|
|
|
canonical said:
It's just like a higher-resolution photo: clearer, crisper, less interpolation, more natural, more yummy.
Even Stereophile (Dec 2009) notes: "As proud as I am of the sound of the CD, the 20-bit files still had a touch more authority, and more image palpability". And that's just 20 bit. Pfffoarrrrrrr.
http://www.stereophile.com/hirezplayers/dcs_puccini_sacd_playback_system/index2.html
And yet we have a person here who thinks that somehow an MP3 sounds better than a CD even though the CD is higher resolution, and is clearer, crisper, more natural, more yummy.
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 December 27, 2009 (142 of 234)
|
|
audioholik said:
yes I disagree that it's easier to sell SACD (or high resolution recordings in general) than CD - it isn't. IMHO it's easier to just say we have a better technique, or better plastic etc. and continue to push CD...
PS if I remember correctly even one of your papers was saying that 44,1kHz isn't the optimal sampling rate.
Again, you aren't reading what I said. My point is HOW 2L chooses to market "high-rez" material. The benefit in their recordings (and in SACD ones) is from improved recording and mastering, and not the more bits and sampling rate on playback medium (Blu-ray PCM or SACD). All I'm saying is that for 2L and other compaines, it's easier to market and sell by talking about more bits and sampling rates. That appeals to people that may not understand digital audio - quite a few in this thread... "More bits? Oh! It sure must sound better!" More = better, etc.
One of *my* papers? I wrote no paper. Maybe one I referenced? 44,1 is optimal. You cannot defeat mathematics. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 December 27, 2009 (143 of 234)
|
|
raffells said:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
Now go away and try reading the strong various clues that you have already been given.
Start with " music being part auditory and part mental."
You will even find the reasons why musicians are NOT the best overall listeners seeing that you ignored the variety of results in the DSD/PCM test on musicians etc.
LOL, nice "article". Try reading a basic book on digital audio - say by Ken Pohlmann as a starter. Then your technical arguments may carry some weight and make some sense...
And BTW, this is my thread that I started, so you "go away"...
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 December 27, 2009 (144 of 234)
|
|
canonical said:
It's just like a higher-resolution photo: clearer, crisper, less interpolation, more natural, more yummy.
Even Stereophile (Dec 2009) notes: "As proud as I am of the sound of the CD, the 20-bit files still had a touch more authority, and more image palpability". And that's just 20 bit. Pfffoarrrrrrr.
http://www.stereophile.com/hirezplayers/dcs_puccini_sacd_playback_system/index2.html
Again, comparing resolution of digital photography/video to audio shows a clear lack of understanding of how digital audio works. Sad people chose to be so ignorant. Again, read the book I mentioned above. Stereophile is a joke of a magazine where editors have to invent adjectives for things they cannot explain. Like how amps that measure the same sound so very different. It's laughable - audiophile journalism. Meant to suck money out of people. It works..
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 December 27, 2009 (145 of 234)
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
And yet we have a person here who thinks that somehow an MP3 sounds better than a CD even though the CD is higher resolution, and is clearer, crisper, more natural, more yummy.
An MP3 is compressed and lossy. It can *never* sound equal to or better than a CD. It's simple math. A CD is NOT lossy, and basic math has shown it's capable of more than what we can hear *if* it's produced right. SACD has more headroom and more care is taken in production. But the medium itself, for playback, is more than fine on CD. You don't need more bits nor more than 44.1KHz. For prodution, more bits help. On playback, it doesn't matter.
Why do people choose to ignore simple facts? SACD is great because it has superior recording and production for the most part over CD. Why does the CD medium need to be attacked? I don't get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
urbo73 said:
Why do people choose to ignore simple facts?
Because the alleged "facts" you incessantly quote does not seem to agree with many individual experiences.
Unless you are a Ph.D. and a renowned expert in Psycho-Acoustics than YOU are distorting the "facts".
|
|
|
Post by zeus December 27, 2009 (147 of 234)
|
|
urbo73 said:
Why do people choose to ignore simple facts?
You've had ample space here to express your views, but frankly they're getting tiresome. You don't seem to have taken up my suggestion to listen on a different system where the differences are more apparent. Your choice. But please spare us your generalizations based solely on your limited experience with, and understanding of, the format.
Most of those recording for the format do so with the conviction that the format is the best currently available, and an advance over what we had before ... CD's seemingly adequate specs notwithstanding. There is no conspiracy to defraud, witnessed by those here that genuinely appreciate their efforts. If the format represents mass delusion as you continually espouse, I have a hard time understanding why you'd want to be part of the community here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a fascinating discussion. it's great to hear all the different points of view. Lots to digest here. Two memorable experiences regarding discerning subtle differences between formats are:
1 in 1982-3 a friend of mine brought his brand new cd player to a recording studio i worked at, my first listen to the new cd format. i thought it was awesome to be able to hear the "master quality" audio of the cd's he brought in, a huge quality improvement over the turntable/cartridge we had been using to listen to commercial recordings.
