[Ticky]

Quote:

Originally posted by JaZZ Resignation?

No... Educate!


Turn them all to the dark side.... don't forget to apologize for their wallets though

 

[theaudiohobby]

Quote:

Originally posted by Wodgy Yes, strictly speaking, given perfect DACs for each format, the SACD format is inferior to the regular CD format, let alone DVD-A.

Care to give a rigorous theoretical basis for this assertion covering the bit-depth, transient response, impulse response, noise floor and such like to PROVE your confident assertion. I assume this is a theoretical assertion as I am sure you have not heard all the best implementations of both systems. I think it is time we went back to basics and ask for MATHEMATICAL PROOF.

I have provided an example to give an idea of what I am thinking of. This paper is the most rigorous paper I am aware written in opposition to DSD and it has a significant flaw that is DSD is not based on a 1-bit quantizer. So there you are, please take the platform and prove your assertion.

 

[JaZZ]

You may already know this IAR article... It chimes in with Ingvar Öhmann about the weakness of SACD.

I don't quite agree with Canman and Wodgy:

The essence of the article is -- of course -- not that all that counts is how carefully a recording is made (or how well a composition is performed...), but that we are about to get a new «hi-rez» format established to follow the «low-rez» CD format under the premise of a quality jump. I don't want to enjoy excellent recordings from musiCassettes, but -- as an audiophile -- from an adequate storing and playback format.

I'm not sure if SACD really can't fulfill this target, but there's at least some serious doubt. That said, to my ears SACD sounds clearly more transparent and more natural than CD, but that doesn't mean it's flawless. I do believe in the lack of high-frequency resolution and its audibility. At the same time the higher bandwidth is an essential advantage over the CD format and makes it nevertheless superior overall, together with the greater average dynamic resolution.

Ingvar Öhmann never stated CD be the better format than SACD. In fact he has conceded a partial superiority of SACD, without naming it in detail though. Unfortunately this leads to a distorted impression. By no means would I want to see the audio future restricted to 44.1 kHz and 16 bit! What is it that makes these numbers so invulnerable to some?

But yes, I also think that DVD-audio is the superior format (theoretically). But think of all the hassle with TV screens just to play music -- and the poor catalog...

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally posted by theaudiohobby Care to give a rigorous theoretical basis for this assertion covering the bit-depth, transient response, impulse response, noise floor and such like to PROVE your confident assertion.

Funny you ask that. I ran across a paper from an applied math professor from the University of Waterloo a while ago that did exactly this. I think it was Lipschitz or Goodman, though I can't remember off the top of my head. I'll see if I can find it again.

 

[Wodgy]

Ah, here it is....

Why 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Conversion is Unsuitable for High-Quality Applications
Stanley Lip****z & John Vanderkooy
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
Proceedings of the 110th Convention of the Audio Engineering Society

Abstract:
Single-stage, 1-bit sigma-delta converters are in principle imperfectible. We prove this fact. The reason, simply stated, is that, when properly dithered, they are in constant overload. Prevention of overload allows only partial dithering to be performed. The consequence is that distortion, limit cycles, instability, and noise modulation can never be totally avoided. We demonstrate these effects, and using coherent averaging techniques, are able to display the consequent profusion of nonlinear artifacts which are usually hidden in the noise floor. Recording, editing, storage, or conversion systems using single-stage, 1-bit sigma-delta modulators, are thus inimical to audio of the highest quality. In contrast, multi-bit sigma-delta converters, which output linear PCM code, are in principle infinitely perfectible. (Here, multi-bit refers to at least two bits in the converter.) They can be properly dithered so as to guarantee the absence of all distortion, limit cycles, and noise modulation. The audio industry is misguided if it adopts 1-bit sigma-delta conversion as the basis for any high-quality processing, archiving, or distribution format to replace multi-bit, linear PCM.

Emphasis mine.

You can find the whole paper on the web if you search for it, I presume. There's a short summary here:
http://www.vex.net/TorontoAES/00-01/dec-review.html

 

[Wodgy]

Hmmm, actually we're both talking about the same paper, it seems.... My mistake. Do you have a good reference for a critique of this paper? I'd be interested in reading it. Lipschitz is a very fine mathematician by the way; I've had the pleasure of working with him briefly, but even the best make errors on occasion.

 

[Sovkiller]

When someone rave about LPs, and lately a lot here, a format that belongs to the past, and in my mind, to the very past, about 15 years at least, you are an "audiophile", and nobody can say anything to bash you, now if you rave about CDs and digital format in general, you are stupid or dumb....even when 95% or more of the planet prefers and like them....Even well known and people that really knows what they are talking about, not only kids, just ask Kevin Gilmore about that......

OMG!!!!! WHY IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE WHOLE GREEN PLANET, PREFER THE DIGITAL FORMAT OVER THE OBSOLETE, ARCHAIC, AND ANNOYING ANALOG LP's????

You can rave about LPs, but WE CAN'T ABOUT CDS....this is simply ridiculous......

