[beeman458]

That's more than I spend on average on SACDs. Normally pay about $10 a disc.
 
???
 
SACD offers you more options - not less.
 
Are there any SACD stores as where I shop, you only find CD music.  Any DVD or Blu-ray choices are combinations of video/music at best.  When I check Amazon, titles that I'm interested in, for some reason are stratospheric in price by comparison.
 
???
 
I must be thick-headed in regard to this whole SACD thing.  When I look, I find inexpensive players coupled with inconvenient availability and high prices for titles that I'm interested in.  You guys write about easy/diverse availability at less than CD pricing and seem to be finding what you want, all day long.
 
???
 
Example, I buy a Joe Henderson CD title for seven bucks and the store has a boatload of his used CD's to choose from.  When I put "Joe Henderson SACD" into the search engine, up pops $38.00, new or used and I can't find the title that I'm currently listening to: "The Best of Joe Henderson."
 
From what's being written in posts prior to this post, I'm getting the impression that due to limited availability of SACD's on the open market, one has to know, in advance, what they're wanting to listen to and like NetFlix, order in advance as trying to go spur-of-the-moment, potluck, isn't going happen.
 
???

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Yet another piece of evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range.
 
Excerpts: 
 
"All digital audio recording and playback chains include input and output converters and associated analog circuitry, significantly limiting practical dynamic range. Observed 16-bit digital audio dynamic range is about 90 dB."
 
"In 1981, researchers at Ampex determined that a dynamic range of 118 dB on a dithered digital audio stream was necessary for subjective noise-free playback of music in quiet listening environments."
 

Have you read Fielder's conference paper that you cite above ?
 
I cannot reproduce it here for copyright reasons but I can summarize why it does not add anything to the argument, if you want to buy it you can get it from the AES for $5 (AES members)
 
They consider the 110db from home speakers to not be a realistic listening level , they throw home speakers out of the equation as they do not go loud enough, they place the peak live volume level at 122db for classical front row center and extrapolate to 128db for a rock concert, fine but are you ever going to listen at this level ? - then they do not use listening rooms but ultra quiet studios for their model, rigth at the end for the home comsumer they drop the requirement down to 106db not the 118db you cite, but this is still based on absurd listening levels and exactly matches Meyer and Moran's findings that at unpleasantly loud level you could hear the extra noise, this part is not in doubt, nor do they ever talk about any subjective superiority of such extended dynamic range just the noise levels at very loud playback.
 
PS Perhaps I should have mentioned this earlier they modeled the 118db dynamic range from subtracting 4db (noise detection threshold at 4k - 7k(sic))  from the max level uamplified, not by someone actually listening at 122db and saying
I can't hear the hiss now !

 

[beeman458]

I pushed 116db with my Klipsch, CF-3 Horns, rated 100db @ 1W/m with the horns bi-amped to a Golden Tube SE40.
 
But there was no point as nobody could be in the same room with me.
 

 

[rapunzel]

Quote:

Blu has a steadily growing library, but it is still well under a thousand titles at this point (likely closer to 500). Here is a pretty good list, although a few are missing:
 
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?genre=Music
 

 
These mostly look like films or music videos. How can you tell what the recording resolution is?
Hardly any of it appears to be hi-rez?! 
It's mostly just audio stuff on a blu-ray disc. 

 

[TheWuss]

exactly.
i'm ready for blu-ray audio.
not concerts on blu-ray. 

 

[Krav]

I'm kind of surprised that we are still having this discussion. You just quoted yourself "they place the peak live volume level at 122db for classical front row center". The peak!
 
Live music consists of many sine waves of various frequencies - starting, appearing, and disappearing. Even though each and every one of those waves have a modest amplitude (so as to not deafen the musician playing an instrument), their superposition may create tremendous transient peaks at certain moments.
 
These peaks are fleeting and can't even be heard all by themselves. Yet if they are clipped from recording, the original sine waves can't be faithfully restored by the inner ear machinery, which is essentially a mechanical Fourier transformer. Clipping is actually one of the worst distortions as it generates a wide array of phantom frequencies that weren't there in the original live performance.
 
So I was talking about the peak amplitude levels, and by the way, the amplitude range of a decent studio microphone usually exceeds 120 dB, matched by the range of mic pre-amp in a decent mixer. Interestingly enough, such is the amplitude range of a decent studio monitor as well. A coincidence?
 
The loudness level, as measured by a sound meter, is an averaged value, which is by definition lower than the peak value.  As it relates to this characteristic, I agree with everything you said. It is actually unhealthy to listen to sounds with loudness level of over 85 dB for a prolonged period of time.
 
One can record live music in 24/96, with the signal amplitude dynamic range of 144 dB, and then perfectly happily listen to it at a loudness level of 80 dB. The seeming dynamic range "overkill" is there so that the transient peaks are faithfully recorded and reproduced and thus the original performance frequency layout can be restored correctly by the inner ear machinery.
 
