[khaos974]

Thanks for your answer Krav, it had a lot of information, though I think you missed the main point, that is practically no music requires reproducing such range, even in the front row of a with an orchestra plaing a symphony, you don't get 96 dB above room floor noise, and you don't usually want to reproduce a gunshot at 1 cm distance.

 

[Krav]

I only got to writing down those thoughts because you pushed me to So thank you.
 
I think we are talking about two different things.
 
You are talking about the loudness range, which is a range of a measure averaged over all frequencies over a "blink" time (~200 ms), and I agree that there is no need to have it over 96 dB. In fact, I usually keep it at 80 dB to avoid long-tem hearing loss and only occasionally push it to 90 dB for specific music or show pieces.
 
I'm talking about the record amplitude range, which needs to accomodate transient spikes in amplitude to faithfully represent frequency, amplitude, and phase of the component sine waves, none of which requires that wide a range individually.
 
Here's a simple example. Imagine a short fragment of music that contains bass guitar at 41 Hz, a vocal note at 1000 Hz, and a cymbal at 8,000 Hz. If you draw their wave forms, you'll see that they all almost inevitably wil be close to their maximum positive amplitude at some point in time. The number of additional bits needed to represent the summary waveform without clipping is binary logarithm of the number of such components.
 
Certain music genres, e.g. symphony, tend to contain great many components, and thus the transient amplitude spikes can be very pronounced. Some other genres, like pop music, have significantly less. Thus 16/44 may be perfectly enough for pop recordings, yet not enough for classic, jazz, symphonic rock, brainy electronica etc. The latter genres really benefit from 24/96.
 
A SACD recording is able to represent the difference between a Stradivarius violin (characterized by an extremely rich spectrum) and a run-of-the-mill one. On a CD, I'm not able to hear such a difference. On SACD, Celine Dion (once again, having very spectrally-rich voice) sounds unusual and divine. On CD, she's just yet another female singer.
 
Anyway, if we agree to disagree, that's fine with me. Still, try to assemble a good 5.1 or 7.1 system using decent studio monitors and listen to some SACD or Blu-ray recordings of acoustic music and female vocals. Then you'll fully understand what I'm talking about.  
 
Quote:

Thanks for your answer Krav, it had a lot of information, though I think you missed the main point, that is practically no music requires reproducing such range, even in the front row of a with an orchestra plaing a symphony, you don't get 96 dB above room floor noise, and you don't usually want to reproduce a gunshot at 1 cm distance.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

 
Here's a simple example. Imagine a short fragment of music that contains bass guitar at 41 Hz, a vocal note at 1000 Hz, and a cymbal at 8,000 Hz. If you draw their wave forms, you'll see that they all almost inevitably wil be close to their maximum positive amplitude at some point in time. The number of additional bits needed to represent the summary waveform without clipping is binary logarithm of the number of such components.
 
 
  

 
Can you explain this more, that does not seem right , when you have three components added together you get a complex wave but only if all component  waves have the exact same maximum amplitude will you get a transient peak that is 3 x p1, i.e all instruments are equally loud , this would not be good engineering, otherwise the bits required formula cannot be defined the way you do it ?

 

[tnili]

I got into SACD's around the same time I got into headphones.  It appeals to me because of these reasons:
 
1) It is one of, if not the best form of digital music reproduction for consumers
2) The hi-res stereo layer is compatible with headphones and the hi-res MCH layer gives me something to look forward to for later
3) I enjoy classical music
4) I don't like to have the computer or TV on while listening to music.
5) It has an exclusivity factor which appeals to the inner collector in me
 
SA-CD will never be a commercial success but as long as it stays around and disks keep coming out at the current rate, I will be a happy camper.  There are many more titles available than I can possibly buy or have time to hear.
 
 

 

[Krav]

That was oversimplification to illustrate the point.
 
Quote:

 
Can you explain this more, that does not seem right , when you have three components added together you get a complex wave but only if all component  waves have the exact same maximum amplitude will you get a transient peak that is 3 x p1, i.e all instruments are equally loud , this would not be good engineering, otherwise the bits required formula cannot be defined the way you do it ?

 

[Krav]

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."
 

 

[khaos974]

No, we were talking about the same thing, the record amplitude range.
Let's say we are in the front row of a piano concerto, the piano is at 8m, the 1st violins at 10  the double bass at 15.
Current recording techniques, I think, involve using microphone by instrument/groups of instrument, ant mixing the track using a DAW. Hence the need of internal 48 or even 64 bit precision.
However, does the sum really go beyond 96 dB above room (by room I mean the recording area), I have doubts about it, except when we are talking about gunshots and not music.
 
For the moment, I'll keep my doubts until I get a 5.1 system or go to an acoustic concert with a 24 bit recorder to see if it actually goes need the 24 bit, . Thank you for your answer, I'm thinking about it.
Quote:

I only got to writing down those thoughts because you pushed me to So thank you...

 

 

[wavoman]

hodgjy --  I think, from your later posts, that you now agree with LFF's point, which LFF put perfectly ... but please allow me to repeat LFF's (and your) point about mastering, with some additional comments.
 
Let's say the point hodgjy first made is totally correct: no human can hear the difference between a master mixed down and presented as a 2-channel DSD on an SACD, and that same master mixed down and presented as a 2-channel 16x44.1 redbook CD.   OK, so what.  That situation does not obtain in the real world of SACDs you can buy.
 
What you can often buy, for jazz and classical, is a superb mix down of a master recording as a 5.1 DSD track, and often as a 2-channel DSD track too.  You also get a crappy redbook mix done by a junior engineer, not the real wizard behind the SACD.  My seat-mate on a recent flight (the advantage of upgrading to first class) was the master recording engineer for Sony's famous SACD release of Kind of Blue, who confirmed all this.  Back in the heyday of SACDs, the top mastering engineers were very taken with DSD and poured their heart in to the work.  (Nothing like an iMod, and iQube, and HF-2's on a plane to start conversation, btw).
 
