[virometal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal /img/forum/go_quote.gif The sampling rate 44.1/96/192 has little audible effect, ever hear a 20k test tone?

The whole resolution argument reminds me a little of the HDTV rez race. You can keep pumping screen resolution up, but there's a point where the eyes won't process the extra detail.

 

[robm321]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg /img/forum/go_quote.gif I briefly heard a couple of good vinyl players at meets, but I didn't find them to sound better than good CDPs. In fact, even the brand new vinyl records that I heard, sounded more compressed than what I remembered from Redbook CDs and SACDs. So, what is it about vinyl that you consider superior to high quality Redbook CDs and SACDs?

So, you are saying redbook is the best format out there to your ears?

Vinyl removes the digital edge which almost all players have (even the EMMlabs stuff). All digital has a clean sound to it. Vinyl has a more 3D layered with palpable images kind of sound. Summed up, it just sounds more real to me.

 

[bigshot]

What you are describing has nothing to do with format. It's a mastering issue, most likely frequency imbalances.

See ya
Steve

 

[Dr.Love]

I too think that it all begins with the mastering, hence why I sometimes pay inflated prices even when getting decent deals on mobile fidelity cd's. Placebo or not the difference is well worth it to me.

Also a quality Dac with upsampling to 192khz can make a world of difference to redbook cd's. My rig sounds like analog to my ears and thats music to my ears.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Uh... I think SACD is pretty much forgotten. See ya Steve

It's still going:

http://www.sa-cd.net/

4,500 titles and it is a popular niche product. SACD seems to have taken the place of reel-to-reel in the high end.

Personally, I think it'll continue to grow over the years. Why? Because there's no other high-res format and given the limited success of SACD and DVD-A, it's highly unlikely another one will be developed. This is it for the forseeable future, and judging by the classical releases and new players introduced, it'll be around for awhile. Enough people like it to keep buying. It'll never go mainstream, but it doesn't need to.

Not to threadjack, so I'll say that I'm quite happy with my SACD rig and think it produces some of the best sound I've heard. Whether that's from better mastering or better resolution, or maybe something else, it sounds great. I'm interested in great sound, so it fits the bill. Love vinyl, good Red Book and quality FM, too.

 

[Jubei]

I actually come across more SACDs than DVD-As over here.

 

[Nacher]

I know that talk about audio science and knowledge of humans psychopsychiological capabilities isn't popular among the audiophiles, but I think it's essential to bring it up when comparing formats.

First of all, increasing the sampling rate (from 44.1khz, which can reproduce up to 22050hz per channel) only increases the maximum frequency range in the record. So, 96khz is going to give you 48000hz per channel, but as human hearing is limited to 15.000-20.000hz, you can't hear those frequencies. SACD will sound vastly different to your dog, but for humans it's more or less impossible to hear those high frequencies. There is some debate about if those high frequencies can have an resonant effect on lower frequencies, which would be audible, but that's kind of silly.

Increasing the bits (from 16bit) increases the dynamic range. I can't remember the exact number, but I recall that Redbook CDs have dynamic range of ~80-90db. Enough to jump from silent noise background hum to jet plane taking off. SACD has even more dynamic range, but how many applications can actually use that?

There are a lot of audible differences beetween SACD/CD sides and SACD albums vs CD albums, but from the scientific point of view, it doesn't come from the format. I remember reading an article about DSOTM SACD version, where it was clearly examined and demostrated that the CD side has a completely different mastering. More distortion, mroe clipping, more compression. Of course the SACD side sounded better, but it was due to the mastering differences. The CD side was deliberately made worse than the SACD side.

Another article was about a group of listeners, who found out that SACD albums sounded way better than their CD versions, so they became suspicious, and downsampled the SACD album to 48khz/16bit and compared that to the original SACD 96khz/24bit version. In a blind test, none of them could hear a difference.

I consider SACD as a hoax. It's technically better than CD, but CD is already as good as human hearing can perceive. Only thing those new audio formats have better over Redbook CD is their multichannel support.

