DVD Audio & SACD

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>Welcome Audioholics. &nbsp;
Despite some of the technical and political limitations of these new formats, they do offer impressive improved fidelity over conventional CD or lossy compression formats. &nbsp;Lets discuss your experiences with these formats thus far.</font>

 

[mikenyc]

<font color='#000000'>What's interesting about the Rolling Stones SACD hybrids, is that initial reports, suggest that this particular run are &quot;rippable&quot; and contain NO copy protection.

In addition, ABKCO took great pains to conceal the fact they are SACD CD's, by going out of their way, NOT, to prominently show the SACD logo designation.

Also, the SACD's are not compatable to ALL CD players...and that includes PC's and DVD players.

All in all, while it's the most important SACD production...in terms of penetration and popularity...as the product rolls out into the marketplace, this is the most problematic release.</font>

 

[Polkfan]

Question:

Does SACD offer a noticable difference (improvement) in sound as compared to regular CD audio? To this point, the best I've heard is DTS 5.1 (Steely Dan's Two Against Nature). Does SACD compare to DTS? Just wondering. I've been looking into picking up some SACD recordings and wanted to get some input beforehand.

 

[Rob Babcock]

SACD & DVD-A crush DTS; it's not close. DTS is lossey and totally lacks the purity and quality of hi rez digital (or CD, for that matter).

 

[Polkfan]

Interesting, so SACD is that much better huh? I will definitely have to check out some recordings. It sounds like you don't think DTS is that good of a format? At least from my perspective, on the recording I mention it sounds better to me (better than Dolby Digital 5.1). If SACD crushes DTS then it really should sound great.

 

[Khorn]

In addition, ABKCO took great pains to conceal the fact they are SACD CD's, by going out of their way, NOT, to prominently show the SACD logo designation.

This is because they were marketed in a "stealth" manner. The idea was to sell them to the mass market as re-masters with improved CD sound. When people bought them they could read inclosed material about the advantages of the SACD format. They could play the CD layer on any CD/DVD player and if they decided to in the future could try the SACD layer if they bought an SACD player. Meanwhile they had an improved master in any case.

Also, the SACD's are not compatable to ALL CD players...and that includes PC's and DVD players.

Not so, as pointed out above, you can play the CD layer on any CD/DVD player. Of course you can't play the SACD layer unless you have an SACD capable player.

All in all, while it's the most important SACD production...in terms of penetration and popularity...as the product rolls out into the marketplace, this is the most problematic release.

I don't know what you expect of them??? They do exactly what they were designed to do.

 

[Rob Babcock]

Their attempt to "conceal" the fact that they're CD/SACD hybrids stems from the fact that they've done such a poor job of raising awareness of the format that they fear confusing the public. And of course, the lable can now trumpet the "vast" amount of SACD software they've sold, despite the fact that most of them will likely never see the inside of an SACD player.

I don't think DTS sucks, but it's not a high quality format- it's a lossey codec, sorta like MP3. It uses considerably lower bitrate than CD does, although on occasion the MC recording is better sounding than CD simply due to the superior spacial resolution. I think that the vast superiority of Hi Rez is maybe 40% the bitrate & 60% due to being MC.

 

[Khorn]

Their attempt to "conceal" the fact that they're CD/SACD hybrids stems from the fact that they've done such a poor job of raising awareness of the format that they fear confusing the public. And of course, the lable can now trumpet the "vast" amount of SACD software they've sold, despite the fact that most of them will likely never see the inside of an SACD player. .

Of course they weren't going to market a mass release such as the Stones and highlight the SACD format and, you are right as far as most people not knowing what hi rez formats are including DVD-A. As I pointed out above it was a marketing strategy and it makes some sense given the situation.

High Resolution audio even though superior to the "Redbook" are and probably will remain "niche" formats ultimately produced by specialty "Audiophile" lables as most people don't give a hoot about high resolution sound and think that the ''Redbook" spec CD is good enough for them.

