SACD v. DVD-A v. CD
Norm Strong
1. Both SACD and DVD-A represent dramatic improvements over the CD, but that
one of them--usually SACD--is a smidgen better. In any case, they are an
audible improvement over CD, and will soon eclipse the latter.
2. Both SACD and DVD-A are so good that they surpass the ability of the ear to
detect any any difference. This appears to be the POV of David Ranada, and I
generally put great faith in his pronouncements.
3. All three formats are already so much better than the equipment used to
make the originals that there is little practical reason for either of the
high-rez formats.
There are, of course, many things to be said for multi-track presentation.
Since every DVD-Video player must decode 448kb/s Dolby Digital recordings, I
suspect that there will be a window of opportunity where such recordings may
overtake all the other formats. I hope so, but I doubt that there is much
enthusiasm in the RIAA for such recordings, except as add-ons to high-rez
discs.
Norm Strong (nh...@aol.com)
Seattle WA
out...@city-net.com
be differentiated from current cds. One advantage for the newer formats
is to have multi channel recordings, this might be the only reason to
adopt them.
LeiDeLi
> There appear to be 3 basic points of view:
>
> 1. Both SACD and DVD-A represent dramatic improvements over the CD, but that
> one of them--usually SACD--is a smidgen better. In any case, they are an
> audible improvement over CD, and will soon eclipse the latter.
That is what I was hoping to hear.
>
> 2. Both SACD and DVD-A are so good that they surpass the ability of the ear to> detect any any difference.
I suppose that is good. In which case, it is puely a marketing
battle.
> 3. All three formats are already so much better than the equipment used to
> make the originals that there is little practical reason for either of the
> high-rez formats.
I disagree here. A lot of 24/96 recording is being done right now.
That conforms to the DVDA standard, but falls a bit short of SACD
specs. At any rate, it gives DVDA a slight edge on convenience in
getting "hi-res" recordings to a playable home format.
> There are, of course, many things to be said for multi-track presentation.
> Since every DVD-Video player must decode 448kb/s Dolby Digital recordings, I
> suspect that there will be a window of opportunity where such recordings may
> overtake all the other formats. I hope so, but I doubt that there is much
> enthusiasm in the RIAA for such recordings, except as add-ons to high-rez
> discs.
I really don't have much interest in multi-channel fo music. It seems
silly. I do appreaciate high quality stero sound though.
Thanks,
Rick
Bob Olhsson
wrote:
>It is important that we establish with db testing that the new formats can
>be differentiated from current cds.
Why is it important?
--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing and Mastering
615.352.7635 FAX 615.356.2483 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they thought possible!
fathom
news:9o0oad$lj3$1...@bourbaki.localdomain:
> I really don't have much interest in multi-channel fo music.
> It seems silly. I do appreaciate high quality stero sound
> though.
If you can appreciate a stereo system that images well, then you
will be able to appreciate the increased possibilities of
multichannel music. I think it will be easier to faithfully
represent a real acoustic space using 5 or more channels, but I
am more intrigued by hearing creations of artificial sound spaces
using 5+ channels. Done well, I think it could be extremely
compelling.
Mkuller
>There appear to be 3 basic points of view:
>
>1. Both SACD and DVD-A represent dramatic improvements over the CD, but that
>one of them--usually SACD--is a smidgen better. In any case, they are an
>audible improvement over CD, and will soon eclipse the latter.
>
>2. Both SACD and DVD-A are so good that they surpass the ability of the ear
>to
>detect any any difference. This appears to be the POV of David Ranada, and I
>generally put great faith in his pronouncements.
>
>3. All three formats are already so much better than the equipment used to
>make the originals that there is little practical reason for either of the
>high-rez formats.
>
Let me offer a 4th point of view which I have mentioned here before:
4. Both SACD and DVD-A are an improvement over the CD but only DVD-A is likely
to survive because this seems to be the format most of the big music (software)
labels and the Japanese audio (hardware) companies are adopting.
New DVD-V players will have DVD-A capabilities. CD will continue to be a
parallel format for many years since most listeners will not recognize or
appreciate the differences in improved sound quality. IMHO CD listeners will
switch to DVD-A when a) all of their favorite recordings are available in the
new format, and b) the DVD-V player with DVD-A capabilities replaces their CD
player.
Regards,
Mike
Dave Cook
Both SACD and DVD-A are an improvement over the CD but only DVD-A is likely
to survive because this seems to be the format most of the big music
(software) labels and the Japanese audio (hardware) companies are adopting.
Universal and EMI have adopted the SACD format:
http://www.stereophile.com/shownews.cgi?1129
http://www.stereophile.com/shownews.cgi?1123
Also there are now D/A chips that do DVD-A and SACD:
http://www.stereophile.com/shownews.cgi?1128
Dave Cook
Francois Yves Le Gal
>DVD-A .../... seems to be the format most of the big music (software)
>labels .../... are adopting.
Hmm. I wouldn't bet the farm on this.
DVD-A is backed only by AOL Time Warner and somewhat less by BMG,
while SACD is backed by Sony, Universal and EMI. So it's two majors
fro DVD-A and three for SACD.
r_...@my-deja.com
> but that one of them--usually SACD--is a smidgen better. In any case,
> they are an audible improvement over CD, and will soon eclipse the
> latter.
An improvement, but "dramatic"? Even some audiophiles (such as
at AudioAsylum) have expressed disappointment that the amount of
improvement over CD seemed small to them. And let's not even
discuss what NON-audiophiles think of how big the difference is.
> 2. Both SACD and DVD-A are so good that they surpass the ability
> of the ear to detect any difference.
This claim seems to pop up every time a new recording medium is
introduced. I recall a recording engineer in the early 80's saying
that he could not distinguish between a digital recording and a
live audio feed. There are similar statements through the history
of recording, from LPs to 78s and even earlier. Try to imagine
ten years from now, somebody writing "Ever since the year 2000,
when recording technology surpassed the ability of the ear to
detect any difference..."
Bob_Stanton
> In article <9o0c13$h1t$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>, <out...@city-net.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It is important that we establish with db testing that the new formats can
> >be differentiated from current cds.
>
> Why is it important?
Bob writes:
I'm not sure what he means by "db testing", but I think he means
testing that comes up with dB numbers that tell how well a piece of
audio gear works.
There are test methods that clearly show how a piece of audio
equipment will sound. Such tests have been around for 25 - 30 years,
but the audio industry has never adopted them. The audio industry
sticks with the nearly meaningless "THD" tests.
If the audio industry were to go to meaningful tests, that accurately
show how equpment works, we wouldn't have much to write about in this
discussion group. Consumers could simply read the test results for a
given piece of audio equipment, and know how well it performs
(sounds).
Why is that important? Well, for example, I would rather know whether
SACD or DVD-A or DVD-V(audio) is better. It would also be nice to know
which brand amplifier is *really* the best.
Maybe someday.
Bob Stanton
Steven Sullivan
: Bob Olhsson <o...@hyperback.com> wrote in message news:<9o2k5...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
:> In article <9o0c13$h1t$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>, <out...@city-net.com>
:> wrote:
:>
:> >It is important that we establish with db testing that the new formats can
:> >be differentiated from current cds.
:>
:> Why is it important?
: Bob writes:
: I'm not sure what he means by "db testing", but I think he means
: testing that comes up with dB numbers that tell how well a piece of
: audio gear works.
I assume db = 'double blind'
--
-S.
"I am not young enough to know everything."--Oscar Wilde
Steven Sullivan
:> 1. Both SACD and DVD-A represent dramatic improvements over the CD,
:> but that one of them--usually SACD--is a smidgen better. In any case,
:> they are an audible improvement over CD, and will soon eclipse the
:> latter.
: An improvement, but "dramatic"? Even some audiophiles (such as
: at AudioAsylum) have expressed disappointment that the amount of
: improvement over CD seemed small to them. And let's not even
: discuss what NON-audiophiles think of how big the difference is.
And has it been shown that the improvement is actually due to the new
format, or simply to better (or even just louder) mastering?
Craig Rogers
> equipment will sound. Such tests have been around for 25 - 30 years,
> but the audio industry has never adopted them.
If these tests exist I am unfamiliar with them, but would like to be made
familiar. Please elaborate?
> If the audio industry were to go to meaningful tests, that accurately
> show how equipment works, ... Consumers could >simply read the test
results for a
> given piece of audio equipment, and know how well it performs
> (sounds).
>
The audio industry is beginning to sound like the Petroleum industry.
--
Sincerely,
Craig Rogers
Ineffable Audio Unity Inc
North American Uher representative
P.O. Box 512
Riverdale, NY 10471
(914) 378-1606 Fax 378-1604
uh...@optonline.net
Martin Taylor
> Why is that important? Well, for example, I would rather know
> whether SACD or DVD-A or DVD-V(audio) is better. It would also be
> nice to know which brand amplifier is *really* the best.
So why not listen? That way, you'll know whether you prefer SACD or
DVD-A or just plain CD. I have listened and decided - no-one
else's opinion could do that for me. You will also know which brand
of amplifier you prefer, etc.
--------------------------
Martin Taylor
Sonning, Berkshire, UK
mailto:mta...@cix.co.uk
http://www.ams.tele2.co.uk
ICQ:13622062
--------------------------
out...@city-net.com
difference can be reliably heard between the newer formats and the
current cd format. All testimonials I have read declare it so, but
there has not been any repeatable dbt work done of which I'm aware.
That means it is still up in the air as to any difference being
heard, not to mention which of the two newr formats is "better". The
only obvious advantage to the newer formats is their multichannel
capacity; and of course the $10 surcharge that is being presented as
the default. One major problem is finding disks with both newer and
current formats by which to do dbts. I have just read that Chesky
has them, but it isn't clear iif the mix is the same on all layers;
could be the basis for finally doing some testing of differences
being above the threshold of perception. In the meantime, aside for
multichannel, I see no reason to switch based on testimonials without
independent confirmation.
Kalman Rubinson
<big snip>
> In the meantime, aside for
>multichannel, I see no reason to switch based on testimonials without
>independent confirmation.
Amen. Independent is almost as good as personal.
Kal
Bob_Stanton
> So why not listen? That way, you'll know whether you prefer SACD or
> DVD-A or just plain CD. I have listened and decided - no-one
> else's opinion could do that for me. You will also know which brand
> of amplifier you prefer, etc.
>
>
> Martin Taylor
Bob writes:
People have been using listening, to decide which equipment to buy,
from day one. Listening works, but it can take *years* to get final
results. For example, when CD's first came out they sounded terrible.
Because CD's showed up as "good" on the old THD tests, many engineers
*refused* to believe CD's sounded bad. Eventually, audio engineers
admitted CD's had problems and began to improve them, but it took
years.
To this day, there are still some problems with CD's. Yet, many audio
engineers think CD's are "nearly perfect". These engineers base their
opinions on inadaquate, inacurate, old, test methods.
With listening tests, as the only accurate way of determining
equipment performance, the audio industry has lurched and stumbled
foward and made some progress. But progess has been *painfully slow*.
It would have gone much faster if audio engineers had been up to speed
on test methods.
Bob Stanton
Chris Johnson
(r_...@my-deja.com) wrote:
> > 2. Both SACD and DVD-A are so good that they surpass the ability
> > of the ear to detect any difference.
>
> This claim seems to pop up every time a new recording medium is
> introduced. I recall a recording engineer in the early 80's saying
> that he could not distinguish between a digital recording and a
> live audio feed. There are similar statements through the history
> of recording, from LPs to 78s and even earlier. Try to imagine
> ten years from now, somebody writing "Ever since the year 2000,
> when recording technology surpassed the ability of the ear to
> detect any difference..."
Amusingly, I can easily imagine a writer in the 1800s or whatever the
exact time period was, saying "In the year 18XX, with the revolutionary
invention of the 78-RPM record and the full-sized acoustic horn and
low-mass diaphragm driving it, recording technology surpassed the ability
of the ear to detect any difference"...
To some extent double-blind subjective testing, or ABX subjective
testing, is irrelevant to the question of whether SACD and DVD-A are
improvements on CD audio. They measurably contain more information,
therefore they contain more information. What we do with that information
is up to sound engineers ;) and whether we can hear all that information
is both up to the High End, and also up to the individual listener, who
may be able to tell a difference and may not, depending on their age,
mood, whether they have a cold or a hangover etc. What's not at question
is the fact that there is a difference. That's simple math.
Chris Johnson
Lv70smusic
the "Silverline" label. There is also the "Blue Man Group" dvd-a on
EMD/Virgin.
I haven't seen any dvd-a releases from BMG. Can you identify any?
Have Uni or EMI actually released any SACD's yet, or is it just a
stated intention to do so? The only discs I've seen have been from
Sony.
>Subject: Re: SACD v. DVD-A v. CD
From: Francois Yves Le Gal fle...@free.fr
>Date: 9/17/2001 9:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9o59f...@enews3.newsguy.com>
DuFré
news:9o5gs...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> ...
> And has it been shown that the improvement is actually due to the new
> format, or simply to better (or even just louder) mastering?
If I recall correct, sony has done a ABX test between live sound and
DSD coded signals, I believe at the AES in NY, 1999. For this a band
was playing in a studio, the signals from the microphones were send
to a listening room, where this sound was or was not DSD coded. These
two were compared by several journalists, who could not hear any
difference.
So I think the format is pretty good.
Fré
Steven Sullivan
: "Steven Sullivan" <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote in message
that doesn't speak to whether it's an audible improvement over standard
digital audio encoding.
--
-S.