This is why an SACD collection of music you like is priceless.  I have had over a dozen professional musicians react the same way to SACD-->Wadia 781i --> Senn Orpheus (2 channel by definition) in my listenting room ... namely, the finest music reproduction they have ever heard.  I am a professional statistician and love DBTs, but I also understand their limitations and appreciate the validity of expert opinion as in my non-blind sessions.  It's about the quality of the source, not the ability of humans to hear the difference between DSD and redbook, which I am happy to concede to you as "not possible".
 
Older PS2's play SACDs beautifully.  Oppos play them, but I am not in love with Oppo's DAC and analog section (others like it better).  I have hear wonderful Sony SACD players.
 
Classical and jazz lovers should NOT ignore SACDs.   And not because of multi-channel.  I listen only to 2-channel.
 
Down-converts of SACD DSD bitsteams can be captured at 88.2 (with off-the-shelf Wadia gear, with a Vanity board from Audio Promise, or with modded Oppos), or captured at 176.4 with certain models of PS2's and HDMI converters (as I have documented in other threads, and another poster in this thread cited).  These LPCM bitstreams (88.2 or 176.4) can be stored on a computer hard drive.  I can't hear the difference between them and the original SACDs, exactly as you claim.  So, although I usually don't bother, I just play the SACD, I could rip the SACD with no (to me) audible loss of quality, although of course I have lost bits.
 
For pop, DVD-A's are easier to rip and often have superior mastering, like the SACDs we have been discussing.  They are simply LPCM, usually 24x96.

 

[jilgiljongiljing]

You mean PS3 right not PS2? I for one have never heard of PS2 playing SACD's.

 

[beeman458]

Well, down on Earth where mortals such as I reside, I just finished another potluck shopping spree at StreetLight Records.
 
Waylon Jennings
Johnny Cash (3ea, including his last studio album)
Neil Diamond (96hz/24bit, Gold)
Joe Henderson
Cab Calloway
Bon Jovi
Creedence
 
Total spent: $101.47.
 
Based upon what's been written in the posts above this post, is the quality difference so sublime that the price of pursuing SACD in the fashion as I do in my above list of new potluck acquisitions, just throwing money away or are SACD's only worth it if you have the pocket depth to pursuit the dream.
 
???
 
Personally, I don't want to be limited to a single SACD at a time.  I want to be able to shop spur-of-the-moment, potluck shopping spree and not know what I'm going get until I pluck the little gems from the album bins.  Immediate gratification.  And it sounds like due to cost and limited productions, that ain't gonna happen if one goes SACD.
 
???

 

[wavoman]

Quote:

You mean PS3 right not PS2? I for one have never heard of PS2 playing SACD's.

Yep, PS3.  The problem is mental re-use.  PS2 meant an IBM desktop with microchannel bus long before it meant a Sony game console.  And I worked on PS2's, so the brain autocomplete function supplies 2 after PS.  When you're my age you'll understand!
 
Just look for the SACD logo on the (used) PS3 boxes when garage-sale shopping.  And never upgrade the firmware (you can't go back).  The new firmware on the older box of course still allows SACD playback but no longer puts the 176.4 LPCM downtranslation out on the HDMI port (where it can be split out onto a SPDIF channel).

 

[rapunzel]

 
Quote:

Well, down on Earth where mortals such as I reside, I just finished another potluck shopping spree at StreetLight Records.
 
Waylon Jennings
Johnny Cash (3ea, including his last studio album)
Neil Diamond (96hz/24bit, Gold)
Joe Henderson
Cab Calloway
Bon Jovi
Creedence
 
Total spent: $101.47.

 
 
$101? That's more than I spend on average on SACDs. Normally pay about $10 a disc. 
 
 
 
 
Quote:

 
Personally, I don't want to be limited to a single SACD at a time.  I want to be able to shop spur-of-the-moment, potluck shopping spree and not know what I'm going get until I pluck the little gems from the album bins.  Immediate gratification.  And it sounds like due to cost and limited productions, that ain't gonna happen if one goes SACD.

 
SACD offers you more options - not less.  SACD nests CD ... so you can continue to buy all the CDs you find, just like you have done today, plus you get to play the SACD hi-rez releases too. MORE options - not less.
 
What's interesting though, is that when my SACD player arrived, I found that I mainly wanted to buy hi-rez material ...maybe because I already had lots of CDs. 

 

[Uncle Erik]

SACD has fewer titles, but I end up taking a harder look at what is released. Because of the excellent performance, they usually choose great artists and/or albums to release on SACD. This has led me to discover quite a bit of music I would have overlooked.

 

[oqvist]

How about SACD versus Bluray?

 

[project86]

Quote:

How about SACD versus Bluray?

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
 
Note that nearly all of them are from live performances rather than just album releases. The trend seems to be to have a lossless surround track in Dolby TrueHD or DTS-Master Audio, and then also have a 2 channel lossless LPCM version. Of the dozen or so I have, all follow this format (with a few using LPCM surround tracks instead of Dolby or DTS) and all sound quite good.
 
I don't think there is any improvement over SACD in terms of sound quality, as they generally have the same specs aside from the use of lossless compression. Blu-ray does have one big advantage due to the fact that it features very high quality video. Video quality has been shown to significantly affect our subjective perceptions of audio quality:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12105
 
It's definately apples to oranges though: many people do not have a display in their listening rig, and some people just plain dislike live performances for whatever reason. I'm not sure if there will ever be many Blu releases that focus mainly on the audio side like SACDs do. Still, it is another fun option to explore.