[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot OK. I know what grainy sounds like, and I've heard that as an element of groove wear on records, but I've never heard that on a well recorded and mastered CD. I've heard distortion caused by hot mastering, which is similar, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. If something already has a very smooth frequency response and no distortion, are you saying that it can still sound grainy? And is the graininess you hear an "all over" thing, or does it appear just in particular parts of the music? Is it part of all CDs or just certain ones? See ya Steve

Yes for instance...the HD580/6x0 family of phones. I have always found them to be grainy in comparison to other top performers from Grado, Sony and Beyer (sticking with dynamics for now). Even though the 600's have a "smoother" frequency response than most Grados, there is no way one would describe a Grado as "grainy" but the HD600's can become grainy particularly in the top end. However, the HD650's pretty much take care of this and this was one of the biggest "wow!" factors for me upon first listen. I believe I wrote about that very fact, something akin to "the grain is pretty much gone."

I don't know why or how it appears in the sound at all (I would agree with Jazz that in the case of PS-1's they may be too liquid, buit that is the main reason I bought them...for that element) but I prefer a more liquid sound than a grainy sound. I feel grain adds disjointedness to the music, almost like the music is "parsed" into quanta of sound -form and function.

 

[mikeg]

From reading the posts in this thread I've concluded that most of our preference for SACDs may be due to the following causes: peer influence, promotional tech reviews, lots and lots of printed technical specs (e.g., charts and graphs), the higher cost of SACDs, and the greater care that may be taken in producing SACDs.

 

[markl]

...or, from listening...

 

[chillysalsa]

One thing is that a dynamic range of 120 db does not suggest SACD will be capable of particularly loud signals, but quite the opposite. It means the difference between the quietest to loudest signal will be very large.

Considering the absolute peak is actually dictated by the control of the listener (the volume setting) this is really means that large dynamic range is more capable of playing back quiet sounds better. Ie: the quiet details (such as the harmonics of instruments) are theoretically better repressented.

Now, the question is whether 24 bit resolution can ever be preserved downstream of the DAC. I mean, we are talking about 1 part in 16.7 million. Show me an analog stage or I/V conversion components in a SACD player that are capable of preserving that. If I'm not mistaken, that would man something like a dynamic range of 144 db, no? The recording of a signal at such high resolution is really kind of meaningless when typical amps have an dynamic range of 90-100 db in the amplification side. 16 bits is theoretically 96 db of dynamic range, which is comparable to the best amplifiers, so theoretically if you won't really recover all the range that a SACD will have recorded on it.

I think the ability to capture the higher frequencies with less aliasing has more to do with the improvement in sound, because a less harsh filter can be used in the analog stage.

But the biggest benefit that I've found in SACDs is that sound engineers have gone back and carefully remastered the original recordings. I think this is why SACD have the potential to sound much better than regular CD...

 

[Leporello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chillysalsa The recording of a signal at such high resolution is really kind of meaningless when typical amps have an dynamic range of 90-100 db in the amplification side.

Consider this, too: A (very) silent living room has a noise floor of about 20 db. If we raise the quietest parts above the noise floor, the peaks will be at 164 db.

Your average hifi loudspeaker has a sensitivity of, say, 88 db with 1 W input. How many watts do you need to produce 164 db? Every 3 db step upwards means doubling the power. Now, let's calculate...


Regards,

L.

 

[Leporello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mastergill Redbook vs. high-res is a case closed more than 10 years ago...

It was on some pro audio forum that I learned the term "marketing bits". I lurk on those forums occasionally and high-rez (as a delivery medium) is still an often debated topic (outside the Steve Hoffman forums, of course). IME, the case is not any more closed than among the audiophiles.


Regards,


L.

 

[chillysalsa]

Tangent found an interesting article,"What it means to go beyond 16 bits of resolution"

http://eetimes.com/news/latest/showA...leID=163106100

interesting discussion ensued:

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=122634

He raises a good point, a 24k resistor w/ 1V through it will contribute enough noise to degrade the 24 bits of resolution.

 

[Kram Sacul]

I think this thread has confirmed one thing to me: SACD has failed to live up to it's hype. If only a few people can tell a slight difference then it's just another AC-3 vs DTS thing, and those are somewhat old lossy formats. Ancient 16-bit 44khz PCM vs the mighty SACD in it's fancy packaging should be like night and day, standard def vs HDTV. Instead there's only a little difference, and it might be because of mastering?

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kram Sacul I think this thread has confirmed one thing to me: SACD has failed to live up to its hype. If only a few people can tell a slight difference then it's just another AC-3 vs DTS thing, and those are somewhat old lossy formats. Ancient 16-bit 44khz PCM vs the mighty SACD in it's fancy packaging should be like night and day, standard def vs HDTV. Instead there's only a little difference, and it might be because of mastering?