 

[Rob Babcock]

Unfortunately MP3 is good enough for the masses, or so it would seem.

 

[Unregistered]

High Resolution audio even though superior to the "Redbook" are and probably will remain "niche" formats ultimately produced by specialty "Audiophile" lables as most people don't give a hoot about high resolution sound and think that the ''Redbook" spec CD is good enough for them.

Well, the new formats offer multichannel, which is a real, verifiable benefit to audio.

As for the 'high resolution' part? I've seen not one iotta of substantiatin that anything over 44.1khz/16bit format is required for optimal musical playback.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

That was me.

I REALLY wish that someone would remove the ability for UNREGISTERED(not signed in) to make posts.

-Chris

Well, the new formats offer multichannel, which is a real, verifiable benefit to audio.

As for the 'high resolution' part? I've seen not one iotta of substantiatin that anything over 44.1khz/16bit format is required for optimal musical playback.

-Chris

 

[Khorn]

As for the 'high resolution' part? I've seen not one iotta of substantiatin that anything over 44.1khz/16bit format is required for optimal musical playback.

-Chris

It requires listening to, not reading papers and specs. Listen, and you might understand.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I agree. There's a lot more music than you can capture with 44.1/16, at least with sanely prices equipement. IMOHO upsampling can help cheaper gear retrieve that detail, but nothing is as effective as using a higher bitrate/longer word length. I'm not sure if there's anything to be gained by going any higher than 24 bits, or higher than the current top sampling rates- seems to me that with electronics technologies of the 21st century that thermal noise would pretty much negate any resolution beyond that.

 

[WmAx]

It requires listening to, not reading papers and specs. Listen, and you might understand.

Well, tell me, when did you(or anyone) do a valid DBT that scored positive results, level matched, statistically signficant, with hi-rez and RBCD made from the SAME MASTER, and measurement made of the equipment to verify no extraneious distortions will be present?

Maybe you are blaming the format, when it's not the format's fault...

Their is no known need for anything higher then 44.1/16, based on the established audibility perceptual tests that anything over 16 bits is useful for playback nor any need for a higher bandwidth based on known, peer-reviewed audibility tests on the specific issues at hand.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

I agree. There's a lot more music than you can capture with 44.1/16,

What music? What playback equipment, per chance, would even support even the 96 dB range of 16 bits in actual playback? You realize that an extraodrinarily quiete room that was purpose built to be silent, is about 35dB or so noisefloor(much higher in normal environments). So, let's say you adjust the noise floor of a theoretically perfect RBCD(most recordigns have nloisefloor that don't even make use of RBCD), and adjust this floor to 35dB or maybe a little lower in this specially built room(or maybe you live in the middle of the country with no raods near your house), 35+96=129dB. Well, beside the very rare super high efficiency horn speaker or a huge line array powered by a massive amplifier, these absolute SPL levels are not even obtainable. Not to mention the hearing damage you would incur over short periods of time if you could obtain it....

IMOHO upsampling can help cheaper gear retrieve that detail, but nothing is as effective as using a higher bitrate/longer word length.

How would up/oversampling retrieve detail? The purpose of upsampling is to allow for a higher precision anti-alias filter. You can't create real information from interpolating a lower resolution signal to a higehr resolution one.

-Chris

 

[Khorn]

Well, tell me, when did you(or anyone) do a valid DBT that scored positive results, level matched, statistically signficant, with hi-rez and RBCD made from the SAME MASTER, and measurement made of the equipment to verify no extraneious distortions will be present?

Maybe you are blaming the format, when it's not the format's fault...

Their is no known need for anything higher then 44.1/16, based on the established audibility perceptual tests that anything over 16 bits is useful for playback nor any need for a higher bandwidth based on known, peer-reviewed audibility tests on the specific issues at hand.

-Chris

I don't think you get it. Its the quality of sound that hi-rez brings. Things just sound more natural.....real. Sorry, you can't measure those attributes.

