Post by AmonRa September 15, 2011 (21 of 40)
|
|
DSD said:
AmonRa it is you who does not understand anything about how music is reproduced and not reproduced well.
As you understand the technology so well maybe you are kind enough to explain where and why I am wrong with this comparison and comments:
Pro analog tape machine Otari MX5050 versus 16/44.1 kHz PCM digital:
- Frequency response: 30 Hz to 20 kHz +- 2 dB, which is truly awfull compared to RBCD: 5 to 22 kHz +- 0.05. Analog misses the whole bottom octave from music and frequency level variation is 40 times bigger than with CD.
- Signal to noise: 70 dB (unwtd), 73 dB (wtd) while RBCD is 98 dB, even 110 dB with proper dithering, Otari compares to a 12 bit digital system in this respect. Where are the micro dynamics of analog hiding, smallest dynamics CD can reproduce are at least thousand times smaller than tape. Please enlighten...
- Total harmonic distortion: 0.3% at 15 ips (38.1 cm/s), 1 kHz, 250 nWb/m, AMPEX 456 tape, while RBCD has 0.05%. Tape has 6 times more harmonic distortion than CD. It might sound nice, but it is not hi-fi or true high resolution. You could add distortion to a clean digital signal to make it sound "analog", this is sometimes done in mastering.
- Crosstalk: better than 55 dB while RBCD has none. There goes your stereo image and "air"!
- Speed accuracy: better than 0.2% while RBCD is practically perfect, there goes your tonal accuracy.
- Wow & flutter: less than 0.06% and RBCD has none, musical vibrato of analog comes from this?
- Transient response: tape has built-in peak compression caused by tape saturation, PCM is perfectly linear. For this reason CD caused a sensation when it came first out, as transients were true for the first time.
Your turn to come up with figures, not hot air.
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa September 15, 2011 (22 of 40)
|
|
DSD said:
Mac Mini's are high resolution especially with 24/88.2k and 24/96k files
The DAC/Codec SigmaTel STAC9221A1 used in Mini Mac has 19200 Hz passband only, you are not hearing anything above 20 kHz from it. High resolution playback? Ha-haa...
You can tell hi-rez from low-rez only form the disk cover or file header, not by listening with your lo-fi system.
|
|
|
Post by DSD September 16, 2011 (23 of 40)
|
|
AmonRa no CD player anywhere on planet Earth is 5-22kHz±0.05dB! CD players extend to 20k and drop like a brick after that and MUST be down 100dB by 22.05kHz. For example the $2950 Ayre CX-7 is DC-20kHz ±0.25dB. An analog tape machine that is 30-20kHz ±2dB rolls off gently and will still have response up to 30kHz and many pro decks are flat to 25-30k meaning they have ultrasonics up to 40kHz.
Those of us who love music do not mind a little tape hiss which is nearly inaudible on modern analog recordings. I have already admitted that CDs have better macro dynamics, however analog has superior micro dynamics as 16/44.1k runs out of resolution very quickly during low level events and this is why small intricate details audible on analog tape are obscured at 16/44.1k.
Most technical specifications fail to explain why CD sounds like sh*t and the best analog recordings sound like real music.
|
|
|
Post by DSD September 16, 2011 (24 of 40)
|
|
AmonRa said:
The DAC/Codec SigmaTel STAC9221A1 used in Mini Mac has 19200 Hz passband only, you are not hearing anything above 20 kHz from it...
This information is incorrect as previously revealed. Frequency response for the SigmaTel STAC 9221A1 (0x83847680): 20Hz-20kHz+0.5/-3dB at 44.1kHz. Frequency response is NOT quoted for 88.2 or 96k but it should be at least as good as a $100 DVD player - 40kHz@88.2kHz and 44kHz@96kHz.
The MAC MINI sounds fantastic. High resolution music files sound considerably better in every aspect over low resolution 44.1k in any form, this is easily heard just by listening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Got the ANIMALS RETROSPECTIVE SACD now and though most of the songs are mono it has a beautiful sound.Crisp and clear with powerful basslines and Burdon's voice is simply REAL!
Glad that I bought it!
|
|
|
Post by Kutyatest September 17, 2011 (26 of 40)
|
|
silversurfer6100 said:
Got the ANIMALS RETROSPECTIVE SACD now and though most of the songs are mono it has a beautiful sound.Crisp and clear with powerful basslines and Burdon's voice is simply REAL!
Glad that I bought it!
It's good to hear that you're pleased you bought it! I agree with your thoughts on the audio - that's exactly how I feel. This was another good SACD purchase for me - no regrets whatsoever. I have never owned any Animals music on LP or CD, so am unable to comment regarding audio quality comparisons, but it does sound really very good.