"What is youth except a man or a woman before it is ready or fit to be
seen?" -- Evelyn waugh
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>If I recall correct, sony has done a ABX test between live sound and
>DSD coded signals, I believe at the AES in NY, 1999. For this a band
>was playing in a studio, the signals from the microphones were send
>to a listening room, where this sound was or was not DSD coded. These
>two were compared by several journalists, who could not hear any
>difference.
Such tests can not be very sensitive, obviously.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2001, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Francois Yves Le Gal
>These
>two were compared by several journalists, who could not hear any
>difference.
Well, nearly everybody has done the same, from Thomas Edison to Ed
Villchur, and the participants couldn't tell the difference... Such a
"test" is inconclusive at best.
Sascha Erni, -rb
> And has it been shown that the improvement is actually due to the new
> format, or simply to better (or even just louder) mastering?
My thoughts exactly. We did some comparing in the studio, lately, and
couldn't detect any audible difference between 24/96 and
(noiseshaped) 16/44.1 playback, provided the same master was used. By
"detect" I mean both db listening tests and spectral analysis of the
playback after passing through speakers (i.e. recording the playbacks
and analysing them).
I think it's clear that you need the highest possible resolution for
recording, especially considering the lossy algorithms used in mix
down and generating a "wet" signal, but keeping the ear's and most
speakers' limitations for reproduction and perception in mind, I
don't think that anything beyond 16/44.1 is needed for
playback--provided the sound engineer knows what he/she is doing.
ta,
-Sascha.rb
--
www.nggalai.com - it's not so much bad as it is an experience.
mailto:r...@nggalai.com
Harry Lavo
heard live, dsd, and cd feeds find the live and dsd to be essentially the
same, and the cd substantially more "mechanical" sounding. Unfortunately,
the thread was a few months ago and I can't cite the specific messages.
Harry
"jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
message news:9odes...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Nousaine
>
>In article <9od4i...@enews3.newsguy.com>, DuFré <du...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>If I recall correct, sony has done a ABX test between live sound and
>>DSD coded signals, I believe at the AES in NY, 1999. For this a band
>>was playing in a studio, the signals from the microphones were send
>>to a listening room, where this sound was or was not DSD coded. These
>>two were compared by several journalists, who could not hear any
>>difference.
>
>Such tests can not be very sensitive, obviously.
>--
If I'm not mistaken I attended that demo. There was no direct DSD vs anything
else single, double blind or otherwise. There were some very nice sounding
recordings but no direct comparisons.
Perhaps there was another?
Nousaine
I agree. As far as I can tell 16/44 is perfectly adequate as a release medium.
Perhaps not for production but as a final consumer grade product it is damn
close to "perfect sound" maybe not forever but for a goodly long time :)
What continues to surprise me is how good a format it turned out to be right
from the git-go. Kudos to Mr Immink.
Chris Johnson
(Nousaine) wrote:
> I agree. As far as I can tell 16/44 is perfectly adequate as a release medium.
> Perhaps not for production but as a final consumer grade product it is damn
> close to "perfect sound" maybe not forever but for a goodly long time :)
>
> What continues to surprise me is how good a format it turned out to be right
> from the git-go. Kudos to Mr Immink.
Actually, what shocked me was not how good it was from the start, but
how much room there turned out to be for improvement. I thought CD was
appalling at the beginning, and still think truncated or direct-sampled 16
bit is pretty miserable at producing depth, dimensionality, and a sense of
'thereness'.
BUT! Different types of dithering and wordlength reduction down to 16
bit have a startling capability to bring out all these qualities in
different proportions. Most of my recent work has been with a very
near-Nyquist dither combined with extremely heavy noise shaping, a
technique that can resolve some signals at -160db, and it's always
startling to me just how well this works. I don't end up with any excess
'warmth' such as I can easily identify from magnetic tape recording, but
apart from that things sound fantastic- hardly any of the CD 'pod people'
dimensionless characterless quality at all.
I have to say that 16/44 _is_ adequate as a release medium. It can be
beat, in theory and sometimes in practice, but really there's a lot of
potential to it.
Chris Johnson
Kong
the opportunites to hear it on a very high end system. There is no
doubt in my untrained ear that SACD has HUGE potential. As it is, the
high note on the SACD is simply MILES ahead of anything thing that CD
could ever provide and SACD is still a baby right now. Don't believe
me, go and listen to the high notes. Simply breath takingly better.
BTW, the SACD machine that I heard is the Sony 777 and it cost just a
fraction of the price of the high end CD gear.
Howard Ferstler
>
> I wasn't into hifi and have never heard of SACD until a week ago. Got
> the opportunites to hear it on a very high end system. There is no
> doubt in my untrained ear that SACD has HUGE potential. As it is, the
> high note on the SACD is simply MILES ahead of anything thing that CD
> could ever provide and SACD is still a baby right now. Don't believe
> me, go and listen to the high notes.
Are you saying that you can hear musical artifacts above 20
kHz with SACD that are not there with the standard compact
disc? I mean, the CD can get out to 20 kHz, flat. What
musical instruments are generating all that power up that
high, or, rather, higher, since you claim that the SACD can
do better with high notes than the CD can, and is "MILES
ahead." Also, are you sure that you can hear musical signals
up that high, anyway? Just how much musical energy have you
detected at even above 12-15 kHz that would be musically
significant?
You listened to a good demonstration, in a good room, with a
good disc. However, you did not do any direct comparing that
I can see, and even if you had it is likely that the CD
version would not have been made from the same master. Also,
in the past, Sony and some other outfits, who have been
eager to make extremely sure that people are aware of the
quality of this new format (Sony did the same thing a while
back with its Super Bit Mapping reissues), allowed their
engineers do do equalization and level adjustments with the
finished product that resulted in sound that was more
attention getting than what the original versions
demonstrated.
In other words, in my opinion, factors like mixing and
equalization during the recording and mastering process, not
to mention the fact that you experienced a
single-presentation demo on a good system in a good room,
made it impossible for you to properly form concrete
judgments about what you were hearing.
Howard Ferstler
Kong
disc. The disc were being played back with SACD engaged and dis-engaged. On
notes made by bell or some metallic instrument (higher frequency sound), the
one made by SACD is simply beyond description compared to plan CD mode. As I
say, I am not really into hifi and couldn't even give a better description.
All I can say is that from a layman point of view, the sound is so much
nicer with SACD. The sound just seems to float with no constraint.
Peter
> I heard it in my friends place. He just got a Sony 777 and played a hybrid
> disc. The disc were being played back with SACD engaged and dis-engaged. On
> notes made by bell or some metallic instrument (higher frequency sound), the
> one made by SACD is simply beyond description compared to plan CD mode. As I
> say, I am not really into hifi and couldn't even give a better description.
> All I can say is that from a layman point of view, the sound is so much
> nicer with SACD. The sound just seems to float with no constraint.
I think Mr. Kong brings up a very interesting scenario, i.e. I am
wondering if the "dual layered" disc was "mastered identically" for
each of the two layers?
Additionally I do not know if the Sony 777 player, because of its
circuit design might make "all" SACDs sound better than "plain" CDs
played on this machine.
Perhaps others who have devoted time to these issues would be kind
enough to contribute to this thread?
Howard Ferstler
>
> I heard it in my friends place. He just got a Sony 777 and played a hybrid
> disc. The disc were being played back with SACD engaged and dis-engaged. On
> notes made by bell or some metallic instrument (higher frequency sound), the
> one made by SACD is simply beyond description compared to plan CD mode. As I
> say, I am not really into hifi and couldn't even give a better description.
> All I can say is that from a layman point of view, the sound is so much
> nicer with SACD. The sound just seems to float with no constraint.
In the past, Sony released remastered versions of some of
their previous CD releases with the new versions employing
their Super Bit Mapping, noise-shaping technique for CD
recordings. SBM has the ability to simulate subjective
20-bit playback in a 16-bit system. Make no mistake, this
noise-shaping process really has the ability to reduce
background-noise levels. It does work. However, the effect
is subtle and Sony almost certainly wanted to make sure that
the technology really got people's attention. Subtle
differences will not do this.
Consequently, when one well-known product reviewer and audio
writer compared the performance of some of the earlier CD
releases with the SBM versions, he discovered that the
resulting signals were indeed quite different.
Unfortunately, the differences were such that it was
apparent that either different masters were used to make the
SBM versions or else some equalization was applied to add
some snap and sparkle to their sound. Ironically, in many
cases, the master tapes were themselves too noisy to take
advantage of SBM's real ability to provide quieter
subjective backgrounds.
This "editing" was a marketing decision and not technology
in action, and I believe that Sony, as well as some other
producers, are doing the same thing with SACD (and also with
some their own proprietary noise-shaping technologies for
conventional CD materials). I think that SACD has the
ability to sound terrific. However, so does conventional CD
technology. Certainly, any real differences would be subtle
at best.
The monumental differences you heard were probably due to
marketing decisions about how to equalize the two versions
on the disc, in order to get people interested in SACD. It
is also likely that the SACD version was slightly higher in
average playback level, which would definitely give it a
subjective sonic edge in an A/B faceoff with the alternate
CD tracks on the disc.
Howard Ferstler
Kong
very high end CD player with dedicated transport and DAC. Again,
SACD's treble is so much more superior. As Peter mentioned, maybe the
CD info on that disc is pressed less than optimistic.
"Howard Ferstler" <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
news:9ovnfc$t1h$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
Gremal
> Are you saying that you can hear musical artifacts above 20
> kHz with SACD that are not there with the standard compact
> disc? I mean, the CD can get out to 20 kHz, flat. What
> musical instruments are generating all that power up that
> high, or, rather, higher, since you claim that the SACD can
> do better with high notes than the CD can, and is "MILES
> ahead."
Howard, we've been through this before. Frequencies emitted by
the trumpet and other instruments have been measured at greater
than 100kHz. No, you can't hear those ultrasonic things, but their
presence amidst wavelengths in the audible spectrum influences
the way we perceive bass response, on up. This has been docu-
mented.
> Also, are you sure that you can hear musical signals
> up that high, anyway? Just how much musical energy have you
> detected at even above 12-15 kHz that would be musically
> significant?
Let's turn the question around. What frequencies emitted by
real musical instruments do you think you can just chop off
without the omission being "musically significant"? You're
a good conspiracy theorist in thinking Sony is trying to pull
the wool over everyone's eyes (ears?), when we're telling
you straight. SACD can go where no CD goes. It's a much
better format. The improvement is not subtle.
> In other words, in my opinion, factors like mixing and
> equalization during the recording and mastering process, not
> to mention the fact that you experienced a
> single-presentation demo on a good system in a good room,
> made it impossible for you to properly form concrete
> judgments about what you were hearing.
And what, in your opinion, does 64 times the sampling rate
of CD provide? It's ok to theorize to a point, but ultimately
you have to listen and share your subjective opinion. It is
generally poor form to tell people who have listened what
they are hearing.
Richard D Pierce
Gremal <gre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Howard Ferstler <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
>news:9otbgl$uu8$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
>
>> Are you saying that you can hear musical artifacts above 20
>> kHz with SACD that are not there with the standard compact
>> disc? I mean, the CD can get out to 20 kHz, flat. What
>> musical instruments are generating all that power up that
>> high, or, rather, higher, since you claim that the SACD can
>> do better with high notes than the CD can, and is "MILES
>> ahead."
>
>Howard, we've been through this before. Frequencies emitted by
>the trumpet and other instruments have been measured at greater
>than 100kHz.
At EXTREMELY close ranges, at levels FAR below the in-band
components.
No, you can't hear those ultrasonic things, but their
>presence amidst wavelengths in the audible spectrum influences
>the way we perceive bass response, on up. This has been docu-
>mented.
By whom? Where's the reference? I hope we're not talking about
the pretty-much-debunked "Pioneer 'study'".
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| DPi...@world.std.com |
Gremal
news:9p54ro$neq$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> In article <9p536v$mam$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> Gremal <gre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Howard Ferstler <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
> >news:9otbgl$uu8$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> >
> >> Are you saying that you can hear musical artifacts above 20
> >> kHz with SACD that are not there with the standard compact
> >> disc? I mean, the CD can get out to 20 kHz, flat. What
> >> musical instruments are generating all that power up that
> >> high, or, rather, higher, since you claim that the SACD can
> >> do better with high notes than the CD can, and is "MILES
> >> ahead."
> >
> >Howard, we've been through this before. Frequencies emitted by
> >the trumpet and other instruments have been measured at greater
> >than 100kHz.
>
> At EXTREMELY close ranges, at levels FAR below the in-band
> components.
Sorry, no. The work of James Boyk and others proves you wrong.
Like any frequency, ultrasonic waves travel beyond "close ranges".
> No, you can't hear those ultrasonic things, but their
> >presence amidst wavelengths in the audible spectrum influences
> >the way we perceive bass response, on up. This has been docu-
> >mented.
>
> By whom? Where's the reference? I hope we're not talking about
> the pretty-much-debunked "Pioneer 'study'".
Rich, how quickly we forget. Howard, you and I had this exact
same conversation about a year ago. Look through the archives.
Do your own homework. And most importantly, evaluate SACD
by listening, not theorizing.
ri...@mordor.net
8) Howard Ferstler <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
8) news:9otbgl$uu8$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
8)> Are you saying that you can hear musical artifacts above 20
8)> kHz with SACD that are not there with the standard compact
8)> disc? I mean, the CD can get out to 20 kHz, flat. What
8)> musical instruments are generating all that power up that
8)> high, or, rather, higher, since you claim that the SACD can
8)> do better with high notes than the CD can, and is "MILES
8)> ahead."
8) Howard, we've been through this before. Frequencies emitted by
8) the trumpet and other instruments have been measured at greater
8) than 100kHz. No, you can't hear those ultrasonic things, but their
8) presence amidst wavelengths in the audible spectrum influences
8) the way we perceive bass response, on up. This has been docu-
8) mented.