 

[mikeg]

You may actually be right (SACD may be a hoax), although I'm still undecided. But, is it possible that the SACD format yields a soundstage/image that is more airy (i.e., specious) than that of Redbook? And, is it possible that the sound of the SACD format is somewhat warmer (i.e., less digital sounding) than that produced by Redbook? Are properties, such as an airy and spacious soundstage, and a warmer sound, determined primarily by specifications like frequency response, and dynamic range?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nacher /img/forum/go_quote.gif I know that talk about audio science and knowledge of humans psychopsychiological capabilities isn't popular among the audiophiles, but I think it's essential to bring it up when comparing formats. First of all, increasing the sampling rate (from 44.1khz, which can reproduce up to 22050hz per channel) only increases the maximum frequency range in the record. So, 96khz is going to give you 48000hz per channel, but as human hearing is limited to 15.000-20.000hz, you can't hear those frequencies. SACD will sound vastly different to your dog, but for humans it's more or less impossible to hear those high frequencies. There is some debate about if those high frequencies can have an resonant effect on lower frequencies, which would be audible, but that's kind of silly. Increasing the bits (from 16bit) increases the dynamic range. I can't remember the exact number, but I recall that Redbook CDs have dynamic range of ~80-90db. Enough to jump from silent noise background hum to jet plane taking off. SACD has even more dynamic range, but how many applications can actually use that? There are a lot of audible differences beetween SACD/CD sides and SACD albums vs CD albums, but from the scientific point of view, it doesn't come from the format. I remember reading an article about DSOTM SACD version, where it was clearly examined and demostrated that the CD side has a completely different mastering. More distortion, mroe clipping, more compression. Of course the SACD side sounded better, but it was due to the mastering differences. The CD side was deliberately made worse than the SACD side. Another article was about a group of listeners, who found out that SACD albums sounded way better than their CD versions, so they became suspicious, and downsampled the SACD album to 48khz/16bit and compared that to the original SACD 96khz/24bit version. In a blind test, none of them could hear a difference. I consider SACD as a hoax. It's technically better than CD, but CD is already as good as human hearing can perceive. Only thing those new audio formats have better over Redbook CD is their multichannel support.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg /img/forum/go_quote.gif You may actually be right (SACD may be a hoax), although I'm still undecided. But, is it possible that the SACD format yields a soundstage/image that is more airy (i.e., specious) than that of Redbook?

Specious is the perfect word!

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are properties, such as an airy and spacious soundstage, and a warmer sound, determined primarily by specifications like frequency response, and dynamic range?

Those things are determined primarily by the decisions made by the mixing engineer when it comes to equalization and miking.

See ya
Steve

 

[mikeg]

Perhaps these properties (i.e., spaciousness and warmth) are enhanced/emphasized/exaggerated by sound engineers in the production of SACDs, in order to distinguish this format more clearly from Redbook. And, this results in a presentation that's preferred by SACD lovers, who are willing to pay a higher price for the resulting CDs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Those things are determined primarily by the decisions made by the mixing engineer when it comes to equalization and miking. See ya Steve

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jubei /img/forum/go_quote.gif I actually come across more SACDs than DVD-As over here.

Being in HK, you should be....the city release a disproportionately high number of SACDs in relation to its population. Perhaps more so than anywhere else in the world. The number of DVD-A's released in HK can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

And sa-cd.net haven't included these SACD titles from HK and east Asia in its list. And there's more since these are just the ones I own.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Perhaps these properties (i.e., spaciousness and warmth) are enhanced/emphasized/exaggerated by sound engineers in the production of SACDs, in order to distinguish this format more clearly from Redbook.

They definitely do. The Rolling Stones remasters for SACD sounded nothing like the original records. Personally, I would rather have Jagger/Richards' tight and direct mix than the sloppy and flabby one of some engineer forty years later catering to the tastes of people looking for wide digital reverbs to impress the neighbors with their sound system.

See ya
Steve

 

[Bunnyears]

One of the main things about SACD is that the sound is closer to analog than regular digital because they have more information so there isn't that digital "discrete package"sound to the music. While I'm not sure this makes a big difference for pop music or music like the Rolling Stones, it makes an incredible difference for classical music. It may be all smoke and mirrors, but the end result is music that sounds much more natural so I'm all for it.

 

[mikeg]

Bunnyears' explanation, with which I agree, should certainly clear this up for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif They definitely do. The Rolling Stones remasters for SACD sounded nothing like the original records. Personally, I would rather have Jagger/Richards' tight and direct mix than the sloppy and flabby one of some engineer forty years later catering to the tastes of people looking for wide digital reverbs to impress the neighbors with their sound system. See ya Steve

 

[bigshot]

Well everything is clear except what the heck a "discrete package" sounds like!

My original point was regarding remastering for SACD. With the same mastering, CDs and SACDs are for all intents and purposes identical.

See ya
Steve