I just have one little question regarding your comment that the album is mainly mono, which interestingly enough was also mentioned by Teresa/DSD in an earlier post. I don't for one moment doubt this fact, but I was under the impression (automatic assumption, I guess) that it was all stereo. Apart from putting ones ears to the speakers/listening very intently, how can one check whether an SACD is mono, stereo, or any particular version of multi-channel? I have very little experience with hi-res players/equipment, my Arcam DV137 being my first player. When I load an SACD into it and turn on my display, I'm presented with what appears to be a generic graphic/table showing the following:- Tracks: 22 01:17:40 SACD 176.4 kHz Stereo. I also have a field which mentions the album name and artist/group, and two tabs showing: "Switch to CD" and "Switch to Multi-ch", which on this particular album is non-active. This information is very different to the info presented with a DVD-A, where I can see various audio info such as 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz, 96 kHz etc, and whether it's 2.0 Ch, 4.1 Ch, 5.0 Ch or 5.1 Ch and so on. Do some SACD playes present different disc information, which may show it's specific audio characteristics including varios kHz info?
I'd be very naiive to expect my question won't be dragged out into a audio quality bashing match by some, but I'd rather it didn't. I now own this album, it sounds wonderful to me, and that's it.
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie September 17, 2011 (27 of 40)
|
|
The various Oppos will show in the lower left hand corner if the album is stereo, mono or 4.0, 5.0 or 5.1 but without putting your ear to the speakers mono audio is summed equally left and right and emanates from the center.........On my Meridian, I have a DSP mode in mono which allows the rear speakers to kick in and thus "surround" you with MONO.
A stereo image is usually unmistakable from mono as it forms a more involving soundstage and can easily spread out beyond the l/r speakers although a well recorded Mono disc can sound full, as well, as in the recent Nat King Cole "After Midnight" remaster from Analogue Productions.
In the older Beatle, Rolling Stone and Animal stereo reissues, usually instruments are "exaggerated" left and right with vocals in the middle or vocals can also emanate from left/right speakers, as well. A lot of the early albums were mono (as in Pet Sounds) but later remixed from the original elements into a stereo track or in the case of Pet Sounds, effectively reconfigured for 5.1.
When an album has a mix of stereo and mono tracks one can usually decipher which is which as there is usually more spatiality in the stereo tracks.
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa September 17, 2011 (28 of 40)
|
|
SACD has always at least two tracks, in that sense they are all "stereo". There is no possibility of having just one mono track on SACD or CD, the specifications do not have that option. If the recording is mono, both "stereo" tracks are just identical.
The only semipractical way of finding out if a SACD or CD is mono without any extra gear that comes to mind is to reverse the polarity of one speaker and place the speakers face to face. If hardly any sound comes out the signal is mono. Of course if the stereo image of your system is good, a mono signal sould be located in the middle between the speakers without any spaciousness to it.
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa September 17, 2011 (29 of 40)
|
|
DSD said:
I have already admitted that CDs have better macro dynamics, however analog has superior micro dynamics as 16/44.1k runs out of resolution very quickly during low level events and this is why small intricate details audible on analog tape are obscured at 16/44.1k.
You still fail to understand that dynamic range is the measuremet which tells the ratio of the smallest possibe detail compared to the full scale signal. For the best tape this is about 75 dB meaning 10 to the power of 7.5. For CD this is 98 dB meaning 10 to the power of 9.8. The smallest "micro dynamics" of CD are thus over 100 times smaller than on tape. Noise floor of the system sets the limit, there is no "micro dynamics" below that level, as simple as that.
Another strange point: you are obsessed with the imagined high frequencies of old analog recordings, which never even were there (old mics), which speakers do not reproduce, and worst of all, we do not hear. Why not worry about those low frequencies below 30 Hz, which digital handles perfectly, even CD, which we can easily reproduce and can hear and feel. Those frequencies are part of the music, and analog tape can not reproduce them properly. Bad, bad, bad.
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa September 17, 2011 (30 of 40)
|
|
Addendum (word limit system prevents me form editing posts...):
Apparently you DSD do not undeerstand that the measurement of dynamic range does not (only) mean the biggest difference between loud and quiet passages ("macro dynamics"???) but also at the same time the difference INSIDE any peak level signal mixed from countless individual waves, i.e. the difference of the total loudness and the smallest detail present at the same time ("micro dynamics" of yours). One simple measurement of Dynamic Range covers both aspects.
|
|
