[Robonaut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Proven to be true. See ya Steve

If that's the study that I'm thinking of, I'm very skeptical of its conclusions.

From what I recall, they used music that nobody was familiar with in a room that nobody was familiar with on equipment that nobody was familiar with.

As much as I like SACD, I will be the first to admit that differences between SACD and CD are subtle. If I was listening to equipment I wasn't familiar with, I don't know that I'd be able to spot the difference, even with music I know intimately.

 

[audioholik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Proven to be true. See ya Steve

these so called blind tests and publications spread by audiocritic.com are funny, they not only fail to hear the difference between high resolution SACDs and low resolution CDs, but neither can they hear the difference between various amplifiers, players, so sorry to say that, they are not the factor in this dispute

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audioholik /img/forum/go_quote.gif that also is not true, human ears can hear 120dB (dynamic range) and even 24kHz, but SACD gives you more accurate sound in the whole spectrum not only high frequencies, low are also better in SACD.

Ears can hear 120dB, but at that level, hearing damage is possible. No one listens to music at 120dB. If you did, your dog would run away and your neighbors would call the cops.

Humans cannot "hear" 24kHz. Studies have shown that although some people can perceive ultra high frequencies as a "feeling" (and they can certainly cause intensepain at loud volume levels) frequencies above the range of human hearing add absolutely nothing to the perception of music. In fact, the range of frequencies most important for what most people consider "good sound" is between 50Hz and 10kHz. Redbook provides a full octave headroom above and below that.

High bitrate sound does not give "better lows". It provides more resolution in LOW LEVEL SOUND. In order to hear the added resolution, you need to turn the volume on your stereo up until it rattles the walls and knocks books off the shelf. The resolution of 20-20 in redbook at normal listening levels is *identical* to SACD.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audioholik /img/forum/go_quote.gif these so called blind tests and publications spread by audiocritic.com are funny, they not only fail to hear the difference between high resolution SACDs and low resolution CDs, but neither can they hear the difference between various amplifiers, players, so sorry to say that, they are not the factor in this dispute

That isn't audiocritic.com. It's the Japanese chapter of the Audio Engineering Society... Audio Engineering Society (AES) - an international organization of professional audio engineers. The study you seem to think is meaningless was published in their peer reviewed journal.

You flat out don't know what you're talking about.

See ya
Steve

 

[audioholik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The resolution of 20-20 in redbook at normal listening levels is *identical* to SACD. See ya Steve

everybody is entitled to his opinion, some say, and blind tests seam to confirm it, that people don't hear the difference between CD and mp3.... but I'm staying with SACD no matter what others hear or rather can not hear

 

[audioholik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif That isn't audiocritic.com. It's the Japanese chapter of the Audio Engineering Society... Audio Engineering Society (AES) - an international organization of professional audio engineers. The study you seem to think is meaningless was published in their peer reviewed journal. You flat out don't know what you're talking about. See ya Steve

and you think that people who created DSD are not professional audio engineers?

 

[audioholik]

if there is no difference why would Gramophone for example even bother with SACD, they are going to release their first SACD next month, and start a new column dedicated to SACDs

SA-CD.net - SACD sampler in Gramophone

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SACD-Man /img/forum/go_quote.gif SO resolution means nothing??

Frankly the best published evidence from controlled listening tests suggests that the higher resolution of DVD-A and SACD may not actually be distingishable under normal to loud listening conditions when compared to red book renderings of the exact same souce material , i.e where you can guarantee that the mastering is the same before the format is changed.

If you look at the psychophysics of hearing this is not surprising, it is not SACD or DVD-A's fault that humans cannot detect sound pressure level differences of < 0.1db, and this is being **extremely** generous, while humble 16 bit CD with it's 65536 levels can trivially render minute differences in voltage levels...

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audioholik /img/forum/go_quote.gif and you think that people who created DSD are not professional audio engineers?

High bitrate recording is very useful for mixing. It allows you to bring up the level of a particular channel in the mix further than with 16/44.1. It provides great flexibility when you need to adjust things in the mix. For playback at comfortable listening levels, it provides no advantage. That's why professional audio engineers bounce their mixes down to redbook at the end of a session.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audioholik /img/forum/go_quote.gif if there is no difference why would Gramophone for example even bother with SACD, they are going to release their first SACD next month, and start a new column dedicated to SACDs

Do you think maybe manufacturers of SACD players and SACD discs might advertise in Gramophone?

See ya
Steve

 

[Robonaut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif High bitrate recording is very useful for mixing. It allows you to bring up the level of a particular channel in the mix further than with 16/44.1. It provides great flexibility when you need to adjust things in the mix. For playback at comfortable listening levels, it provides no advantage. That's why professional audio engineers bounce their mixes down to redbook at the end of a session.

Wait, so you're saying that if a audio engineer is mixing, say, the soundtrack for a major Hollywood movie, he's going to mix down to 16-bit 44.1? Are you sure? Even when he knows that the music is going to be used for a much higher resolution SDDS (or whatever) soundtrack?

I was under the impression (from articles in Sound on Sound, etc) that master tapes were always stored at much higher resolutions than 16-bit 44.1.

 

[audioholik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif High bitrate recording is very useful for mixing. It allows you to bring up the level of a particular channel in the mix further than with 16/44.1. It provides great flexibility when you need to adjust things in the mix. For playback at comfortable listening levels, it provides no advantage. That's why professional audio engineers bounce their mixes down to redbook at the end of a session. See ya Steve

professional audio engineers down mix their hi-res material to 16bit CDs because this is most popular format and that's what major record labels are selling to the masses and see the biggest revenue in $$$$$$, plus they know that most listeners will eventually down mix their CDs to mp3s

I agree, though that high bitrate technology is very good for mixing (DXD), as I can judge from the final product - SACD recording.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audioholik /img/forum/go_quote.gif if there is no difference why would Gramophone for example even bother with SACD, they are going to release their first SACD next month, and start a new column dedicated to SACDs

If you expect to persuade people who disagree then you are going to need to do a little better than make posts that are filled with logical fallacies such as the bare assertions and appeals to authority that have graced your last several comments.

--Jerome

 

[nnotis]

I can't agree that 16 bit always sounds the same as 24. With some recordings, it certainly does. But even with the most favorable dithering settings, some of my mixes lose a bit of depth when brought down to 16 bit.

Ears can be damaged by noises much louder than 100 db. But doesn't the noise need to be sustained to cause damage? At symphonic concerts, aren't there brief spikes in amplitude that exceed 100 db? Perhaps someone can chime in with specific numbers.

 

[nnotis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif With screens smaller than 40 inches, there is absolutely no benefit to blueray.

I can't agree with this statement either. I saw a big improvement in clarity even when I had a 23 inch screen with only 768 horizontal lines. Blue Ray also seems to do a better job of handling delicate color gradient.