[frankR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Interesting, your results simply do not agree with a large scale carefully controlled study in a peer reviewed journal. Can I ask you for some more details ?

I’ll refer back to my earlier analysis posted last month.
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f46/24...ml#post4017905

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can you describe how you did this ? - what procedure did you use to get the two samples into Matlab - what were the measured distortion figures you found ? Matlab is just a computational environment and language in't it ? what audio analyzing functions does it support ?

Matlab is high-level scientific mathematics analysis package. It can import PCM audio. I analyzed short samples of various lengths (millisecond to several seconds) and of different instruments from the high-res-low-res comparison audio clips. I performed power frequency spectrum analysis of these samples using fourier transform. The fourier transform gives a time-independent analysis of the audio frequency spectrum.

What I found was consistent with my earlier crudely performed analysis. There were significant differences between their respective power frequency spectra in the audible frequency range (20 hz to 20 khz).


Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Key findings, not one subject (n = 60) was capable of detecting the difference between high res and 16/44.1 at a sufficient level of confidence (95%), the total # of trials was 554 and correct answers 276 (49.819%).

I’ve read similar studies on the subject. There is a belief that these types of double blind audio tests are inherently flawed because, unlike images, the human brain has difficulty retaining fidelity differences, though differences are perhaps perceived.

Nevertheless, these findings do not nullify what my own ears and analysis makes me believe.

An interesting experiment at the upcoming CES in Las Vegas will compare live play-back to recorded material using suburb equipment.
Ampzilla, VMPS and Live Music at January CES

 

[frankR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, you ran some blind tests to prove this ?

Yes.

The test was performed using the Gerry Mulligan SACD, as well as others.

There were three playback devices used: Marantz SA8260 for DSD track and Redbook from its own PCM DAC and the EMU-0404 using the optical S/PDIF output, playing two seperate encoded audio tracks from the same master (DSD & Redbook). note: the SA8260 is not the state-of-the-art for DSD playback.

It wasn't even fair. I consistently spotted the DSD material within seconds of playback on multiple song, with similar results on other recordings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am puzzled, your PC CD/DVD drive can read SACD ? - I didnt think that was possible ?, also I did not think the 0404 supported DSD anyway

I appologize for being confusing. The numerical analysis is completely seperate. Although I can hear differences in that matieral using my own head-phone equipment. However, it's not as dramatic as the SACD/Redbook on RM40 loudspeakers. I believe headphones may not be the ideal choice for making a comparision.

 

[frankR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you are interested, you can search the archive for my posts about a comparison between SACD and redbook that I did. When I finally located an SACD that was both DSD and had a redbook layer with no mastering differences, I couldn't hear a difference between layers. See ya Steve

That maybe truthful in your case. But there is no question I can hear the difference in my own tests.

Would you mind telling us your playback equipment used?

What I don't get is, the implication those who believe high-res audio is indistinguishable from Redbook is: you must also believe the millions of audiophiles out there who spend millions of dollars per year (I'm just making up numbers here), are wasting their money. Throw in those who say vinyl/analog recordings sound between then digital as well.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankR /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes. The test was performed using the Gerry Mulligan SACD, as well as others. There were three playback devices used: Marantz SA8260 for DSD track and Redbook from its own PCM DAC and the EMU-0404 using the optical S/PDIF output, playing two seperate encoded audio tracks from the same master (DSD & Redbook). note: the SA8260 is not the state-of-the-art for DSD playback.

Let me make sue I have this right.

You did level matched blind tests, i.e tests where somebody else controlled the playback order . Using the SACD and redbook layers playing back through the Marantz ?

You played back some samples from a PC via the EMU , this still doesnt make sense as the EMU cannot play back DSD

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif This was of course a carefully proctored blind test, yes ?

Naw. I only test for my own purposes. I do comparison tests and experiment with just about every piece of equipment I use.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankR /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's a hybrid SACD. Analog recording. Same remastered audio. Separate layers have Redbook and DSD.

The redbook layer on many analogue reissue SACDs I compared was different than the SACD layer. Try comparing a native DSD recording on an audiophile SACD hybrid label like Pentatone. You'll be surprised at the sound of the redbook layer when it isn't deliberately hobbled to make the SACD layer sound better. I used Jaarvi's Stravinsky chamber works. It's one of the most natural and dynamic recordings I've ever heard, and it sounds EXACTLY the same on redbook as it does on SACD.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankR /img/forum/go_quote.gif Would you mind telling us your playback equipment used?