2 probably 1998 or so. i owned a Mackie digital mixer which had new a software update that allowed 24 bit recording (previously only 16 bit was possible). about a year later, it came out thru the official online forum that even with the 24 bit setting, recordings were still 16 bit. not one of the audio professionals who used this professional mixer had noticed.
i DO believe in education of the ear. and it's so much easier to hear audio quality differences induced by the quality of very expensive speakers and/or quality room acoustic treatment. sooo much better.
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 December 27, 2009 (149 of 234)
|
|
zeus said:
You've had ample space here to express your views, but frankly they're getting tiresome. You don't seem to have taken up my suggestion to listen on a different system where the differences are more apparent. Your choice. But please spare us your generalizations based solely on your limited experience with, and understanding of, the format.
Most of those recording for the format do so with the conviction that the format is the best currently available, and an advance over what we had before ... CD's seemingly adequate specs notwithstanding. There is no conspiracy to defraud, witness by those here that genuinely appreciate their efforts. If the format represents mass delusion as you continually espouse, I have a hard time understanding why you'd want to be part of the community here.
Read my post 132 in this thread, and you'll see the final point that I made. The next post (138) was simply a question in effort to find out how people actually are able to objectively make a comparison - which was part of my point (that it's impossible almost). If that's what you call "tiresome", I'm sorry. Many don't agree and find the discussion interesting...I suppose that if I were to be a "rah, rah" type, that would be better? Interesting..
My "limited" technical understanding of the format seems to be above the average understanding from what I read here to be frank. I think *you've* even once pointed out how basic digital audio knowledge is lacking (in some other thread). DSD/SACD/CD/bit-depth/sample rates/etc. is not rocket science. I admit my listening experience is limited, but as I've said, it's not over. I don't have another system to listen on - sorry... I asked before if there's someone here in the Boston area willing to demo for me, I'm all ears. But I don't think I need $30,000 worth of equipment to hear a difference. You may disagree, that's fine. To each his own. But to keep blaming it on equipment is an argument that one can never win, no? How far do you take it? Also, to hear a difference, an objective demo would need to be set up. And as I've said, it's almost impossible to do so, regardless of system..So? So yeah, exactly what I said in conclusion to my post 132. People agreed..
Also, I never said nor implied that the SACD format "represents mass delusion". I've only said positive things about SACD. I just happen to defend the CD format as well, and point out many inaccuracies attributed to it. I suppose that doesn't sit well with some for reasons I can't understand.
There are some good posters here, and I've gotten some good recommendations, etc. I read plenty of threads and SACD reviews w/o posting - there's no need most times. I get the information I need. I don't post all that much. So that's why I'm part of this community since you asked.
But again, it seems the consensus is that I'm on a mission or with an agenda. People here are very defensive. This thread was started to post my opinions. But I get attacked. I suppose you think it's correct for someone to tell me to "go away" in my own thread? Weird..
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 December 27, 2009 (150 of 234)
|
|
jonothon77 said:
This is a fascinating discussion. it's great to hear all the different points of view. Lots to digest here. Two memorable experiences regarding discerning subtle differences between formats are:
i DO believe in education of the ear. and it's so much easier to hear audio quality differences induced by the quality of very expensive speakers and/or quality room acoustic treatment. sooo much better.
I agree with that. Education of the ear and knowing what to listen for is important. I don't buy into the "Golden Ear" thing, never had. If you can point out to someone what to listen for, they'll hear it, good or bad. So in that sense, education of the ear is very important. Also, it's a reason why I think it's impossible to compare SACD to CD, and maybe even pointless as I said in post 132. Audio memory is very short-term. Switching layers is painful. Not listening to level matched sources will trick the ears. One needs to run in parallel, with two players, level matched, etc. And even then it's not easy if the mastering differs, the noise floor differs, etc., between the SACD and CD layer.
I also agree that THE largest difference is speakers. The most important thing is the actual recording and one's speakers/headphones/etc. The stuff in-between is all so damn good now, that it's mostly equal for the most part - players, DACs, amps. etc. Same thing is happening in the video world. As processors get better and cheaper, you now have a $500 player that bests all players. The day for $5000 players is over IMO. Same with DACs. Speakers and headsets are a different matter however. Still, I'm not sure where you draw the line. How much is enough in finding a difference (if there is one - at least for 2CH SACD)?
|
|