I'm not sure where to start. I'd be very interested in reading
anything you can cite about trumpets putting out 100khz signals.
I simply don't think that's possible or that any peer-reviewed
journal would permit such silliness to be printed. However, I'm
willing to be educated if you can provide a reference.
8)> Also, are you sure that you can hear musical signals
8)> up that high, anyway? Just how much musical energy have you
8)> detected at even above 12-15 kHz that would be musically
8)> significant?
Indeed.
Cheers,
C
--
Chris Mauritz
ri...@mordor.net
Howard Ferstler
>
> Richard D Pierce <DPi...@world.std.com> wrote in message
> news:9p54ro$neq$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> > In article <9p536v$mam$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> > Gremal <gre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >Howard Ferstler <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
> > >news:9otbgl$uu8$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> > >> Are you saying that you can hear musical artifacts above 20
> > >> kHz with SACD that are not there with the standard compact
> > >> disc? I mean, the CD can get out to 20 kHz, flat. What
> > >> musical instruments are generating all that power up that
> > >> high, or, rather, higher, since you claim that the SACD can
> > >> do better with high notes than the CD can, and is "MILES
> > >> ahead."
> > >Howard, we've been through this before. Frequencies emitted by
> > >the trumpet and other instruments have been measured at greater
> > >than 100kHz.
> > At EXTREMELY close ranges, at levels FAR below the in-band
> > components.
> Sorry, no. The work of James Boyk and others proves you wrong.
> Like any frequency, ultrasonic waves travel beyond "close ranges".
I have read some of his stuff, and I remain unconvinced. (I
also reviewed a number of his recordings in my fourth book,
including one that had tracks from both analog and digital
masters, and remain unconvinced that the digital master was,
as he indicated, able to produce a superior version; it was
not.) In those writings of his, he did prove that signals at
such high frequencies are out there, but from my perspective
they exist as harmonics at such reduced levels that I cannot
see how they can have much of an effect on anything.
Certainly, as best I can tell he did not do any kind of
level-matched, quick-switch, blind comparisons that would
prove his point.
> > No, you can't hear those ultrasonic things, but their
> > >presence amidst wavelengths in the audible spectrum influences
> > >the way we perceive bass response, on up. This has been docu-
> > >mented.
> > By whom? Where's the reference? I hope we're not talking about
> > the pretty-much-debunked "Pioneer 'study'".
> Rich, how quickly we forget. Howard, you and I had this exact
> same conversation about a year ago. Look through the archives.
> Do your own homework. And most importantly, evaluate SACD
> by listening, not theorizing.
Well, just what kind of comparative listening have you done?
Have you actually *compared* CD and SACD recordings that
could be *guaranteed* to have come from identical masters,
with neither having been diddled with by the producers to
make sure that those who purchase the SACD version are
emphatically made aware of its supposed audible superiority?
Heck, I have done a number of careful comparisons between
the DD, DTS, and DVD-A tracks on over a dozen DVD-A releases
(I have twice this many on hand, but have not had a chance
to thoroughly evaluate some of them), and the subjective and
measurable differences and similarities between those tracks
are all over the place. This tells me that different
techniques were used to produce those assorted tracks,
because if the differences were digitally related they would
at least be consistent. More importantly, on some occasions
the DD tracks were as subjectively clean as the DVD-A
tracks. And interestingly, in some cases I thought the DD
and DTS tracks sounded better than the DVD-A tracks. And,
yes, I do have full bass management of all inputs from those
recordings, including those from the DVD-A tracks.
DVD-A is obviously good, and the edge that DD and DTS had in
some cases is proof for me that it is the balancing and
equalizing work done during the mixing session that will
determine just which of any given digital final product
sounds "best."
Of course, if you believe that SACD is not only worlds
better than the CD but also worlds better than DVD-A, then
my comparisons would not mean much. However, if those who
hair split about the sound of certain digital formats think
about it, it has to be rather unsettling that Dolby Digital
(at 448 kbps, at least) can sometimes sound the same as
DVD-A, or even better.
Other than the extended frequency range above 20 kHz, and
the improved dynamic range, nobody has yet proven that
either SACD or DVD-A has any kind of ability to reproduce
individual-channel sound quality that is significantly
better than the CD. Now, I will admit that DVD-A and SACD
both have one ability that puts them head and shoulders
ahead of the standard CD: the ability to deliver more than
two channels.
To me, that is what matters the most.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> Kong wrote:
>
> > I heard it in my friends place. He just got a Sony 777 and played a hybrid
> > disc. The disc were being played back with SACD engaged and dis-engaged. On
> > notes made by bell or some metallic instrument (higher frequency sound), the
> > one made by SACD is simply beyond description compared to plan CD mode. As I
> > say, I am not really into hifi and couldn't even give a better description.
> > All I can say is that from a layman point of view, the sound is so much
> > nicer with SACD. The sound just seems to float with no constraint.
>
> I think Mr. Kong brings up a very interesting scenario, i.e. I am
> wondering if the "dual layered" disc was "mastered identically" for
> each of the two layers?
I have compared the DD, DTS, and DVD-A tracks on over a
dozen DVD-A releases (and am looking forward to comparing
another dozen that I have not had a chance to fool with,
yet), and the differences - and similarities - were all over
the map. Some tracks were remarkably different from the
others on the same disc, and on some discs the DVD-A, DTS,
and DD tracks were subjectively (and as best I can tell,
measurably) identical, in terms of sound quality. This tells
me that the individual tracks were indeed handled
differently. If the differences were caused by the digital
processing, they would have been consistent.
They were not.
Howard Ferstler
Stewart Pinkerton
>Richard D Pierce <DPi...@world.std.com> wrote in message
>news:9p54ro$neq$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
>> In article <9p536v$mam$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
>> Gremal <gre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >Howard, we've been through this before. Frequencies emitted by
>> >the trumpet and other instruments have been measured at greater
>> >than 100kHz.
>>
>> At EXTREMELY close ranges, at levels FAR below the in-band
>> components.
>
>Sorry, no. The work of James Boyk and others proves you wrong.
>Like any frequency, ultrasonic waves travel beyond "close ranges".
The work of Tom Holman and others proves you wrong. THX
re-equalisation exists precisely because high frequencies *do*
attenuate rapidly in air. This applies to the 2-20kHz region in movie
theatres, so consider how much more rapidly it applies to your claims
for >100kHz transmission.
>> No, you can't hear those ultrasonic things, but their
>> >presence amidst wavelengths in the audible spectrum influences
>> >the way we perceive bass response, on up. This has been docu-
>> >mented.
>>
>> By whom? Where's the reference? I hope we're not talking about
>> the pretty-much-debunked "Pioneer 'study'".
>
>Rich, how quickly we forget. Howard, you and I had this exact
>same conversation about a year ago. Look through the archives.
>Do your own homework. And most importantly, evaluate SACD
>by listening, not theorizing.
Quite so. Lo and behold, there is no incontrovertible evidence that
SACD has *any* audio advantage due to wider bandwidth.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
Gremal <gre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Sorry, no. The work of James Boyk and others proves you wrong.
>Like any frequency, ultrasonic waves travel beyond "close ranges".
You've altered the properties of air, then, so that it's less
dispersive and lossy?
Neat. Can you still breathe it?
Andrew Haley
Dick, I have asked before for any references to places where this
study was debunked. AFAICR though, I've never asked you.
I would absolutely *love* to see anything like this. Do you have any
references?
Thanks,
Andrew.
Gremal
> Thus spake Gremal <gre...@earthlink.net>:
> 8) Howard, we've been through this before. Frequencies emitted by
> 8) the trumpet and other instruments have been measured at greater
> 8) than 100kHz. No, you can't hear those ultrasonic things, but their
> 8) presence amidst wavelengths in the audible spectrum influences
> 8) the way we perceive bass response, on up. This has been docu-
> 8) mented.
> I'm not sure where to start. I'd be very interested in reading
> anything you can cite about trumpets putting out 100khz signals.
Well, I'm not sure where to start either. This is fairly simple to
measure and anyone doing their homework can find citations.
Here is as good a starting point as any:
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
Check out that first graph closely.
> I simply don't think that's possible or that any peer-reviewed
> journal would permit such silliness to be printed. However, I'm
> willing to be educated if you can provide a reference.
I hope you are willing to be educated, but let's remember that
the real education lies in listening to SACD and CD and hearing
the differences. Reading journals and other publications is
fun and all, in an armchair theorism kind of way, but the music
is what counts.
Gremal
message news:9pacg...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> In article <9p6ibu$n8k$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> Gremal <gre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Sorry, no. The work of James Boyk and others proves you wrong.
> >Like any frequency, ultrasonic waves travel beyond "close ranges".
> You've altered the properties of air, then, so that it's less
> dispersive and lossy?
These frequencies are picked up by mics. Should we axe
them from recordings because you say they don't move
through air?
> Neat. Can you still breathe it?
You lay off the glue yer sniffin' and I'll lay off the air
I've altered. Deal? ;-)
Gremal
> Peter wrote:
> > I think Mr. Kong brings up a very interesting scenario, i.e. I am
> > wondering if the "dual layered" disc was "mastered identically" for
> > each of the two layers?
>
> I have compared the DD, DTS, and DVD-A tracks on over a
> dozen DVD-A releases (and am looking forward to comparing
> another dozen that I have not had a chance to fool with,
> yet), and the differences - and similarities - were all over
> the map. Some tracks were remarkably different from the
> others on the same disc, and on some discs the DVD-A, DTS,
> and DD tracks were subjectively (and as best I can tell,
> measurably) identical, in terms of sound quality. This tells
> me that the individual tracks were indeed handled
> differently. If the differences were caused by the digital
> processing, they would have been consistent.
>
> They were not.
Howard, your "findings" that these mixes are different is
very interesting. I have not listened to as many DVD-A
titles as you have, so I'm perfectly willing to defer to your
expertise and concede that individual tracks were handled
differently, as you say. (Of course this is very obvious on
the DVD-As which are greatest hits or compilations.)
But to my thinking, it is wrong for you to extrapolate
this to SACD. Are you suggesting that the mixes used
on the SACD vs the CD layer of hybrids produced by
audiophile labels like Mobile Fidelity, FIM, Waterlily,
etc. uses different mixes in a conspiracy to make SACD
sound superior to CD? That would make no sense be-
cause these labels rely on the CD-buying public for their
income and have a reputation of producing the best CD
sound possible. It is documented that all mixing is
done before the content is mapped to the disc as DSD
or red book.
ri...@mordor.net
8) ri...@mordor.net> sez in message news:9p7ga...@enews1.newsguy.com...
8)> Thus spake Gremal <gre...@earthlink.net>:
8)> 8) Howard, we've been through this before. Frequencies emitted by
8)> 8) the trumpet and other instruments have been measured at greater
8)> 8) than 100kHz. No, you can't hear those ultrasonic things, but their
8)> 8) presence amidst wavelengths in the audible spectrum influences
8)> 8) the way we perceive bass response, on up. This has been docu-
8)> 8) mented.
8)> I'm not sure where to start. I'd be very interested in reading
8)> anything you can cite about trumpets putting out 100khz signals.
8) Well, I'm not sure where to start either. This is fairly simple to
8) measure and anyone doing their homework can find citations.
8) Here is as good a starting point as any:
8) http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
8) Check out that first graph closely.
8)> I simply don't think that's possible or that any peer-reviewed
8)> journal would permit such silliness to be printed. However, I'm
8)> willing to be educated if you can provide a reference.
8) I hope you are willing to be educated, but let's remember that
8) the real education lies in listening to SACD and CD and hearing
8) the differences. Reading journals and other publications is
8) fun and all, in an armchair theorism kind of way, but the music
8) is what counts.
Like I said, I haven't seen anything in a peer-reviewed journal. Anyone
can put up a web site with whatever info they feel they'd like to evangelize.
I did find the cited site interesting. Can you provide anything more
tangible? I'm certainly open to altering my opinion if I'm given
sufficient information.
Best regards,
Gremal
news:9pac9...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> "Gremal" <gre...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >Sorry, no. The work of James Boyk and others proves you wrong.
> >Like any frequency, ultrasonic waves travel beyond "close ranges".
>
> The work of Tom Holman and others proves you wrong. THX
> re-equalisation exists precisely because high frequencies *do*
> attenuate rapidly in air. This applies to the 2-20kHz region in movie
> theatres, so consider how much more rapidly it applies to your claims
> for >100kHz transmission.
Then let them attenuate naturally. Don't chop them off at 20kHz
indiscriminantly. The name of the game is the reproduction of
musical instruments.
> >Rich, how quickly we forget. Howard, you and I had this exact
> >same conversation about a year ago. Look through the archives.
> >Do your own homework. And most importantly, evaluate SACD
> >by listening, not theorizing.
>
> Quite so. Lo and behold, there is no incontrovertible evidence that
> SACD has *any* audio advantage due to wider bandwidth.
Fascinating Stewart. And now on to listening to my SACDs!
Gremal
> Thus spake Gremal <gre...@earthlink.net>:
> 8) ri...@mordor.net> sez in message news:9p7ga...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> 8)> Thus spake Gremal <gre...@earthlink.net>:
> 8) Well, I'm not sure where to start either. This is fairly simple to
> 8) measure and anyone doing their homework can find citations.
> 8) Here is as good a starting point as any:
> 8) http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
> 8) Check out that first graph closely.
> Like I said, I haven't seen anything in a peer-reviewed journal. Anyone
> can put up a web site with whatever info they feel they'd like to
> evangelize.
Are you suggesting that James Boyk is an evangelist for HF?