Quote:

Have you read Fielder's conference paper that you cite above ?
 
I cannot reproduce it here for copyright reasons but I can summarize why it does not add anything to the argument, if you want to buy it you can get it from the AES for $5 (AES members)
 
They consider the 110db from home speakers to not be a realistic listening level , they throw home speakers out of the equation as they do not go loud enough, they place the peak live volume level at 122db for classical front row center and extrapolate to 128db for a rock concert, fine but are you ever going to listen at this level ? - then they do not use listening rooms but ultra quiet studios for their model, rigth at the end for the home comsumer they drop the requirement down to 106db not the 118db you cite, but this is still based on absurd listening levels and exactly matches Meyer and Moran's findings that at unpleasantly loud level you could hear the extra noise, this part is not in doubt, nor do they ever talk about any subjective superiority of such extended dynamic range just the noise levels at very loud playback.
 
PS Perhaps I should have mentioned this earlier they modeled the 118db dynamic range from subtracting 4db (noise detection threshold at 4k - 7k(sic))  from the max level uamplified, not by someone actually listening at 122db and saying
I can't hear the hiss now !

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

I'm kind of surprised that we are still having this discussion. You just quoted yourself "they place the peak live volume level at 122db for classical front row center". The peak!
 
Live music consists of many sine waves of various frequencies - starting, appearing, and disappearing. Even though each and every one of those waves have a modest amplitude (so as to not deafen the musician playing an instrument), their superposition may create tremendous transient peaks at certain moments.
 
These peaks are fleeting and can't even be heard all by themselves. Yet if they are clipped from recording, the original sine waves can't be faithfully restored by the inner ear machinery, which is essentially a mechanical Fourier transformer. Clipping is actually one of the worst distortions as it generates a wide array of phantom frequencies that weren't there in the original live performance.
 
So I was talking about the peak amplitude levels, and by the way, the amplitude range of a decent studio microphone usually exceeds 120 dB, matched by the range of mic pre-amp in a decent mixer. Interestingly enough, such is the amplitude range of a decent studio monitor as well. A coincidence?
 
The loudness level, as measured by a sound meter, is an averaged value, which is by definition lower than the peak value.  As it relates to this characteristic, I agree with everything you said. It is actually unhealthy to listen to sounds with loudness level of over 85 dB for a prolonged period of time.
 
One can record live music in 24/96, with the signal amplitude dynamic range of 144 dB, and then perfectly happily listen to it at a loudness level of 80 dB. The seeming dynamic range "overkill" is there so that the transient peaks are faithfully recorded and reproduced and thus the original performance frequency layout can be restored correctly by the inner ear machinery.

 

 

 
I think we have our wires crossed.

Lets work this backwards, you have a digital recording device, you set it up so that it peaks at 0db, i.e full scale regardless of whether the spl is 122db or 80db and regradless of whether it is a 24 bit or 16 bit device and you set it to allow for transient peaks so maybe you take it down to -3db peak for safety, now it does not clip and you capture everything. 0db is just as loud on both systems assuming both ADCs convert to the same nominal voltage level. The ony difference on playback is that the 24 bit system has less inherent noise so that if you choose to play it back at 122db the noise from the 16 bit recording shows up, you lose a bit of low level detail in noise as well but this is a long way down.
 
But here is the thing, nobody is advocating recording at 16 bits, record at 24 bits and then render down to 16 bits for consumer playback, the sound is theoretically more compressed and a bit noisier but until you hit extreme volumes a la M and M you will not notice the difference.
 
Fielder is conflating two things, studio requirements and home requirements and like Stuart his model requires that you listen at ear-splitting volumes to get the benefit of the extra dynamic range, and it is a model, he did not do listening tests to show that anyone could tell the difference between a dynamic range of 96db and a dynamic range of 118db , the point about M and M's study is that when the dynamic range of the system (leaving aside the source material for now) went frrom a real world 118db to 96db or 90 if you prefer nobody could detect the degradation until they played it back at super-loud volumes, yet the dynamic range was dropped to less than 1/8th of the original !

 

[rapunzel]

Quote:

 
I think we have our wires crossed.
 
nobody is advocating recording at 16 bits, record at 24 bits and then render down to 16 bits for consumer playback, the sound is theoretically more compressed and a bit noisier 

Why render down? That is absurd. If a recording is hi-rez to start with, say 96kHz 24bit or pure DSD,  .... placing it onto a CD format immediately throws out about 75% of the collected information in the original studio digital master. For what gain? Your position that 96 dB (or whatever) is enough is mostly irrelevant. The real advantage of hi-rez has very little to do with extra dB ... it is all about more accurately reproducing the original analog waveform by dramatically increasing the number of sampling points ... and about impulse response. That's why SACD and hi-rez downloads sound more natural and realistic. 
 