I disagree about the mastering: the hi-rez formats show a quality on their own. But I agree somewhat on the «little difference»: the step from the CD to SACD and DVD-A is smaller than from vinyl to CD. The reason is that -- to throw in arbitrary percentages -- while the LP represents 50% of the original (analogue) master tape, the CD reaches 80% accuracy, so the step to SACD (90%) and DVD-A in its highest resolution (95%) is relatively modest, because there's not much room left for (audible) improvements from the formats' side. We have a different situation in audio than in video where resolution by far doesn't reach the capacity of human perception. (BTW: the percentages represent the degree of accuracy, not euphony.)

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kram Sacul I think this thread has confirmed one thing to me: SACD has failed to live up to it's hype. If only a few people can tell a slight difference then it's just another AC-3 vs DTS thing, and those are somewhat old lossy formats. Ancient 16-bit 44khz PCM vs the mighty SACD in it's fancy packaging should be like night and day, standard def vs HDTV. Instead there's only a little difference, and it might be because of mastering?

And perhaps that's one of the "failures" of SACD/DVD-A....not enough of a difference in sound quality. But then, I don't think sound quality is at the top of the "want" list for vast majority of music listeners out there.

For me, SACD represent enough of a difference to warrant the purchase of a player. Sure, it's a "lowly" Sony DVP-NS500V but I can appreciate the improved quality of SACD already. I really don't think numbers can conveve the improved listening pleasure when listening to a well-mastered SACD (or DVD-A, for that matter).

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Actually this may even be the key to the better perception: the more direct, intuitive approach bypassing the purely intellectual perception.

Well, there are plenty of other folks in this old world bypassing the intellect! Some of them are in high positions in the government!

When I first got my SACD player, I popped on the Living Stereo disks and was amazed at the great sound. I posted a report to the web that the sound of SACDs was noticeably better than CDs. But when I actually compared the sound, instead of relying on my impressions, I found that the CD layer sounded just as good. A subjective opinion is great for an individual, but it takes objective testing for the results to mean anything to anyone else. It's good you're happy with your player though.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose If 16 bit is indeed enough, why would different companies go to great lengths at developing different noise-shaping algorithms that could extend the effective dynamic range to 18 or 20 bit?

I guess the same reason they climbed Mount Everest... because it's there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose To me the main difference between SACD and CD manifests itself the most in solo violin playing high notes. Other differences such as air, details and tighter bass are much more subtle. In fact I don't understand why SACD should have tighter bass.

What recording have you noticed this difference with?

Thanks
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mastergill bigshot, don't take offense but using PA system for checking accuracy (as it seems according to your posts), etc...is a big joke.

This isn't a PA system. This is a prototype for a new type of speaker design that is scalable from a room sized rig like this one, all the way up to arena sized equipment. If you're in the LA area, I would be happy to arrange a demo for you. It's pretty amazing to hear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mastergill I can't believe someone who claim so loud being a "pro" can rely on a consumer Philips universal player for judging DSD accuracy.

I'm using an SACD player that has received good reviews. If there is no difference between CD and SACD performance at this level, people should know that so they don't waste money on consumer grade equipment that isn't capable of producing any sound improvement. If it requires pro equipment to judge DSD performance, why is the format being marketed to consumers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mastergill Don't judge DSD technology with only commercial SACD release. Record the same source with PCM 16bits, then with DSD (and also 24bits PCM), if you have reasonably good hearing (and more important, top-notch monitoring setup), there's no contest between 16 bits and high-res.

I've done recording with 24/96 on a ProTools rig at the last studio I worked at. As I said earlier, the wider range allowed me more flexibility in mixing, but I couldn't hear the difference with a recording played flat.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leporello Your average hifi loudspeaker has a sensitivity of, say, 88 db with 1 W input. How many watts do you need to produce 164 db? Every 3 db step upwards means doubling the power. Now, let's calculate...

I visited my friend with the amazing rig over 4th of July. I brought along Dorati's famous recording of 1812 Overture with the Liberty Bell and Civil War cannon. When the cannon blasts went off, the meters on the power amp went all the way to the top, even when the volume wasn't terribly loud (OK, it was a little loud...) My friend explained that the power required to push 26hz is MUCH greater than higher frequencies, because it has to physically push the speaker cone further. Apparently at 26hz, the length of the wave is over 40 feet. That's a wave the length of a semi-truck coming out of the speaker in one second! The Dorati recording had the lowest frequencies my friend has ever encountered in a recording. He's already planning beefing up the bass by adding more bass speaker coverage.

See ya
Steve

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Well, there are plenty of other folks in this old world bypassing the intellect! Some of them are in high positions in the government!

I'd really like to fully and heartily agree with you on this, but we're not allowed to political discussions, and I'm not even a citizen of your country.

However, bypassing the intellect (although my wording was a bit more differentiating) has no negative meaning to me and certainly will do no harm in the context of music listening. Of course the intuitive approach is not exactly switching off the intellect, rather a direct wire to the mind, enabling easy comprehension of things the purely intellectual approach with all its censorship wouldn't allow.