He's a musician with great interest in recording technology and
techniques. His work has certainly taught me a lot. If you're
genuinely interested, he does give citations of articles that are
indeed in peer-reviewed journals and other publications and
he himself is a well respected and well-published audio
scientist. Did you really look at his website?
> I did find the cited site interesting. Can you provide anything more
> tangible? I'm certainly open to altering my opinion if I'm given
> sufficient information.
Tangible? I really don't understand what you are asking for.
Boyk's work was published. Go to the library and look for
it if you think that would make it more tangible for you.
And by all means--look up the articles he cites on his web-
site--that is why I pointed it out to you. Not only does he
cite other people's work, but much of it was published as
part of his thesis at CalTech. Professors don't sponsor
your thesis unless your work is informed and grounded
in science and empirical evidence, so in that sense Boyk's
website is as "peer reviewed" as any journal. You know
I worked as an editor for several peer reviewed journals
(pharmaceutical, medical and analytical chemistry--not
audio) and all it takes for some of these journals is one
independent PhD to approve an article for publication.
It's not like the entire scientific advisory board pours
over every word in the journal. Far from it.
But unfortunately I believe you are getting off track. At
issue here is how reproduced music sounds. Instead of
going to the library or surfing the web looking for so-
called "tangible" evidence that ultimately you will
brush aside if it clashes with your beliefs, why not
audition an SACD player in your system and listen to
a wide variety of material on this amazing format. For
people who supposedly care about music we should
be much more interested in the sound quality than the
"theoretical" limitations.
As we often say, in a battle between theory and the real
world, the real world always wins. Or, as Daniel von
Recklinghausen once said, "If it measures good and
sounds bad, it is bad. If it measures bad and sounds
good, you've measured the wrong thing."
ri...@mordor.net
8) "Gremal" <gre...@earthlink.net> writes:
8)>Richard D Pierce <DPi...@world.std.com> wrote in message
8)>news:9p54ro$neq$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
8)>> In article <9p536v$mam$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
8)>> Gremal <gre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
8)>> >Howard, we've been through this before. Frequencies emitted by
8)>> >the trumpet and other instruments have been measured at greater
8)>> >than 100kHz.
8)>>
8)>> At EXTREMELY close ranges, at levels FAR below the in-band
8)>> components.
8)>
8)>Sorry, no. The work of James Boyk and others proves you wrong.
8)>Like any frequency, ultrasonic waves travel beyond "close ranges".
8) The work of Tom Holman and others proves you wrong. THX
8) re-equalisation exists precisely because high frequencies *do*
8) attenuate rapidly in air. This applies to the 2-20kHz region in movie
8) theatres, so consider how much more rapidly it applies to your claims
8) for >100kHz transmission.
Is that the same Tom Holman from Apt?
I agree that it seems silly that 100khz transmission is (a) useful
or (b) even within the realm of human hearing.
8) Quite so. Lo and behold, there is no incontrovertible evidence that
8) SACD has *any* audio advantage due to wider bandwidth.
Yup, and it has LOTS of evidence of keeping consumers from using
unencoded digital bitstreams. Thumbs down.
Francois Yves Le Gal
Pinkerton) wrote:
>The work of Tom Holman and others proves you wrong. THX
>re-equalisation exists precisely because high frequencies *do*
>attenuate rapidly in air. This applies to the 2-20kHz region in movie
>theatres, so consider how much more rapidly it applies to your claims
>for >100kHz transmission.
Well, THX re-eq does exactly the contrary : it linearizes the
amplitude response in domestic settings by reverse equalization, as a
number of earlier soundtracks were pre-emphasized in order to take
into account typical thru-screen frontal diffusion in a large
absorbent room.
Basically, a THX re-eq is a mild cut in the treble region, and
something obsolete nowadays, as most DVDs are mastered with home
settings - not movie theaters - as a target.
Furthermore, soundtrack reproduction using lossy compressed, mono in
the treble sources (such as a Dolby Digital encoded DVD), has nothing
to do with music reproduction, so the THX argument is totally
irrelevant.
Howard Ferstler
> But to my thinking, it is wrong for you to extrapolate
> this to SACD. Are you suggesting that the mixes used
> on the SACD vs the CD layer of hybrids produced by
> audiophile labels like Mobile Fidelity, FIM, Waterlily,
> etc. uses different mixes in a conspiracy to make SACD
> sound superior to CD?
Not so much a conspiracy as a way to make sure that people
more easily "appreciate" the benefits of the new technology.
You know, to help people out a bit with their decision
making.
I think that the marketers genuinely believe that SACD is
subjectively superior (this involves them both not doing
rigorous comparisons and also wishful thinking, as well as
their obvious desire to boost sales), but they also realize
that the differences do not jump out at you. (I do not
believe they are audible at all with 99% of what can be
recorded, by the way.) So, they make a few minor
"adjustments," just to seal the deal, so to speak.
> That would make no sense be-
> cause these labels rely on the CD-buying public for their
> income and have a reputation of producing the best CD
> sound possible.
But they also realize that the appeal of their product
involves an interest on the part of their customers for
superior sound, rather than just good performances. They
appeal to audio buffs, mostly, and not mainstream music
lovers. If small labels did not do this, they would not be
able to generate a customer base large enough to survive.
Then need audiophile customers, who hunger for superior
sound.
I see nothing inconsistent in them basically saying that in
the past, and even now, their CD sound is superior to that
of the competition, while at the same time saying that their
SACD (or DVD-A) releases are even better yet.
> It is documented that all mixing is
> done before the content is mapped to the disc as DSD
> or red book.
Documented by whom?
Howard Ferstler
ri...@mordor.net
8) Yup, and it has LOTS of evidence of keeping consumers from using
8) unencoded digital bitstreams. Thumbs down.
Ooops, that was supposed to be "unencrypted", not unencoded. 8-)
Cheers,
Harry Lavo
Howard, you can obviously hold any opinion you want, but you keep asserting
this over and over as if it is fact. How about putting verifiable fact in
place if you want to keep insisting that every person who hears SACD and
thinks it is superior in sound quality is being fooled by mastering tricks.
Your approach strikes me as obtuse and intellectually dishonest unless you
have some evidence that such doctoring is/has/been done by the labels
producing SACD.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton <ste...@pinkertons.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:9pac9...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>> "Gremal" <gre...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> >Sorry, no. The work of James Boyk and others proves you wrong.
>> >Like any frequency, ultrasonic waves travel beyond "close ranges".
>>
>> The work of Tom Holman and others proves you wrong. THX
>> re-equalisation exists precisely because high frequencies *do*
>> attenuate rapidly in air. This applies to the 2-20kHz region in movie
>> theatres, so consider how much more rapidly it applies to your claims
>> for >100kHz transmission.
>
>Then let them attenuate naturally. Don't chop them off at 20kHz
>indiscriminantly. The name of the game is the reproduction of
>musical instruments.
That's already done by the microphones in the recording studio. The
name of the game is the response of human hearing..........
If you want to make a *real* musical recording, then use a soundfield
microphone placed in the mid stalls of a real concert hall. There have
been a few recordings made using this process, and Pope Music for
instance even uses lab-grade measuring microphones. You won't find any
significant content above 15-20kHz coming off these microphones....
>> >Rich, how quickly we forget. Howard, you and I had this exact
>> >same conversation about a year ago. Look through the archives.
>> >Do your own homework. And most importantly, evaluate SACD
>> >by listening, not theorizing.
>>
>> Quite so. Lo and behold, there is no incontrovertible evidence that
>> SACD has *any* audio advantage due to wider bandwidth.
>
>Fascinating Stewart. And now on to listening to my SACDs!
Fine, they *may* indeed have sonic advantage (although even this is
unclear). Whether this has *any* relation to increased bandwidth in
the *analogue* signal content is a totally different matter, and most
certainly not agreed by many audio professionals with much more
knowledge and experience than either of us.
Gremal
> Gremal wrote:
>
> > But to my thinking, it is wrong for you to extrapolate
> > this to SACD. Are you suggesting that the mixes used
> > on the SACD vs the CD layer of hybrids produced by
> > audiophile labels like Mobile Fidelity, FIM, Waterlily,
> > etc. uses different mixes in a conspiracy to make SACD
> > sound superior to CD?
> Not so much a conspiracy as a way to make sure that people
> more easily "appreciate" the benefits of the new technology.
> You know, to help people out a bit with their decision
> making.
Hmmmm. . .sounds like conspiracy theory to me.
> I think that the marketers genuinely believe that SACD is
> subjectively superior (this involves them both not doing
> rigorous comparisons and also wishful thinking, as well as
> their obvious desire to boost sales), but they also realize
> that the differences do not jump out at you. (I do not
> believe they are audible at all with 99% of what can be
> recorded, by the way.) So, they make a few minor
> "adjustments," just to seal the deal, so to speak.
Actually Howard, the marketers realize SACD will not
survive on good sound quality alone, and so that's why
the engineers included multichannel provisions in SACD.
And these purely hypothetical "adjustments" would not
be pursued by engineers who knowingly designed DSD
to be superior to PCM, nor by long-time audio gurus like
Chesky and Tom Jung. Basically you have no evidence
of these "adjustments"--your idea is pure conjecture and
until you can provide evidence, best not to bring it up.
Innocent until proven guilty, I say.
> > It is documented that all mixing is
> > done before the content is mapped to the disc as DSD
> > or red book.
> Documented by whom?
Howard, I can envision those gears turning: who
*really* shot Kennedy; what is gulf war syndrome;
why is the FBI hiding extraterrestrials from us? ;-)
I assure you that "documented by whom" needn't
be included among those questions.
Seriously, it is documented by the audio press who
have hung out with producers like Winston Ma and
in the liner notes themselves which accompany many
of these hybrid SACD productions which you have
never listened to nor sought out in any genuinely
investigative way. You know, these SACDs aren't
mixed in secret government labs with the top level
security, but in many of the world's most widely
used studios, including, quite recently, Abbey Rd.
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
WhY?
>Don't chop them off at 20kHz indiscriminantly.
Why do you use a factually bankrupt word like "indiscriminately"?
There's lots of reasoning behind how things are filtered (btw,
"chopped off" suggest you're not quite grokking the idea of
Fourier duals, but that's perhaps not as germane as it should
be.
>The name of the game is the reproduction of
>musical instruments.
Really? I thought it was "reproduce the music so it sounds like
the musicial instrument".
Have we changed our goal?
Do you have any idea what is required to reproduce the radiation
pattern of even a simple instrument, and how little that can
matter in the far field?
>> Quite so. Lo and behold, there is no incontrovertible evidence that
>> SACD has *any* audio advantage due to wider bandwidth.
As of now, that's still true. Finding direct comparisons is
devilishly hard.
>Fascinating Stewart. And now on to listening to my SACDs!
Prefer what you like, just don't deify your preference, or claim
that your preference is due to a specific technical feature without
some evidence.
Now, there are some issues with the CD cutoff design, perhaps,
but you haven't hit on or near them.
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
Francois Yves Le Gal <fle...@free.fr> wrote:
>Furthermore, soundtrack reproduction using lossy compressed, mono in
>the treble sources (such as a Dolby Digital encoded DVD), has nothing
>to do with music reproduction, so the THX argument is totally
>irrelevant.
Excuse me, but not all soundtracks with digital coding used on the
audio tracks have "mono in the treble sources". Dolby Digital
does not have that limitation, DTS does not have that limitation,
going afield from DVD's, MPEG_2/4 AAC
certainly does not have that limitation, and in fact NONE of the
ways that multichannel audio (as opposed to matrix downmix
methods) is coded have such an inherent limitation, including
the old Layer 1/2 "backward compatable" lagorithms.
Now, most often the dialog will be central, but this has
nothing to do with the encoding method at all.
When used with OLD material that is only available in mono, certainly
you'll have similar channels, but this is a result solely of the
source material, NOT of the coding.
Even the most primitive of multichannel matrix methods, things
like "intensity stereo" and the like, do not have "mono"
treble, because even those methods will ride gain differently in
different channels.
This is, of course, separate from the THX applicability issue.
Arny Krueger
news:9pe1n8$fqk$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> Howard, you can obviously hold any opinion you want, but you keep asserting
> this over and over as if it is fact. How about putting verifiable fact in
> place if you want to keep insisting that every person who hears SACD and
> thinks it is superior in sound quality is being fooled by mastering tricks.
The verifiable facts are in place.
(1) It is a verifiable fact that increasing the bit depth of
distributed digital media over 16 bits and increasing sample rate
over 44 KHz has no, none, zero, void effect on sound quality. Anybody
who wants to can verify this with his own listening tests using
materials that they can freely download from
http://www.cdabx.com/technical/bits44/index.htm ,
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm , and
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .
(2) It is a verifiable effect, frequently discussed in the scientific
literature, written into documents from international standards
organizations, that people's expectations can profoundly effect their
perceptions.
> Your approach strikes me as obtuse and intellectually dishonest unless you
> have some evidence that such doctoring is/has/been done by the labels
> producing SACD.
Please see figure 18 at
http://www.stereophile.com/fullarchives.cgi?180 . It describes the
technical differences between the CD layer and the DSD layer of a
SACD disc.
Stewart Pinkerton
>On 1 Oct 2001 18:22:49 GMT, ste...@pinkertons.fsnet.co.uk (Stewart
>Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>>The work of Tom Holman and others proves you wrong. THX
>>re-equalisation exists precisely because high frequencies *do*
>>attenuate rapidly in air. This applies to the 2-20kHz region in movie
>>theatres, so consider how much more rapidly it applies to your claims
>>for >100kHz transmission.
>
>Well, THX re-eq does exactly the contrary : it linearizes the
>amplitude response in domestic settings by reverse equalization, as a
>number of earlier soundtracks were pre-emphasized in order to take
>into account typical thru-screen frontal diffusion in a large
>absorbent room.