 
 
Quote:

 
but until you hit extreme volumes a la M and M you will not notice the difference.
 

 
Instead of repeating the same thing, just get a decent hi-rez recording, and compare the SACD layer to the CD layer on the same disc that has been downsampled from the same master ... really easy to do on any decent SACD player ... you can just select the layer you want to play and listen and compare for yourself. As Kenn Kessler says (Sept 2009, Hi-fi News & Record Review), "any music lover who can’t hear the difference needs a session with an ear-wax remover".
 
As for M&M, ... that's hardly a credible reference.  A paper that uses CD-resolution source material to test hi-rez sound is just quackery.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Why render down? That is absurd. If a recording is hi-rez to start with, say 96kHz 24bit or pure DSD,  .... placing it onto a CD format immediately throws out about 75% of the collected information in the original studio digital master. For what gain? Your position that 96 dB (or whatever) is enough is mostly irrelevant. The real advantage of hi-rez has very little to do with extra dB ... it is all about more accurately reproducing the original analog waveform by dramatically increasing the number of sampling points ... and about impulse response. That's why SACD and hi-rez downloads sound more natural and realistic. 
 
 
 
 
Instead of repeating the same thing, just get a decent hi-rez recording, and compare the SACD layer to the CD layer on the same disc that has been downsampled from the same master ... really easy to do on any decent SACD player ... you can just select the layer you want to play and listen and compare for yourself. As Kenn Kessler says (Sept 2009, Hi-fi News & Record Review), "any music lover who can’t hear the difference needs a session with an ear-wax remover".
 
As for M&M, ... that's hardly a credible reference.  A paper that uses CD-resolution source material to test hi-rez sound is just quackery.

1. Apart from life above 22khz being relevant which is dubous to say the least a 16/44.1  system can recover an accurate waveform very well, well enough that you cannot tell the difference. Many studios record at 24 bits and render down for CD, the 24 bits allow you headroom for messing around.
 
2. Mp3 throws out between 75 and 90 percent of the original infromation, can you say that this is always detected ?
 
3. getting two layers with the exact same mastering is not usual, normally the CD layer is nobbled so the comparison is flawed
 
4. Comparing two things when you know what they are is naturally flawed
 
5. You can point me to any credible unbiased controlled tests that show that folks can routinely hear the difference unsighted
 
6. Has ken kessler submitted his beliefs to blind tests ? Where are his peer reviewed papers to be found I'll read some of them.
 
7. Not all of M and M material was CD resolution, but you know this already. Okay it cpuld have been done better but find me any serious controlled test thas shows the obvious superiority of Hig res

 

[hodgjy]

Exactly.  The only way to test "SACD" resolution vs. "redbook" resolution is to not use two different discs or two different layers on the same disc, but to take the higher res. recording and downsample it.  Then listen to original hi res and lower res for comparison.  90% of the arguments here don't understand that.  They claim to hear the difference between the SACD of recording X and a redbook cd of the same recording X.  This is possible because of mastering difference.  Take a SACD and downsample it, the differences are inaudible.

 
Quote:

 
3. getting two layers with the exact same mastering is not usual, normally the CD layer is nobbled so the comparison is flawed
 
4. Comparing two things when you know what they are is naturally flawed

 

[wavoman]

Quote:

Take a SACD and downsample it, the differences are inaudible.

 

As I said earlier in this thread, I have done something similar, and indeed the differences are inaudibe.  I was very careful -- I ripped 24/96 tracks from DVD-A's.  This gives me the baseline LPCM.  Then I make a 48000 version, an exact decimation ("binarymation"), no interplotation algorithm needed.  I now have the comparison LPCM.  Even sighted, knowing what I am listening to, I hear no difference. 
 
On SACDs, I can't create a lower-res DSD of course, so I compare the SACD to 88.2 LPCMs and 176.4 LPMCs.  Again, these are exact decimations (hexamation and octamation, to invent two more words).  Now I can't use my top-of-the-line DAC since my USB-to-SPDIF converter does not handle these rates (with the firmware version I have), but using a USB DAC that does, I think maybe I hear a difference on some SACDs, but not a preference in any way.  I can't switch quite as instantly, so you never know.  But in no way would I say the SACD is superior -- I think any difference I might hear is due to DSD decoding vs LPCM decoding and the way the filters handle sharp transients.   The attack seems sharper on the SACD but the decay cleaner on the LPCM downsample ... could all be nonesense, don't know.  I might very well fail a DBT.
 