Analog recordings belongs to the past, 99% of the recording studios today record in digital all the material, even the acoustic ones, later mix and produce in digital all the material, simply is faster and easier, and the quality is excellent....I don't know where you get all those fans to the analog recordings.....well, yes I know: in your dreams!!!!...

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Wodgy You can find the whole paper on the web if you search for it, I presume. There's a short summary here: http://www.vex.net/TorontoAES/00-01/dec-review.html

Ouch... if that's all true, it's a pretty severe condemnation.

 

[theaudiohobby]

Quote:

Originally posted by Wodgy Hmmm, actually we're both talking about the same paper, it seems.... My mistake. Do you have a good reference for a critique of this paper? I'd be interested in reading it. Lipschitz is a very fine mathematician by the way; I've had the pleasure of working with him briefly, but even the best make errors on occasion.

You do not have to look far,, see my previous post for the link and read the followup reactions.The history and here is a previous thread that the later pages cover a few of the key papers of both sides of the discussion.

Edit - Wodgy, sorry I misunderstood your post, however the previous thread does indeed cover some key papers that answer the Lip****z contention, however I have yet to locate a key AES response paper that directly address some of his key contentions, the paper was reported in the press at the time, however I do not think it is in public domain.

 

[ADS]

Quote:

Originally posted by theaudiohobby Care to give a rigorous theoretical basis for this assertion covering the bit-depth, transient response, impulse response, noise floor and such like to PROVE your confident assertion. I assume this is a theoretical assertion as I am sure you have not heard all the best implementations of both systems. I think it is time we went back to basics and ask for MATHEMATICAL PROOF. I have provided an example to give an idea of what I am thinking of. This paper is the most rigorous paper I am aware written in opposition to DSD and it has a significant flaw that is DSD is not based on a 1-bit quantizer. So there you are, please take the platform and prove your assertion.

Next quarter (I'm a computer engineering student) I'll be taking a high level signals and systems course which covers PCM and DSD in depth so hopefully I'll have a better undestanding on which to base my assertions. Currently I understand redbook CD quite well (mathematically+physically) but I don't know nearly as much about SACD or DVD/A. I wonder if it would be possible to develop a DIY DIP DAC? Or maybe some software for a small, quiet computer package that would use the awesome CPU power available nowadays to perform almost perfect signal reconstruction? *hits the books*

 

[Tuberoller]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sovkiller When someone rave about LPs, and lately a lot here, a format that belongs to the past, and in my mind, to the very past, about 15 years at least, you are an "audiophile", and nobody can say anything to bash you, now if you rave about CDs and digital format in general, you are stupid or dumb....even when 95% or more of the planet prefers and like them....Even well known and people that really knows what they are talking about, not only kids, just ask Kevin Gilmore about that...... OMG!!!!! WHY IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE WHOLE GREEN PLANET, PREFER THE DIGITAL FORMAT OVER THE OBSOLETE, ARCHAIC, AND ANNOYING ANALOG LP's???? You can rave about LPs, but WE CAN'T ABOUT CDS....this is simply ridiculous...... Analog recordings belongs to the past, 99% of the recording studios today record in digital all the material, even the acoustic ones, later mix and produce in digital all the material, simply is faster and easier, and the quality is excellent....I don't know where you get all those fans to the analog recordings.....well, yes I know: in your dreams!!!!...

Thanks for the laugh, I really needed it today.

 

[ADS]

Once you hear wax cylinder sound you never go back. Not much selection, and only about 30 seconds per cylinder, but the quality is great.

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Nope,you can't carry a record around with you and you can't skip tracks. At this point you can't carry an SACD around with you either,I'm sure this will change soon but the highest resolution formats were never really meant to be portable. What real benefit would there be of toting around an SACD player when you likely never be able to take advantage of the higher resolution in a portable environment? Long Live Records!!!!!!!!!!

And LPs were ment to be higher resolution media, at that time? This is new to me, IIRC at the time they were developed and released (50's or even earlier), they were the only media, not bad, not good, just the only one, and the popular one BTW, 95% of the record players made at that time, really sucks, so why make a high resolution media to be played on a regular to bad player.....

I had tons of really deplorable sounding LP's, made on the 50's and 60's, yeah I know, they were old, of course in 20 years more, the CD also will be old, but let's see how will be the digital world doing by then....

Long live Digital......!!!!!

 

[fewtch]

Who started this digital vs. analog crap again? I thought head-fi was relatively free of this sort of garbage, too good a forum to clutter with this... Usenet is a better place for this sort of raving, in my opinion.

Listen to what you like, and keep quiet... the world will be a better place.

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally posted by fewtch Who started this digital vs. analog crap again? I thought head-fi was relatively free of this sort of garbage, too good a forum to clutter with this... Usenet is a better place for this sort of raving, in my opinion. Listen to what you like, and keep quiet... the world will be a better place.

Nobody have begun anything vs. anything, he just begin a thread to say why he liked digital...period....later on the "oldies" got the helmet and the sword.....they never learn to listen other opinions in peace, without trying to impose his audiophile crappy taste......