I believe you have misinterpreted my statement. THX re-equalisation
does indeed provide treble cut, but this is to compensate for the
reduced *distances* involved in domestic audio, when replaying
soundtracks balanced for large movie theaters. This is quite clear in
THX literature.
>Basically, a THX re-eq is a mild cut in the treble region, and
>something obsolete nowadays, as most DVDs are mastered with home
>settings - not movie theaters - as a target.
True, but a quite different argument, of course
>Furthermore, soundtrack reproduction using lossy compressed, mono in
>the treble sources (such as a Dolby Digital encoded DVD), has nothing
>to do with music reproduction, so the THX argument is totally
>irrelevant.
Your argument is quite spurious, since DD is by definition discrete
and hence does not have anything in mono, most especially not treble,
which is the key to localisation of sound images.
None of your comments says anything about treble attenuation through
air, which is a plain *fact*, and not a debating point. Just basic
physics, whatever the marketing guys at Sony and Pioneer would like
you to think! BTW, very few modern large-capsule studio microphones
have any significant response above 18-20kHz, so the ability of a
trumpet to output some 100kHz signal at close range into an 1/8 inch
B&K measuring microphone is even less relevant. These mics are of
course not used by the recording industry because of their much higher
self-noise.
Howard Ferstler
> Howard, you can obviously hold any opinion you want, but you keep asserting
> this over and over as if it is fact. How about putting verifiable fact in
> place if you want to keep insisting that every person who hears SACD and
> thinks it is superior in sound quality is being fooled by mastering tricks.
> Your approach strikes me as obtuse and intellectually dishonest unless you
> have some evidence that such doctoring is/has/been done by the labels
> producing SACD.
I have personally compared the DVD-A, DD, and DTS tracks on
over a dozen DVD-A releases that have been sent to me to
review. (I have maybe another dozen to go, but I think I
have some reasonable good data to go on.) The differences I
have heard have, as I noted previously, been all over the
map, although in come cases, I have heard no differences at
all. Those inconsistencies and their often very different
levels of audibility tell me that something other than
digital artifacts are involved.
In addition, I have is an article by David Ranada in Sound &
Vision (or maybe it was Stereo Review at the time), where he
did some careful comparing of some "reissue" Sony SBM
compact discs and the earlier, standard CD versions.
He discovered equalization and level differences that were
clearly not the result of any kind of digital artifacts. He
concluded that either the SBM versions were made from
different masters than the previous CD versions, or else
they were from the same masters and some post-production
diddling was done to insure that those SBM versions caught
people's attention. Note that he did acknowledge the
advantages of SBM, but he noted that those advantages really
did not mean much with those reissued recordings.
Anyway, I see no reason why Sony, as well as other outfits,
would not continue in that tradition with SACD.
Certainly, SACD has measurable advantages over the
conventional compact disc. (I am ignoring right now the
obvious advantage that 5.1 channels has over two channels.)
Those involve dynamic range and frequency response.
I do not consider the dynamic range "advantage" to be all
that big a deal, since most home-listening environments are
not quiet enough for the technology to mean anything. Also,
many master tapes, mixers, and microphones have so much
noise themselves that the superior dynamic range of SACD is
gilding the lily. This is definitely the case with reissued
recordings made with older equipment.
I also do not consider the frequency-response issue to be
significant. The CD can capture and hold all audible musical
signals that I know of, Mr. Boyk's "research"
notwithstanding.
That leaves the midrange and bass. Well, the CD can take
care of the bass just fine, and so it is obvious that the
so-called differences people hear when they listen to SACD
must involve the midrange. However, nobody has been able to
show just how SACD can do things to the midrange
(soundstaging, imaging, layering, depth, focus, etc., etc.)
that set it off from what the CD can do.
So in my opinion, the manifest differences people claim to
hear (and sometimes actually do hear, when they compare CD
and SACD tracks) are not going to be the result of digital
sublities. To my way of thinking, that means only one thing:
the SACD tracks have equalization, level, and possibly even
bandwidth differences that are the result of technical
diddling.
I think that Sony does this as a way to sell a technology
that will not only allow them to sell more recordings, but
will also allow them to sell that technology to other record
manufacturers. I think they started out with two-channel
SACD as a way to wow impressionable audiophiles, who hunger
for the latest and greatest. Now, they are getting into the
5.1 arena, and no doubt their recordings, provided the
engineering is done correctly, should be extremely good.
However, that excellence will be the result of proper
channel balancing, ensemble imaging, and ambiance pickup,
and not the digital technology, per se. DVD-A could do
subjectively as well, and so could Dolby Digital and DTS.
I also am convinced that small record labels can survive by
only two means (sometimes those are combined). They can
either specialize in esoteric musical forms that the bigger
outfits do not care to fool with, and therefore will only
appeal to a small number of music lovers, or else they can
market their wares as somehow sonically special, and try to
capture an audiophile market that distrusts mainstream
record producers. This has been done in a number of ways by
outfits that use stuff like 128-times oversampling, HDCD,
etc., and now the big ploy will be SACD.
As long as the result involves decent recordings in 5.1
surround, I have no problem with this. However, you do not
need SACD or even DVD-A to get subjectively excellent
surround sound.
And you sure as heck do not need SACD to get subjectively
great two-channel sound. The CD has been able to do that for
years.
Howard Ferstler
Stewart Pinkerton
>Actually Howard, the marketers realize SACD will not
>survive on good sound quality alone, and so that's why
>the engineers included multichannel provisions in SACD.
>And these purely hypothetical "adjustments" would not
>be pursued by engineers who knowingly designed DSD
>to be superior to PCM,
Um, engineers are aware that DSD is *not* in fact superior to 24/192
PCM, in fact it has fundamental flaws as well as being basically
inferior in information density. Multi-channel SACD simply increases
the inferiority to multi-channel 24/96 PCM, as per DVD-A.
> nor by long-time audio gurus like
>Chesky and Tom Jung. Basically you have no evidence
>of these "adjustments"--your idea is pure conjecture and
>until you can provide evidence, best not to bring it up.
>Innocent until proven guilty, I say.
There seems to be little evidence on either side, including any
evidence that SACD is *audibly* superior to 'plain Jane' CD.
>> > It is documented that all mixing is
>> > done before the content is mapped to the disc as DSD
>> > or red book.
>
>> Documented by whom?
>
>Howard, I can envision those gears turning: who
>*really* shot Kennedy; what is gulf war syndrome;
>why is the FBI hiding extraterrestrials from us? ;-)
>I assure you that "documented by whom" needn't
>be included among those questions.
Nice sidestep, but you have supplied no information on where is this
supposed documentation. May one presume that it's in the same vault as
the aliens from Roswell?
>Seriously, it is documented by the audio press
Ah, *that* kind of 'documentation'..........
> who
>have hung out with producers like Winston Ma and
>in the liner notes themselves which accompany many
>of these hybrid SACD productions which you have
>never listened to nor sought out in any genuinely
>investigative way. You know, these SACDs aren't
>mixed in secret government labs with the top level
>security, but in many of the world's most widely
>used studios, including, quite recently, Abbey Rd.
So, exactly where is it explicitly stated that the master is 'locked
down' before straight mapping to SACD or Red Book?
Francois Yves Le Gal
skeptical philalethist) wrote:
>Dolby Digital does not have that limitation
All versions of the Dolby Digital encoder, from whatever source known
to me, actually combine channels above 15 KHz at 448 kbit/s, and
above around 10 KHz at 384 kbit/s.
Combined channels actually results in mono, jj...
Kalman Rubinson
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>Multi-channel SACD simply increases
>the inferiority to multi-channel 24/96 PCM, as per DVD-A.
Huh? Are you saying that MCH is inferior to 2channel despite
the same data rates?
Kal
Steven Sullivan
: In addition, I have is an article by David Ranada in Sound &
: Vision (or maybe it was Stereo Review at the time), where he
: did some careful comparing of some "reissue" Sony SBM
: compact discs and the earlier, standard CD versions.
: He discovered equalization and level differences that were
: clearly not the result of any kind of digital artifacts. He
: concluded that either the SBM versions were made from
: different masters than the previous CD versions, or else
: they were from the same masters and some post-production
: diddling was done to insure that those SBM versions caught
: people's attention. Note that he did acknowledge the
: advantages of SBM, but he noted that those advantages really
: did not mean much with those reissued recordings.
Isn't there another possibility -- that the first issues
were diddled, while the second weren't (or that both were
didled, but differently)?
I haven't seent he article, but would like to -- could you
post the issue number?
--
-S.
Francois Yves Le Gal
Pinkerton) wrote:
>This is quite clear in THX literature.
THX propaganda materials are far from being reference documents,
Stewart.
>Your argument is quite spurious, since DD is by definition discrete
>and hence does not have anything in mono, most especially not treble,
>which is the key to localisation of sound images.
Please check various technical papers on the subject, where it is
very clearly stated that the Dolby Digital encoders actually combine
channels above 15 KHz at 448 kbit/s, and above around 10 KHz at 384
kbit/s; thus turning treble into mono!
>None of your comments says anything about treble attenuation through
>air, which is a plain *fact*, and not a debating point
Agreed, treble attenuation thru propagation is a fact, no question.
>BTW, very few modern large-capsule studio microphones
>have any significant response above 18-20kHz
Correct, but not every mic is condenser based, and not every
condenser mic uses a large capsule. Try to do some tests using, say,
a ribbon mic, you could be surprised by it's output above 20 KHz
(and, no, it's not noisy).
>These mics are of
>course not used by the recording industry because of their much higher
>self-noise.
Sorry, but such mics, as well as similar ones from ACO Pacific or
other companies, are in daily use by a number of recording studios.
Boyk's paper (http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm)
lists a few mikes with usable response up to 100 KHz.
Harry Lavo
news:9pfvg...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> On 3 Oct 2001 16:38:07 GMT, ste...@pinkertons.fsnet.co.uk (Stewart
> Pinkerton) wrote:
>
> >This is quite clear in THX literature.
>
> THX propaganda materials are far from being reference documents,
> Stewart.
>
> >Your argument is quite spurious, since DD is by definition discrete
> >and hence does not have anything in mono, most especially not treble,
> >which is the key to localisation of sound images.
>
> Please check various technical papers on the subject, where it is
> very clearly stated that the Dolby Digital encoders actually combine
> channels above 15 KHz at 448 kbit/s, and above around 10 KHz at 384
> kbit/s; thus turning treble into mono!
>
> >None of your comments says anything about treble attenuation through
> >air, which is a plain *fact*, and not a debating point
>
> Agreed, treble attenuation thru propagation is a fact, no question.
>
> >BTW, very few modern large-capsule studio microphones
> >have any significant response above 18-20kHz
>
> Correct, but not every mic is condenser based, and not every
> condenser mic uses a large capsule. Try to do some tests using, say,
> a ribbon mic, you could be surprised by it's output above 20 KHz
> (and, no, it's not noisy).
BTW, Stewart's comment that the B&K's are noisy is a bit misleading. They
are often used in live classical recording situations with full dynamic
range, not exactly a great environment for "noisy" mikes. They may not be
as quiet as some others, but if extended range and neutrality are desired,
there are few other mikes that compete.
>
> >These mics are of
> >course not used by the recording industry because of their much higher
> >self-noise.
>
> Sorry, but such mics, as well as similar ones from ACO Pacific or
> other companies, are in daily use by a number of recording studios.
>
> Boyk's paper (http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm)
> lists a few mikes with usable response up to 100 KHz.
Not to mention the new Sennheiser MKH 800 small capsule cardioid with
frequency response to 50khz. Even its predecessor MKH 80 went beyond 30khz
I believe.
Harry Lavo
Let me paraphrase your logic:
"You have never heard SACD (by omission in this post and previous
commission) (This means you have never heard a SACD vs. SBM vs. CD vs.
Analog comparison of even some of the classics issued in several formats,
like Miles Davis's "Kind of Blue" or the Chicago/Reiner recordings.)"
"You have heard a comparison of DVD audio, DVD video, and CD that sounds
somewhat gimmicky to you"
"David Ranada thought he found differences between SBM'd CD's and prior
straight CD releases"
"You can't think of any reason that SACD can be superior"
"Ergo, SACD's perceived superiority must be due to gimmickry"
"You are SURE that that is a fact!"
Howard, please don't tell me you were on the debating team at university.
Gremal
> "Gremal" <gre...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >Then let them attenuate naturally. Don't chop them off at 20kHz
> >indiscriminantly. The name of the game is the reproduction of
> >musical instruments.
>
> That's already done by the microphones in the recording studio. The
> name of the game is the response of human hearing..........
> If you want to make a *real* musical recording, then use a soundfield
> microphone placed in the mid stalls of a real concert hall. There have
> been a few recordings made using this process, and Pope Music for
> instance even uses lab-grade measuring microphones. You won't find any
> significant content above 15-20kHz coming off these microphones....
Wrong again Stew. Omnis, for example, are known to extend over 40kHz
and eventhe old Omnis went well over 20k. Check out their website if
you don't believe me: http://www.dpamicrophones.com/pro5.htm
Gremal
> "Gremal" <gre...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >Actually Howard, the marketers realize SACD will not
> >survive on good sound quality alone, and so that's why
> >the engineers included multichannel provisions in SACD.
> >And these purely hypothetical "adjustments" would not
> >be pursued by engineers who knowingly designed DSD
> >to be superior to PCM,
>
> Um, engineers are aware that DSD is *not* in fact superior to 24/192
> PCM, in fact it has fundamental flaws as well as being basically
> inferior in information density. Multi-channel SACD simply increases
> the inferiority to multi-channel 24/96 PCM, as per DVD-A.