We used a Philips 963sa SACD player, Yamaha and Sony CD players and two different rigs... my own and an experimental system being designed by an engineer friend of mine. It's all in the archive.

See ya
Steve

 

[frankR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The redbook layer on many reissue SACDs I compared was different than the SACD layer. Try comparing a native DSD recording on an audiophile SACD hybrid label like Pentatone. You'll be surprised at the sound of the redbook layer when it isn't deliberately hobbled to make the SACD layer sound better. See ya Steve

You're probably right.

However, there is difference in the SACD that I hear that outright distinguishes itself.

The dynamics have a lot more punch. The instruments sound more lifelike. I can throw out adjuctives all day, and I may not convince you. What I hear from the SACD I've never heard, by a mile on redbook, on any playback system, and I've heard some good ones. It sounds as good as the best vinyl, or better, more dynamic range, no pops, ect.

 

[frankR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif We used a Philips 963sa SACD player, Yamaha and Sony CD players and two different rigs... my own and an experimental system being designed by an engineer friend of mine. It's all in the archive. See ya Steve

Speakers?

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankR /img/forum/go_quote.gif The dynamics have a lot more punch. The instruments sound more lifelike. I can throw out adjuctives all day, and I may not convince you. What I hear from the SACD I've never heard, by a mile on redbook, on any playback system, and I've heard some good ones. It sounds as good as the best vinyl.

I don't doubt at all that you heard those differences. But they're are all due to mastering. Compare a native DSD on a label that only releases SACD hybrids like Pentatone. That will give you a perfect comparison of high resolution digital and redbook with no monkeying around with the mastering.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankR /img/forum/go_quote.gif Speakers?

Custom made speakers that had just been calibrated to provide perfectly flat response from 25Hz to 20kHz.

See ya
Steve

 

[b0dhi]

I'm not sure whether the reason for it is filters or what, and actually it doesn't really matter, because each of these sounds clearly progressively better than the last: -

http://members.iinet.net.au/~hararghost/1377_441.wav

http://members.iinet.net.au/~hararghost/1377_48.wav

http://members.iinet.net.au/~hararghost/1377_96.wav

http://members.iinet.net.au/~hararghost/1377_192.wav

 

[frankR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not sure whether the reason for it is filters or what, and actually it doesn't really matter, because each of these sounds clearly progressively better than the last: - http://members.iinet.net.au/~hararghost/1377_441.wav http://members.iinet.net.au/~hararghost/1377_48.wav http://members.iinet.net.au/~hararghost/1377_96.wav http://members.iinet.net.au/~hararghost/1377_192.wav

What were those nasty clips that almost caused me to lose me hearing.

You have me interested.

 

[b0dhi]

^ Sorry I forgot to indicate that in my post. They're 1377Hz (chosen randomly) saw waves at 44.1, 48, 96 and 192Khz respectively. There's an easily audible difference between them, even in my modest setup (Juli@ > PK1). The quality progressively improves going from 44.1 to 192. Actually, I was expecting there to be no audible change from 96Khz upwards, but I guess not. I can only imagine what 1000Khz or something would sound like.

 

[gregorio]

There seems to be a little confusion with regards to the format vs. the equipment. Some of you hear differences between CD and SACD and then conclude that SACD is better than CD. In theory, both formats exceed what your ears are capable of hearing. So what are the differences you're hearing? You are hearing the implementation of the DAC process being handled differently as well as the different processing which occurs during mastering. Maybe your DAC has particularly good filters at 192kFs/s maybe the DSD reconstruction is better implemented than the standard PCM reconstruction. Maybe the decimation from DSD to PCM is not well implemented. There are a whole host of potential differences in the implementations between different DACs and even between different processes within the same DAC.

My advice: Don't jump to conclusions about what is causing strengths and weaknesses between formats, generally it's not an intrinsic problem but purely a manufacturing one. Specifications on DACs (and ADCs) are generally next to useless, use your ears. Remember, we all hear slightly differently anyway, so what might sound good to one person might not sound quite so good to another.