Again, it's not rocket science. But one needs to understand how it all works, from microphone -> end product. If you search, there are plenty of articles I'm sure that you can read. I have nothing to add to what out there.
|
|
|
Post by jakeroux December 4, 2009 (56 of 234)
|
|
urbo73 said:
Artificial? No relevance? People very harsh around here...
I can spell it out for you in a lengthy post, but it won't matter. Sort of sad the way this thread is going..
Welcome to SA-CD.net.
Some great folks and valuable info, some horse's arses and esoteric pontificating. I routinely find myself both enlightened and put-off by the forum discussions. I always just try to tell myself that the passion with which opinions are expressed and insults hurled merely reflects the passion people hold for their music and gear. Just kind of have to take the bad with the good I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
urbo73 said:
Sort of sad the way this thread is going..
Agreed,
it has transformed from "just my personal opinion" thread to "there's no audible difference between SACD/DVD-Audio and CD quality".
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 December 4, 2009 (58 of 234)
|
|
audioholik said:
Agreed,
it has transformed from "just my personal opinion" thread to "there's no audible difference between SACD/DVD-Audio and CD quality".
This is directed at me? Read my first post again. Nothing I have said has changed. My initial post was very detailed and I spoke of the very same things. Of course if I get challenged I will reply with more detail.
I'm starting to think that I'm more open minded than some of the SACD "defenders", who seem insulted or put off when someone comes in with a differing experience and tries to explain that experience with facts. To be honest, I don't know. Maybe one day I will hear a difference that the math can't explain. Math doesn't explain everything, but like I said, this is not rocket science. So I'm doubtful, but that's not keeping me from getting SACDs!
I understand people are passionate, I am as well. But I don't think there's reason for anyone to be on the defensive. It's music we care about no? Or do some people here have stock/ownership in DSD technologies?? I don't get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
urbo73 said:
This is directed at me?
it's just a general observation.. like I said the thread started as "just my personal and very detailed opinion" thread and ended up as "there's no audible difference between SACD/DVD-Audio and CD quality".
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 December 4, 2009 (60 of 234)
|
|
zeus said:
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.
I just checked out some samples from the SACD you were recommending:
http://ww.sa-cd.net/showtitle/2803
It sounds like a mix of DiMeola, McLaughlin, Juber, and Steve Morse. I like it and will definitely get it.
I'd recommend Juber's "Guitar Noir" DVD-Audio if you're into this as well:
http://www.aixrecords.com/catalog/laurence_juber.html
Great music and a superb recording.
Ryan
|
|