Oh really? Tom Jung, owner of DMP, is a pioneer of digital recording
who established his company and reputation using PCM technology.
Here is what he has to say (from S&V, July/August 2001 p.80-81): "I
kind of embraced PCM for its good qualities, but the more I worked
with it, the more I realized its shortcomings. We went from 16-bit to
18-bit to 20-bit to 24-bit in quest of higher-resolution PCM. But the
problems, like brick-wall filtering, remained. I've spent most of my
career trying to make PCM sound right, and I finally gave up on it.
DSD is closer to what music sounds like in real life, something that
PCM digital has never been. . .If the market goes with DVD-Audio
instead, I'll just retire and go fishing."
Hey Stewear, there's an engineer who actually produces music (as
opposed to just submitting articles to AES) who sure things DSD *is*
in fact superior. What say you?
> > nor by long-time audio gurus like
> >Chesky and Tom Jung. Basically you have no evidence
> >of these "adjustments"--your idea is pure conjecture and
> >until you can provide evidence, best not to bring it up.
> >Innocent until proven guilty, I say.
>
> There seems to be little evidence on either side, including any
> evidence that SACD is *audibly* superior to 'plain Jane' CD.
Hogwash. You just think of evidence as words on pages in peer-
reviewed journals whereas most of us think of the evidence of
audio superiority as resideing firmly in the realm of sound quality.
> >have hung out with producers like Winston Ma and
> >in the liner notes themselves which accompany many
> >of these hybrid SACD productions which you have
> >never listened to nor sought out in any genuinely
> >investigative way. You know, these SACDs aren't
> >mixed in secret government labs with the top level
> >security, but in many of the world's most widely
> >used studios, including, quite recently, Abbey Rd.
>
> So, exactly where is it explicitly stated that the master is 'locked
> down' before straight mapping to SACD or Red Book?
Sure I could grab the exact wording off the liner notes, Stew,
but what's the point? You and Howard and Rich are committed
to the doubting Thomas/conspiracy theorist stance and to pulling
the thread away from what's really important. Namely which
format sounds better. Hint: you can't figure it out by reading.
You gotta listen! :-)
Gremal
> In addition, I have is an article by David Ranada in Sound &
> Vision (or maybe it was Stereo Review at the time), where he
> did some careful comparing of some "reissue" Sony SBM
> compact discs and the earlier, standard CD versions.
>
> He discovered equalization and level differences that were
> clearly not the result of any kind of digital artifacts. He
> concluded that either the SBM versions were made from
> different masters than the previous CD versions, or else
> they were from the same masters and some post-production
> diddling was done to insure that those SBM versions caught
> people's attention. Note that he did acknowledge the
> advantages of SBM, but he noted that those advantages really
> did not mean much with those reissued recordings.
Yo Howard, there were no standard CD versions that used
the same remaster as the SBM versions. They were all re-
mastered for SBM. So much for your theory there.
> Anyway, I see no reason why Sony, as well as other outfits,
> would not continue in that tradition with SACD.
The differences between SBM and other bit mapping
technologies don't even compare to the differences be-
tween DSD and PCM. Not even close. This doubting
thomas syndrome has really got you going in circles.
Just get off the ol' rump and do some serious investi-
gative LISTENING.
> Certainly, SACD has measurable advantages over the
> conventional compact disc. (I am ignoring right now the
> obvious advantage that 5.1 channels has over two channels.)
Who said that was an advantage? Particularly to people
who don't even have 5.1 speakers? ;-)
> Those involve dynamic range and frequency response.
> I do not consider the dynamic range "advantage" to be all
> that big a deal, since most home-listening environments are
> not quiet enough for the technology to mean anything. Also,
> many master tapes, mixers, and microphones have so much
> noise themselves that the superior dynamic range of SACD is
> gilding the lily. This is definitely the case with reissued
> recordings made with older equipment.
Au contraire. The older recordings are often the better
recordings, produced before the advent of multitracking
and poor, close-mic'ing techniques. Before you run amuck
and declare that SACD is overkill for analog recordings,
ya might wanna listen to some first!
> I also do not consider the frequency-response issue to be
> significant. The CD can capture and hold all audible musical
> signals that I know of, Mr. Boyk's "research"
> notwithstanding.
Well Boyk knows a lot more about musical signals than
you seem to, your own [nonexistent] research notwith-
standing.
> That leaves the midrange and bass. Well, the CD can take
> care of the bass just fine,
Fine for you maybe. You're much less discriminating than
some.
> and so it is obvious that the
> so-called differences people hear when they listen to SACD
> must involve the midrange.
Wrong. The improvements are audible throughout the
dynamic range, but you have admittedly never listened, so
obviously you are just shooting from the hip! ;-)
> However, nobody has been able to
> show just how SACD can do things to the midrange
> (soundstaging, imaging, layering, depth, focus, etc., etc.)
> that set it off from what the CD can do.
Dude! Your ears show you how. What are you waiting
for? G-d to inscribe a peer-reviewed article of SACD
vs CD on the Hollywood walk of stars? ;-)
Get up, get out, get SACD and tell us your impressions.
We'd me much more amenable to those (whether good
or bad) than with your theories, conspiracies, uninform-
ed opinions or explanations of what we're ourselves
are hearing (which we are much more qualified to ex-
plain than you are). And yet, on you go. . .
> So in my opinion, the manifest differences people claim to
> hear (and sometimes actually do hear, when they compare CD
> and SACD tracks) are not going to be the result of digital
> sublities. To my way of thinking, that means only one thing:
> the SACD tracks have equalization, level, and possibly even
> bandwidth differences that are the result of technical
> diddling.
Yeah, you bet your butt, that they have been technically
diddled compared to CD. The sampling is 64 times
greater. The frequency response is 5 times greater, the
dynamic range is 120 dB across the entire audible
range compared to 96 dB for CD. How could SACD
*not* sound superior?
> I think that Sony does this as a way to sell a technology
> that will not only allow them to sell more recordings, but
> will also allow them to sell that technology to other record
> manufacturers.
Didn't seem to stop you from endorsing CD at every
opportunity. Or did you forget that Sony introduced
that too?
> I think they started out with two-channel
> SACD as a way to wow impressionable audiophiles, who hunger
> for the latest and greatest.
LOL! The latest and greatest? You mean like first pressing
records and single ended triodes? Or, oh, *impressionable*
audiophiles, as in those who rush out and buy the latest 5.1
systems and DVD-A. . .wait you did that! Sony started out
using two channel SACD because 99.9% of all music was
recorded for two channel! Ever think of that? ;-)
The other reason was because it was necessary to appeal
to the one market where audio quality makes a difference.
That would be audiophiles--a group I believe you have de-
clared yourself divorced from.
> Now, they are getting into the
> 5.1 arena, and no doubt their recordings, provided the
> engineering is done correctly, should be extremely good.
Well if you listened to these SACDs, you could say
"no doubt" but you haven't. The Midori, EW&F, KoB,
etc. are all available for you to hear. Why haven't you
bothered? Why are you posting your suppositions and
misinformed opinions on a forum where people are so
much more informed with regard to how this format
sounds?
> However, that excellence will be the result of proper
> channel balancing, ensemble imaging, and ambiance pickup,
> and not the digital technology, per se. DVD-A could do
> subjectively as well, and so could Dolby Digital and DTS.
Wait, wait wait. Time out. Let me get this straight. You
have never listened to SACD and now you're going to tell
us that it is subjectively as good as AC3, DTS and DVD-A?
Excuse me for quoting Puff Daddy, but "HELL NO!" ;-)
> I also am convinced that small record labels can survive by
> only two means (sometimes those are combined). They can
> either specialize in esoteric musical forms that the bigger
> outfits do not care to fool with, and therefore will only
> appeal to a small number of music lovers, or else they can
> market their wares as somehow sonically special, and try to
> capture an audiophile market that distrusts mainstream
> record producers. This has been done in a number of ways by
> outfits that use stuff like 128-times oversampling, HDCD,
> etc., and now the big ploy will be SACD.
LOL! No, seriously, you and Oliver Stone should hook up
on a screenplay. That stuff is great. Pure fiction though. ;-)
> As long as the result involves decent recordings in 5.1
> surround, I have no problem with this. However, you do not
> need SACD or even DVD-A to get subjectively excellent
> surround sound.
You have no problem with it anyway. You don't listen to
SACD, so I can't see how it concerns you, except insofar as
you enjoy telling other people what they are hearing.
> And you sure as heck do not need SACD to get subjectively
> great two-channel sound. The CD has been able to do that for
> years.
I can point you to an entire school of knowledgeable audio-
philes who disagree with that statement 100%. And I agree
with them to a point. CD has limitations. PCM in general
does, which limits its ability to sound like real live musical
instruments. Until you check out SACD, you don't know
what you've been missing.
Stewart Pinkerton
I may be wrong here - is the data rate per channel maintained for
multi-channel SACD? If so, then it's roughly equivalent to 20/192, but
still with the fundamental 1-bit converter problem.
Stewart Pinkerton
You mistake my meaning. When the microphones are placed in the
mid-stalls of a concert hall, you won't find any significant content
above 15-20kHz, *even* using lab-grade measuring microphones, because
of attenuation by distance through the air.
Gremal
> Kalman Rubinson <k...@nyu.edu> writes:
> > >On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 19:14:30 GMT, ste...@pinkertons.fsnet.co.uk
> > >(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
> > >
> >>Multi-channel SACD simply increases
> > >>the inferiority to multi-channel 24/96 PCM, as per DVD-A.
> >
> >Huh? Are you saying that MCH is inferior to 2channel despite
> >the same data rates?
>
> I may be wrong here - is the data rate per channel maintained for
> multi-channel SACD? If so, then it's roughly equivalent to 20/192, but
> still with the fundamental 1-bit converter problem.
What 1-bit convertor problem? The problem outlined by Lipschitz
had to do with 1-bit A->D. The Sony folks had to break it to him
lightly at the AES mtg in Canada that DSD uses 8-bit sigma delta
conversion in the A->D end and 1-bit in the D->A. Next time that
Lipschitz, Spear, et al get together to criticize DSD without even
listening to it (reminds me of some folks I knew on RAHE!) they
should at least wait until Sony gives them enough information about
how DSD works so they can effectively formulate their criticisms.
It does little good to outline the theoretical problems with 1-bit
D->A and then discover that Sony already addressed that problem
and moved on. The only thing worse is to keep parroting these so-
called "fundamental" problems even after we know they are not
problems. And the only thing worse than that is to continue talking
about the sound quality of SACD when some of us have never even
bothered to listen to it!
Arny Krueger
> "Gremal" <gre...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >Wrong again Stew. Omnis, for example, are known to extend over
40kHz
> >and even the old Omnis went well over 20k. Check out their
website if
> >you don't believe me: http://www.dpamicrophones.com/pro5.htm
Speaking as the owner of a pair of DPA 4007s and producer and
distributor of the audio files posted at
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm which are
AFAIK the "hottest" publicly-available recordings around with
spectrograms posted for proof...
> You mistake my meaning. When the microphones are placed in the
> mid-stalls of a concert hall, you won't find any significant
content
> above 15-20kHz, *even* using lab-grade measuring microphones,
because
> of attenuation by distance through the air.
There are other significant sources of high frequency loss than just
the attenuation in the air. High frequencies are by their very nature
highly directional. Almost everything absorbs them. Therefore, as you
move away from the direct, on-axis sound field of a musical
instrument that actually does produce large amounts of supersonic
information, the percentage of supersonic information rapidly
decreases. I suspect that in many if not most cases these kinds of
effects are stronger than the issues related to the
frequency-dependent absorption characteristics of the air.
Stewart Pinkerton
>What 1-bit convertor problem? The problem outlined by Lipschitz
>had to do with 1-bit A->D. The Sony folks had to break it to him
>lightly at the AES mtg in Canada that DSD uses 8-bit sigma delta
>conversion in the A->D end and 1-bit in the D->A. Next time that
>Lipschitz, Spear, et al get together to criticize DSD without even
>listening to it (reminds me of some folks I knew on RAHE!) they
>should at least wait until Sony gives them enough information about
>how DSD works so they can effectively formulate their criticisms.
IOW, Sony lied about the wonders of '1-bit' DSD and discovered the
fatal flaw for themselves, but didn't tell anyone until the issue was
forced into the open by the Lipschitz paper. Turns out of course that
the much-vaunted 'simple purity' of DSD is a complete crock, it's just
another multi-bit PCM scheme at heart, and the majority of modern CD
players also use 1-bit DACs, so where's the great leap forward?
SACD has zero advantage over a 20-bit 192k sampling PCM system, so how
is it going to compete with 24/192 DVD-A?
Espen Braathen
meldingsnyheter:9ph7lu$7pn$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
>
> What 1-bit convertor problem? The problem outlined by Lipschitz
> had to do with 1-bit A->D.
This is false.
The critisism is about ALL 1 bit quantiziser or re-quantizising stages in
general.
> The Sony folks had to break it to him
> lightly at the AES mtg in Canada that DSD uses 8-bit sigma delta
> conversion in the A->D end and 1-bit in the D->A.
DSD ADCs uses 1 bit. DSD Pro uses 8 bit delta-sigma. Most/many professinal
recordings have used the 1 bit DSD process with later signal manipulation
done in the analogue or digital PCM domain. Native DSD processing is
basically impossible.
Unfortunately the DSD Wide signal can not be put on the SACD disc, thus the
end user will still suffer from the 1 bit re-quantizising problems. DSD Wide
only prevents the master recording from having suboptimal dither or
saturation problems.
Esp1
Espen Braathen
meldingsnyheter:9pfvg...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Coupling is only activated if needed and thus is signal dependent.