Clearly none of this means you shouldn't buy SACDs.  Of course you should.  They give you the best sound.  And the LPCM rips you obtain from them sound just great, although they are a PITA to make.  Since SACDs are encrypted, you should make these rips only for your own convenience in time and place shifing, never to give anyone a copy.  For use with a PMP, the redbook layer they give you on most SACDs will be fine and you don't need to do anything unusual to rip these.

 

[hodgjy]

I agree.  SACD has other benefits, which mainly includes the multi-channel format.  The introduction of SACD has allowed many people to experience some of the legendary quadrophonic recordings.
 
Quote:

Clearly none of this means you shouldn't buy SACDs.  Of course you should. 

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Since SACDs are encrypted, you should make these rips only for your own convenience in time and place shifing, never to give anyone a copy.  For use with a PMP, the redbook layer they give you on most SACDs will be fine and you don't need to do anything unusual to rip these.

** I remember correctly ** DMCA , sadly, makes even that illegal as you are countering encryption, and fair use does not apply, Even though it is only for personal use thank you RIAA and MPAA
 

 

[rapunzel]

Quote:

2. Mp3 throws out between 75 and 90 percent of the original infromation, can you say that this is always detected ?

 
 
Well, at least your position is becoming much clearer. In your view, people can't tell the difference between hi-rez vs the latter downsampled to CD resolution, and people can't tell the difference between CD resolution and MP3s, in each case throwing out about 70% of the information. Okkkkkkkkkay. Well ... fair enough for yourself, but it is a bit rich to extend this argument to other people. Not everyone is the same, and some people are more sensitive to these things than others. I agree that most people are happy with their MP3s and most people are happy at McDonalds too. 
 
 
 
 
Quote:

3. getting two layers with the exact same mastering is not usual, normally the CD layer is nobbled so the comparison is flawed

 
 
That's just unfounded nonsense. New SACD recordings typically start off with the SACD layer (especially if a pure DSD recording), and then the CD layer is just downsampled from that. Why nobble the CD layer?  How many people bother comparing layers?  Hardly anyone. Both layers are customers for the label ... the CD layer for people who don't have SACD players, and the hi-rez layer for those who do. And the difference is plain to hear on good recordings ... and difficult to hear on poor recordings ... or those that aren't actually hi-rez to start with.  

 

[rapunzel]

 
Quote:

1. Apart from life above 22khz being relevant which is dubous to say the least a 16/44.1  system can recover an accurate waveform very well, 

 
I'm sure you have seen plenty of charts of the failure of same. *Can do* is not good enough.
 
 
Quote:

Many studios record at 24 bits and render down for CD, the 24 bits allow you headroom for messing around.

 
Absolutely - 96kHz 24 bit is basically the norm these days in recording studios. So we should be gettings lots of hi-rez goodies in years to come.
 
 
 
Quote:

 
5. You can point me to any credible unbiased controlled tests that show that folks can routinely hear the difference unsighted

 

 
a) Since we both agree that information is being thrown out by placing it on CD (or MP3), I would suggest the onus lies with those who say that throwing out information is fine  ... to prove that it is actually fine. I prefer my music the way it was created ... not throwing out 75% of it ... and then another 75% of what's left for mp3 lol. Admittedly, most people don't care /// but I am unaware of any credible academic study that proves that humans are incapable of telling the difference. 
 
b) If you are familiar with some comparative studies re CD resolution and MP3s, I would be very interested to know of such studies. It would be interesting to find out what ABX studies can prove.  How do they perform in MP3 vs CD tests?  I have heard of the studies which show that teens actually preferred their MP3s because they liked the distorted sound ... but that's a bit different.
 
c) As for credible peer-reviewed professional academic papers, I am sure you are familiar with a series of papers by Oohashi et al ..
 
 
Oohashi  et al (2000), Journal of Neurophysiology,vol 83(6), pp. 3548-3558
Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect
http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548
 
http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548
 
where subjects were played some high-frequency sounds ... recorded gamelan music from Bali ... both as it would be heard naturally (including high frequencies) ... actually using a machine very similar to an early SACD player to re-produce the hgh-frequency natural gamelan waveforms ... and then unnaturally ... with the high-frequencies cut out ... as would be heard with a CD player ... And they found that: 
 

1. EEG monitoring of brain activity showed statistically significant enhancement in alpha-wave brain activity when the nautral high-frequency sound was left in (not thrown out),
2. The subjects actually preferred the music in which the high-frequency sound (not truncated/cut-out)

 
even though could not actually 'hear' the high-frequency sound.
 
Now, the truncation of high-frequency sounds is just one small aspect of the hi-rez advantage ... I frankly think it is the least important aspect .. and if that alone is statistically testable and provable to have real physical effects on brain activity ... then the other 80% of information / harmonics / sampling / impulse response .... etc is something I would be very very very very careful about throwing out ... when the only basis for throwing out that information is because that was all that was possible when an old out-of-date format (CD) was designed 30 years ago.