Anyway, it's obvious in your case you can't hear the difference so count yourself lucky. Look at the money you're gonna save by not having to invest in new formats.

 

[Rob Babcock]

Yeah, it upsampling doesn't create data. If you don't understand what it does does do there is a primer here on this site.

I take it then, that you listen to MP3 then, WmAx? That same tired BS about DBT has been spouted about CD vs MP3, too, but anyone with decent equipment call tell that ain't so. I'm not aware that you'd need DBT to tell black from white or hot from cold, but that's how obviously superior DVD-A & SACD are. Someone may have DBT tests comparing CD to Edison Wax Cylinder, too- the relevance would be about the same. I wonder, have you not heard either format? As another poster has pointed out, if you truly can't hear the diff, consider yourself lucky. You can avoid another round of ugrades & library replacement (of the few discs you could replace yet! )

While we're on the subject of DBTs, please link me to the studies that show 44.1/16 is equal to higher rates or DSD. I guess I missed those papers. My own experience leads me to wonder whether they were performed upon the deaf, so obvious is the diff, but I'm always up for some empirical data. Thanks.

 

[WmAx]

I don't think you get it. Its the quality of sound that hi-rez brings. Things just sound more natural.....real. Sorry, you can't measure those attributes.

Anyway, it's obvious in your case you can't hear the difference so count yourself lucky. Look at the money you're gonna save by not having to invest in new formats.

Can't measure an audible attribute? You have any substantiation? You do realize, you just claimed that their is some unknown parameter, which their is no controlled study to even determine 'exists''...

-Chris

 

[Khorn]

Can't measure an audible attribute? You have any substantiation? You do realize, you just claimed that their is some unknown parameter, which their is no controlled study to even determine 'exists''...

-Chris

Sorry enough people understand what I'm talking about. I know what I hear don't have to prove anything to you. This is about music. If you don't want to believe what others say that's your problem. I'll continue to enjoy music while you go play with your slide rule or whatever.

 

[WmAx]

Yeah, it upsampling doesn't create data. If you don't understand what it does does do there is a primer here on this site.

I suggest you read it, then. Increasing the frequency of a pre-existing sample frequency does not/can not add information.

I take it then, that you listen to MP3 then, WmAx?

How does this have any relevance? I have not claimed to hear anything in this conversation.

That same tired BS about DBT has been spouted about CD vs MP3, too, but anyone with decent equipment call tell that ain't so.

Sorry, but this conversation is not about MP3.

I'm not aware that you'd need DBT to tell black from white or hot from cold, but that's how obviously superior DVD-A & SACD are.

Did you even read my prior posts? Seems not. You realize, that so far upon analyis of a SCAD or DVDA vs. RBCD, that it is evident that not even the same masters used to produce the different versions, right? You are really cmoparing apples to pears in that case. In one example, the recording engineer from Telarc admitted when asked via email, that a RBCD version of a specific recording was not the same as a SACD version(Tierney Sutton, Dancing In The Dark) when I enquired about certain sound quality issues with the RBCD version.

While we're on the subject of DBTs, please link me to the studies that show 44.1/16 is equal to higher rates or DSD.

Bandwidth and signal:noise ratio perceptual studies:

Which Bandwidth Is Necessary for Optimal SoundTransmission?
Plenge, H. Jakubowski, P. Schone
Journal of The Audio Engineering Society, 1980, March, Volume 28,Number 3

Perceptual Discrimination between Musical Sounds with and without Very High Frequency Components
Nishiguchi, Toshiyuki; Iwaki, Masakazu; Hamasaki, Kimio; Ando, Akio
AES Preprint Number: 5876 Convention: 115 (September 2003)

Signal-to-Noise Ratio Requirement for Digital Transmission Systems
Spikofski, Gerhard
AES Preprint Number: 2196 Convention: 77 (February 1985)

-Chris