The magnitude of the high frequencies in each channel is preserved and since
the ear is phase insensitive in this range (thanks to the wide bandwith of
the critical bands in the 10k - 20k Hz range) this is of no problem. Its
just another tool to compress the signal.
Esp1
Stewart Pinkerton
>"Francois Yves Le Gal" <fle...@free.fr> wrote in message
>news:9pfvg...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> On 3 Oct 2001 16:38:07 GMT, ste...@pinkertons.fsnet.co.uk (Stewart
>> Pinkerton) wrote:
>> >None of your comments says anything about treble attenuation through
>> >air, which is a plain *fact*, and not a debating point
>>
>> Agreed, treble attenuation thru propagation is a fact, no question.
>>
>> >BTW, very few modern large-capsule studio microphones
>> >have any significant response above 18-20kHz
>>
>> Correct, but not every mic is condenser based, and not every
>> condenser mic uses a large capsule. Try to do some tests using, say,
>> a ribbon mic, you could be surprised by it's output above 20 KHz
>> (and, no, it's not noisy).
Name a current studio ribbon mic with extended response above 20kHz.
>BTW, Stewart's comment that the B&K's are noisy is a bit misleading. They
>are often used in live classical recording situations with full dynamic
>range, not exactly a great environment for "noisy" mikes. They may not be
>as quiet as some others, but if extended range and neutrality are desired,
>there are few other mikes that compete.
My comment was not at all misleading, as I specifically referred to
the 1/8 inch microphone with the extended frequency response. I
believe that Pope Music uses the 1/2 inch B&K mics, obviously much
less self-noise - and much lower frequency response.
Kalman Rubinson
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>Kalman Rubinson <k...@nyu.edu> writes:
>>Huh? Are you saying that MCH is inferior to 2channel despite
>>the same data rates?
>
>I may be wrong here - is the data rate per channel maintained for
>multi-channel SACD? If so, then it's roughly equivalent to 20/192, but
>still with the fundamental 1-bit converter problem.
The data rate is maintained in MCH SACD so it ain't better or worse,
datawise.
Kal
Steven Sullivan
: Howard Ferstler <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
: news:9pff0...@enews4.newsguy.com...
:> In addition, I have is an article by David Ranada in Sound &
:> Vision (or maybe it was Stereo Review at the time), where he
:> did some careful comparing of some "reissue" Sony SBM
:> compact discs and the earlier, standard CD versions.
:>
:> He discovered equalization and level differences that were
:> clearly not the result of any kind of digital artifacts. He
:> concluded that either the SBM versions were made from
:> different masters than the previous CD versions, or else
:> they were from the same masters and some post-production
:> diddling was done to insure that those SBM versions caught
:> people's attention. Note that he did acknowledge the
:> advantages of SBM, but he noted that those advantages really
:> did not mean much with those reissued recordings.
: Yo Howard, there were no standard CD versions that used
: the same remaster as the SBM versions. They were all re-
: mastered for SBM. So much for your theory there.
What you've written makes no sense in response to the choices Howard
mentioned. Do you understand the difference between 'master' , as in
source, and 'remaster'? The question is whether the original and the
SBM were mastered from the same source (e.g., digitally transferred
from the same analog master tape, if the original recording was
analog). If they didn't use the same master as a source, then
there's no way to tell if the differences detected by Ramada in the
SBM issues are due to bitmapping itself or to the use of a different
master as a source!
Regarding SACD vs. DVD-A, didn't one of the audiophile rags recently
come out in favor of the latter's sound vs the former , in a sighted
comparison?
--
-S.
"Bible contradictions are designed by God." -- Twodead...@cs.com
Stewart Pinkerton
I say he's not much of an engineer, because DSD is only equivalent to
20-bit recording, and his move from 16 to 24 bits of PCM *never*
addressed the problem of sampling rate, which is where any real
audible differences will lie. No one has yet shown that 16 bits are
not more than adequate in the *replay* medium, but higher sampling
rates can certainly ease the 'brick wall' problems.
If Tom Jung can't see that 24/192 PCM is comprehensively superior to
DSD, then he damn well *should* retire and go fishing!
>> > nor by long-time audio gurus like
>> >Chesky and Tom Jung. Basically you have no evidence
>> >of these "adjustments"--your idea is pure conjecture and
>> >until you can provide evidence, best not to bring it up.
>> >Innocent until proven guilty, I say.
>>
>> There seems to be little evidence on either side, including any
>> evidence that SACD is *audibly* superior to 'plain Jane' CD.
>
>Hogwash. You just think of evidence as words on pages in peer-
>reviewed journals whereas most of us think of the evidence of
>audio superiority as resideing firmly in the realm of sound quality.
Anyone who actually *read* what I posted above would notice that I
said evidence of *audible* superiority. That involves listening,
y'know..........
Of course, your *thinking* that SACD sounds better is not *evidence*
of such audible superiority, and there is a quite desperate shortage
of single-variant controlled listening tests among the three
contenders - CD, SACD and 24/192 DVD-A.
>> So, exactly where is it explicitly stated that the master is 'locked
>> down' before straight mapping to SACD or Red Book?
>
>Sure I could grab the exact wording off the liner notes, Stew,
>but what's the point? You and Howard and Rich are committed
>to the doubting Thomas/conspiracy theorist stance and to pulling
>the thread away from what's really important. Namely which
>format sounds better. Hint: you can't figure it out by reading.
>You gotta listen! :-)
Indeed, so let's see the results of some *listening* tests where the
only difference is the replay media.
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
>skeptical philalethist) wrote:
>>Dolby Digital does not have that limitation
>All versions of the Dolby Digital encoder, from whatever source known
>to me, actually combine channels above 15 KHz at 448 kbit/s, and
>above around 10 KHz at 384 kbit/s.
You use different softeware than I do.
>Combined channels actually results in mono, jj...
Ever hear of "intensity stereo", i.e. different gains in
different channels?
What's more, you have an interesting definition of "treble".
Francois Yves Le Gal
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>I may be wrong here - is the data rate per channel maintained for
>multi-channel SACD?
Yes, it is, thanks to it's lossless built-in compression scheme, à la
MLP.
>still with the fundamental 1-bit converter problem.
Which has been shown no to be a problem with properly applied dither.
OK, sub optimal dither, but DSD works really nicely.
bf...@attglobal.net
floor. At 26dBA (36dB via the IEC method), there could be
a problem with SNR for higher frequencies.
John
Gremal wrote:
> (snip)
Harry Lavo
news:9pfvj...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Rumor has it that many of the early CD's were cut from compilation
tapes, analog masters, and other assorted materials in the rush to
get them to market. This is plausible, but whether true or not, by
the early '90's once SBM and higher bit rate mastering recorders
became available, most reputable companies went back and carefully
reissued from the master tapes. In most cases based on the liner
notes and interviews with various engineers, they pretty much went
straight to disk or remixed to sound like the original analog
releases, depending on the type of music. There is no reason to
believe that SACD and higher resolution releases of these later CD's
were not made the same way; indeed ...indeed in the case of SACD they
had to use the analog master tapes because the only way they had
initially to convert to SACD was from the analog tapes.
Howard's theory just doesn't square with what most audiophiles hear
when they listen to SACD. In particular they comment on an "easy"
quality in the high end vs. CD's somewhat strained and glarey
high-end. It is hard to see how equalization is going to make the
resultant product easier, particularly since the highs seem more
extended on the SACD. They also hear the bass and midrange as better
defined and more dimensional, having more "body" like the real
thing. This may be a function of the lower noise floor, but again it
doesn't seem to be eq-related so its not going to be the result of a
re-mix (And I'm sorry, I'm not willing to believe the whole thing was
run through an "aural exciter".)
Many audiophiles have reacted badly to the sound of CD's and have
warmed up to them only as mastering bit rates increased and
jitter-reduction became a design goal. So if they were so sensitive
to the issue to begin with, why is it so hard to understand that they
would be overjoyed at its absence? It seems to me the only people
who would find it hard to understand would be those who either did
not hear or did not want to believe in the problems originally
perceived by audiophiles to begin with.
Without knowing for sure why SACD sounds better, I am certainly going
to trust my ears. They have served well for over 40 years of audio
judgment. That's why I'm saving my pennies for SACD. :-)
bf...@attglobal.net
> (snip)
> Oh really? Tom Jung, owner of DMP, is a pioneer of digital recording
> who established his company and reputation using PCM technology.
> Here is what he has to say (from S&V, July/August 2001 p.80-81): "I
> kind of embraced PCM for its good qualities, but the more I worked
> with it, the more I realized its shortcomings. We went from 16-bit to
> 18-bit to 20-bit to 24-bit in quest of higher-resolution PCM. But the
> problems, like brick-wall filtering, remained.
Well, higher word length is NOT the way to solve the anti-aliasing
and reconstruction filtering issues that can occur. IF increasing
word length was indeed Tom Jung's approach to these issues, then he
is simply illustrating a incredible lack of understanding of digital
signal processing (the foundation of all digital recording
technology). All he needed to do to solve the "brick wall" filtering
issue was stick with 16bits (or 18 or whatever) and go to a higher
sampling rate.
I'm also fascinated by people who are stuck on 24 bit systems. One of
the things my company does is evaluate laboratory acoustic recording
equipment (for commercial and governmental clients). I'll be very
interested in any system that provides a true 20 bits of resolution
from the microphone inputs through to the data stored on disk. We've
found that practically all systems have too much noise in their
electronic amplification stages to provide more than 110dB of SNR
from 20Hz to 20kHz. Manufacturer specs on SNR are generally
meaningless.
> "I've spent most of my career trying to make PCM sound right,
> and I finally gave up on it. DSD is closer to what music sounds
> like in real life, something that PCM digital has never been. . ."
> Hey Stewear, there's an engineer who actually produces music (as
> opposed to just submitting articles to AES) who sure things DSD *is*
> in fact superior. What say you?
Was Tom a recording engineer or a DSP engineer?
John
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
--
With Kind Regards,
Dr. John Feng
Müller-BBM VibroAkustik Systeme, Inc.
325 E. Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
tel: 734-327-4147
fax: 734-327-4143
email: bf...@MuellerBBM-vas.com
web site: http://www.MuellerBBM-vas.com
Richard D Pierce
Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> >BTW, very few modern large-capsule studio microphones
>> >have any significant response above 18-20kHz
>>
>> Correct, but not every mic is condenser based, and not every
>> condenser mic uses a large capsule. Try to do some tests using, say,
>> a ribbon mic, you could be surprised by it's output above 20 KHz
>> (and, no, it's not noisy).
>
>BTW, Stewart's comment that the B&K's are noisy is a bit misleading. They
>are often used in live classical recording situations with full dynamic
>range, not exactly a great environment for "noisy" mikes. They may not be
>as quiet as some others, but if extended range and neutrality are desired,
>there are few other mikes that compete.
Well, it really depends upon WHICH B&K mics you're talking
about. The 1" laboratory capsules are VERY quiet, but the
1/4" and 1/8" capsules are VERY noisy.
When one says "B&K mics," it's pretty meaningless. because there
are DOZENS of B&K mics.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| DPi...@world.std.com |
Gremal
message news:9pfep...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> In article <9pcr9...@enews3.newsguy.com>,> WhY?
Cuz that's what real live instruments do, jj.
> >Don't chop them off at 20kHz indiscriminantly.
>
> Why do you use a factually bankrupt word like "indiscriminately"?
> There's lots of reasoning behind how things are filtered (btw,
> "chopped off" suggest you're not quite grokking the idea of
> Fourier duals, but that's perhaps not as germane as it should
> be.
Sorry jj, CD frequency response extends to 20kHz. Anything
from the recording that extends beyond that is for all intents &
purposes chopped off indescriminantly and I will not get sucked
a semantic debate about it.
> >The name of the game is the reproduction of
> >musical instruments.
>
> Really? I thought it was "reproduce the music so it sounds like
> the musicial instrument".
Did I just say something about a semantic debate. Let me
repeat, s'il vous plait: I will not get sucked into a semantic
debate about it.
> Have we changed our goal?
>
> Do you have any idea what is required to reproduce the radiation
> pattern of even a simple instrument, and how little that can
> matter in the far field?
Red herring alert! Red herring alert! ;-)
> >Fascinating Stewart. And now on to listening to my SACDs!
>
> Prefer what you like, just don't deify your preference, or claim
> that your preference is due to a specific technical feature without
> some evidence.
I don't deify my preference, I deify MUSIC. Now playing: Tribute
to Jack Johnson (Miles Davis dontcha know!) on. . .SACD! Ahhh.
> Now, there are some issues with the CD cutoff design, perhaps,
> but you haven't hit on or near them.
Hit on CD? No thanks, my SACDs would get jealous. ;-)
Howard Ferstler
> Let me paraphrase your logic:
>
> "You have never heard SACD (by omission in this post and previous
> commission) (This means you have never heard a SACD vs. SBM vs. CD vs.
> Analog comparison of even some of the classics issued in several formats,
> like Miles Davis's "Kind of Blue" or the Chicago/Reiner recordings.)"
I am sure that those reissues sound fine, and probably are
subjectively superior to the original versions. However,
this is absolutely no evidence at all that SACD was
responsible. Given the limitations of the technology at the
time those recordings were made, the standard compact disc
could easily embrace their sonic limitations and reproduce
every nuance.
To my way of thinking, the only way the originals could be
"improved" would be for a skilled engineer and mixing
technician to diddle with the material in a way that would
partially offset the microphone and mixing limitations of
the old technology. It can be done, and I think that is a
fine idea, and it no doubt was done with the SACD releases.
However, an equally good job could have been done with the
compact disc.
Note that I am here talking about two channels. If they had
master tapes with more than that number, then obviously SACD
and DVD-A, and DD and DTS too, for that matter, would have a
leg up on the original two-channel versions that were mixed
down from multichannel tapes.
> "You have heard a comparison of DVD audio, DVD video, and CD that sounds
> somewhat gimmicky to you"
Not gimmicky. I never said that, although some releases were
certainly that way. What I did say that matters is that that
the differences between DVD-A and DD and DTS tracks were
inconsistent, and in some cases DD and DTS sounded the same
as DVD-A. That tells me that DD and DTS have the potential
to equal DVD-A, and that when big sonic differences appear
it has nothing to do with digital technology and everything
to do with how the technology is used.
I made the assumption that DVD-A is as good as SACD.
Actually, some knowledgeable critics believe that SACD is
not ultimately as solid as DVD-A. To my way of thinking,
both are fine. But DD and DTS are also fine, and CD is fine
for two channels. There may be weak links in our assorted
recording and reproduction chains, but the per-channel
performance of the digital systems are NOT those weak links
by a wide margin.
> "David Ranada thought he found differences between SBM'd CD's and prior
> straight CD releases"
He did not just think it, he measured the differences, and
there were profound frequency-response contrasts that go way
beyond what digital technologies could impact.
> "You can't think of any reason that SACD can be superior"
Not audibly, particularly with reissues.
> "Ergo, SACD's perceived superiority must be due to gimmickry"
> "You are SURE that that is a fact!"
Well, yes.
> Howard, please don't tell me you were on the debating team at university.
So, what do you use as evidence for the superiority of SACD
technology? Even if you listen and compare critically, and
the SACD version sounds better than the CD version, you have
not proven a thing about whether the reason is the SACD
technology. Given the fact that manifest differences have
been heard when the program sources were both made from old
tapes, done in an era when microphones and mixers were not
all that sensational, I automatically become suspicious when
the SACD versions (or the SBM versions that Ranada talked
about) show impact, clarity, soundstaging, and
frequency-response advantages over the earlier releases on
standard CD.
From a consumer-oriented, practical standpoint, the
frequency-response and dynamic-range advantages of SACD are
academic, particularly if we are talking about using SACD
for reissues. Do you listen and marvel at the sound? Well, I
never said the sound was bad, or not superior to the earlier
versions. I just said that the manifest differences that
appear to be there have to be caused by something more
significant than the digital processing. And as far as I can
tell, when differences are that large the reason has to
involve marketing decisions telling the engineers what to do
to get the attention of progress-hungry audio enthusiasts.
Howard Ferstler
Francois Yves Le Gal
wrote:
>The critisism is about ALL 1 bit quantiziser or re-quantizising stages in
>general.
No, it is not, Mr. Braathen.
Stanley Lipshitz & John Vanderkooy wrote in their AES paper and
abstract that "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."
Multi-stage, or multi-feedback architectures don't suffer from the
minor artefacts *theoretically* demonstrated by Lipshitz &
Vanderkooy, so your remark is false.
Of course, Philips and Sony don't agree with Lipshitz & Vanderkooy,
and have published a well documented rebuttal:
"Why Direct Stream Digital (DSD) is the Best Choice as a Digital
Audio Format
Derk Reefman & Peter Nuijten
Philips, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
In this paper, an overview of Direct Stream Digital (DSD) signal
processing is given. It is shown that 1-bit DSD signals can be
dithered properly, so the resulting dithered DSD stream does not
contain audible artifacts in a band from 0-100kHz. It is also shown
that signal processing can be done best in a high rate, multi-bit
domain. Arguments are given that the minimal frequency span needed to
comply with the human auditory system is roughly 0-300kHz. Following
the signal processing, final conversion to DSD is made. It is
demonstrated that Super Audio CD (SACD) is a very efficient consumer
format: it is the format which, while maintaining all necessary
psycho-acoustical characteristics such as high band width, filtering
with wide transition bands etc, uses the least bits from the disk;
hence offering the longest playing time.
Paper 5396"
>Native DSD processing is basically impossible.
Quite funny. There are many peer reviewed papers who state exactly
the contrary, Mr. Braathen, such as:
"Editing and Switching in 1-Bit Audio Streams
Derk Reefman & Peter Nuijten
Philips, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
This paper addresses the issues around switching 1-bit audio streams,
such as used in Direct Stream Digital (DSD) in the Super Audio CD
format. A theoretical description is derived which shows how these
streams can be switched, independent of the Sigma Delta topologies
that are used. Also a simplification will be discussed, which is
technically much simpler, while still achieving high quality
cross-overs between 1-bit audio streams without any audible
artifacts.
Paper 5399"
On the DSD Wide subject, a recommended reading:
"DSD-Wide: A Practical Implementation for Professional Audio
Peter Eastty, Peter Thorpe, Nathan Bentall, Gary Cook, Chris Gerard,
Chris Sleight & Mike Smith
Sony Pro-Audio R&D, Oxford, UK
This paper presents practical recipes for the processing of DSD-Wide
[64FS 8-bit] signals which are fully compatible with the DSD [64FS
1-bit] signals used by the SACD consumer audio format. The designs
are presented in a schematic form compatible with implementation by
interested engineers in either FPGA or (with some modification) by
traditional DSP methods. This is intended to open up the processing
of such Super High Fidelity signals to a wider audience.
Paper 5377"
And, for a quite well balanced view on PCM and DSD technologies, may
I suggest Malcolm Hawksford's excellent paper, as delivered to the
same AES convention:
"SDM versus LPCM: The Debate Continues
Malcolm Hawksford
University of Essex, Colchester, UK
Significant misrepresentation of both 1-bit SDM and multi-bit LPCM
coding paradigms persist within both professional and commercial
arenas that impacts directly upon the perception of DVD-A and SACD
formats. A balanced appraisal of these schemes is presented in order
to expose the core differences in the technology both in the
theoretical and instrumentation domains. Some observations are made
about the fallacy of performance comparisons and the consequence of
misinformation that subsequently is derived.
Paper 5397"
All papers are available thru the AES web site at http://www.aes.org.
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
Espen Braathen <esp...@online.no> wrote:
>Coupling is only activated if needed and thus is signal dependent.
And it need not have uniform gain in each channel, at least in
some algorithms, making it anything BUT mono.
>The magnitude of the high frequencies in each channel is preserved and since
>the ear is phase insensitive in this range (thanks to the wide bandwith of
>the critical bands in the 10k - 20k Hz range) this is of no problem. Its
>just another tool to compress the signal.
Yep.
Francois Yves Le Gal
wrote:
>Coupling is only activated if needed and thus is signal dependent.
Sorry Mr. Braathen, there is no flag, no switch, no nothing to
activate.
The Dolby Digital encoder (all models, all versions I'm aware of)
combines channels above 15 KHz at 448 kbit/s, and above around 10 KHz
at 384 kbit/s, period.
>The magnitude of the high frequencies in each channel is preserved
In the resulting *MONO* signal?
>and since the ear is phase insensitive in this range
I would welcome some references backing this claim, Mr. Braathen.
>Its just another tool to compress the signal.
Oh yes, going back to mono in the treble is a heck of a fine
compression tool for multi-channel applications...
Howard Ferstler
>
> Howard Ferstler <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
>
> : In addition, I have is an article by David Ranada in Sound &
> : Vision (or maybe it was Stereo Review at the time), where he
> : did some careful comparing of some "reissue" Sony SBM
> : compact discs and the earlier, standard CD versions.
>
> : He discovered equalization and level differences that were
> : clearly not the result of any kind of digital artifacts. He
> : concluded that either the SBM versions were made from
> : different masters than the previous CD versions, or else
> : they were from the same masters and some post-production
> : diddling was done to insure that those SBM versions caught
> : people's attention. Note that he did acknowledge the
> : advantages of SBM, but he noted that those advantages really
> : did not mean much with those reissued recordings.
>
> Isn't there another possibility -- that the first issues
> were diddled, while the second weren't (or that both were
> didled, but differently)?
Sure. But of course the end result would be the same: the
difference would not be pinpointable to the digital systems.
It is possible that the earlier versions were made from
different tapes, altogether. That is, they may have been
made from cutting tapes that were originally equalized for
LP use. The newer versions might have gone back to the
original session tapes. No way to know, however.
> I haven't seent he article, but would like to -- could you
> post the issue number?
Stereo Review: July, 1994. "Super CD's: Do They Deliver the
Goods?" By David Ranada.
Howard Ferstler
Arny Krueger
news:9pi9rh$jsk$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> The magnitude of the high frequencies in each channel is preserved
> and since the ear is phase insensitive in this range (thanks to the
> wide bandwidth of the critical bands in the 10k - 20k Hz range) this
> is of no problem. Its just another tool to compress the signal.
I thought this was a pretty exceptional claim, so I decided to test
it. I started Cool Edit Pro and...
I created 2 seconds of mono pink noise. I split it into two identical
channels. I copied that and appended it. I inverted one channel of
the second 2 seconds of noise. I played the 4 second sample, and of
course half way through, I could clearly hear the polarity of one
channel "flip". It was a clearly audible effect.
I then high pass filtered (-100 dB brick wall) the 4 second segment
at 10 KHz. Playing it, I heard no flip.
Undid that, and then I high pass filtered the 4 second segment at 4
KHz. Playing it, I heard no flip.
Undid that, and then I high pass filtered the 4 second segment at 2
KHz. Playing it, I heard no flip.
Undid that, and then I high pass filtered the 4 second segment at 1
KHz. Playing it, I clearly heard a flip.
OK, I'm convinced!
Francois Yves Le Gal
Pinkerton) wrote:
>Name a current studio ribbon mic with extended response above 20kHz.
Well, the excellent Royer R-121 and SF-12 spring to mind.
Even the venerable Coles 4038 has appreciable response above 20 KHz. And
it has been designed by the BBC in the '50s, based mostly on an earlier
RCA model !
BTW, your Apogee speakers - also ribbon based - have also an extended
response above 20 KHz...
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
Why are you pretending that I said anything else?
>Anything
>from the recording that extends beyond that is for all intents &
>purposes chopped off indescriminantly and I will not get sucked
>a semantic debate about it.
There's nothing indiscriminate about it, is why. "Indiscriminate"
is a word that implies that care and planning are lacking, among
other things, and neither was lacking in the choice of a 20kHz
bandwidth, so this isn't a semantic game, you're simply using an
emotionally loaded word, and frankly, I think on purpose.
>> Really? I thought it was "reproduce the music so it sounds like
>> the musicial instrument".
>Did I just say something about a semantic debate. Let me
>repeat, s'il vous plait: I will not get sucked into a semantic
>debate about it.
So, since you didn't say what you meant, now you're going to hide
behind an unwillingness to engage in precise, meaningful speech?
Say what you mean, then, and you won't wind up being held to
what you SAID!
>> Do you have any idea what is required to reproduce the radiation
>> pattern of even a simple instrument, and how little that can
>> matter in the far field?
>Red herring alert! Red herring alert! ;-)
Really? Explain how this is a red herring? Its exactly germane
to what you demanded. Why do you say one thing, insist it
means another, and then start whining about 'semantic debates"
when the whole problem is your choice of loaded, propagandistic
words?
Your original choice of words was surely a red herring, now, that's
true, perhaps you were referring to your original demand?
>I don't deify my preference, I deify MUSIC. Now playing: Tribute
>to Jack Johnson (Miles Davis dontcha know!) on. . .SACD! Ahhh.
That's fine by me.
>> Now, there are some issues with the CD cutoff design, perhaps,
>> but you haven't hit on or near them.
>Hit on CD? No thanks, my SACDs would get jealous. ;-)
For someone with this apparent linguistic ability in English,
who chooses such loaded words as "indiscriminately", and who
ducks, weaves, and dodges when taken to task for what they
said, you can make a pretty good joke.
So, once more, if you want to say something, say what you mean.
You are factually, absolutely, and inalterably INCORRECT when
you call the 20kHz bandwidth of CD, the filtering, or whatever,
"indiscriminate". Your choice of words is wrong. Period. There
really isn't any doubt about that. If you don't want to
have this pointed out, don't play the propaganda game.
If you want to say "reproduce the soundfield" then say that, but
expect to have your OWN red herring stuck in the pickling jar.
Finally, if you don't want to get into semantic debates, don't
choose semantically loaded words. Take some responsibility for
your own actions, why don't you?
Sascha Erni, -rb
Gremal wrote:
<snip>
> Yeah, you bet your butt, that they have been technically
> diddled compared to CD. The sampling is 64 times
> greater.
Re-read Shannon's theorem of frequency sampling. Then, think what this
might have to do with the actual PLAYBACK MEDIUM, or what happens with
the original signal while being mastered and downsampled to CDDA /
converted to the SACD bitstream format.
> The frequency response is 5 times greater
So, basically, about 5 times greater than the human physionomy can
process. And about the same amount greater than any microphone used for
the masters of those SACD can handle.
> the dynamic range is 120 dB across the entire audible
> range compared to 96 dB for CD.
... which is still a lot more than any microphone used for the recording
of those SACD masters can handle. And also prone to disappear within the
noise floor of even a high-end listening room.
> How could SACD
> *not* sound superior?
because it can't re-play information that's either not there (in the
master recording) or can't be heard by human ears, nor contains audio
information which can be discerned when reproduced by speakers in an
average to excellent listening environment?
Digitally, there's no reason the SACD should sound more accurate than a
proper CDDA recording.
no offence meant,
-Sascha.rb
Francois Yves Le Gal
skeptical philalethist) wrote:
>What's more, you have an interesting definition of "treble".
OK, it's high treble...
:-)
But an octave is mono in DD 384, that's maybe why a number of people
have reported better air, ambience, immersive experience and image
delineation with a DTS codec.