What's new

Help, I'm ready to buy into either SACD or DVD-A (1 Viewer)

Lee Scoggins

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2001
Messages
6,395
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Real Name
Lee
DVD-A was designed to deliver up to 24-bit data, and the best tested player (the Toshiba SD-9200) has delivered at the 22-bit level.
Well this may be true, but many of us feel sampling rate trumps bit level any day of the week. Tony Faulkner has made some interesting comments about this (I lost the link - apologies, I think there was a reference on Asylum).
At the end of the day, John we must agree to disagree. I like DVD Audio also and enjoy a number of the titles; I just think Super Audio is better.
Just cue up your new McCoy Tyner CD and sit back and listen. It sounds very good in Super Audio. Imagine what it would sound like if we had a pure DSD path in 1991. :)
 

Philip Hamm

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 23, 1999
Messages
6,874
Plus DSD allows for up to 100khz in audio band whereas PCM drops off much before that. Perhaps that is why cymbals sound more natural in Super Audio.
Who has speakers that play that high???? Cymbals can sound great on vinyl, too, and that just goes a little over 20K. (25K?) I believe that in the digital world the sampling frequency has more to do with this than bit depth.
 

John Kotches

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2000
Messages
2,635
Lee,
Well this may be true, but many of us feel sampling rate trumps bit level any day of the week. Tony Faulkner has made some interesting comments about this (I lost the link - apologies, I think there was a reference on Asylum).
Others have done studies based on proven human perception capabilities showing that the minimum sampling depth (delivered to consumers) should be 20-bit. 24-bit happens to be an easier boundary to work with and ideal for studios to perform all of their operations with room to spare. Delivery to consumers from 24-bit to 24-bit doesn't involve a reduction in resolution and allows for sufficient word size to handle signal processing in the form of Bass Management and Time Alignment (again) without reduction in resolution.
Regards,
 

KeithH

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2000
Messages
9,413
Philip said:

I believe that in the digital world the sampling frequency has more to do with this than bit depth.
Interesting point, and you could be right. I am not a sound engineer and have not had access to masters made in various ways, but I wonder if anyone has studied the effect of word length and sampling rate. How does 16/44.1 compare to 24/44.1? Or 16/96 to 24/96? Can such experiments be done? It seems with upsampling of CDs, we get an increase in word length (random dither to increase from 16-bit to 24-bit) accompanied by an increase in sampling frequency (snapshots). What if we only change one factor?

In changing upsampling modes, only the sampling frequency seems to change. We always seem to have a 24-bit word length. With some upsampling devices, we can switch between 96 and 192 kHz (asynchronous upsampling), and in some cases we can also choose 88.2 or 176.4 kHz (synchronous upsampling). I think more is known about changing the sampling rate (this is talked about all the time), but less is known, or at least discussed, about changing the word length. What I am after mainly, is the effect of word length on sonics, especially at higher sampling rates.
 

KeithH

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2000
Messages
9,413
One more point (but probably not the last one). An upsampling device is one way to study changes in sampling rate, and possibly changes in word length, with the right design. The potential problem with upsampling is that it does introduce noise. At least that is what theory will tell you. We are taking a 16/44.1 source and using a device to "change" it to 24/96, 24/192, etc. If such a device were used to study the effect of word length and sampling frequency on sonics (it's done all the time with sampling frequency), which admittedly is a qualititative thing, one would have to consider artifacts introduced by the device. Perhaps what would be better (and more expensive!) would be to record an orchestra, chamber group, jazz ensemble, vocalist, etc. simultaneously at 16/44.1, 16/96, 24/96, etc., and then compare the sonics. Now, different equipment would probably be used to do this, but I would insist (:D) that the best equipment be used for each spec. Then, we could study the effect of word length and sampling rate without introducing dither to a single master to create the other word lengths and sampling rates. I am a scientist and am firmly entrenched in my ivory tower here, but that is what I would like to see. :)
 

John Kotches

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2000
Messages
2,635
Keith,
Well there was the work of the Acoustic Renaissance for Audio group, which defined minimums based on demonstrated human perceptual capabilities.
This was discussed in AES preprint #4639. But it was written by J. Robert Stuart, aka Bob Stuart and he doesn't know anything about audio reproduction ;)
A subset of this paper, written in something resembling English is available through Meridian's website, titled Coding High Quality Digital Audio
Interesting reading for those that are interested.
Regards,
 

Lee Scoggins

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2001
Messages
6,395
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Real Name
Lee
I believe that in the digital world the sampling frequency has more to do with this than bit depth.
Well we agree on this, as it was my point made earlier. And also Tony Faulkner's point of view who has been testing this idea with live mic feeds as have I.

If you take this idea to its logical conclusion, you favor DSD by definition as it is the highest sampling rate available.
 

Lee Scoggins

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2001
Messages
6,395
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Real Name
Lee
Besides, 90% of all music released today is so compressed (often using analog devices like Manley compressors necessitating additional D/A and A/D) that the music is dead before it even leaves the CD plant.
Totally agree and I have stated this on the HTF a number of times. Modern recording is by and large horrible. We need to get back to basics. Some positive steps would be:
1. Quit treating engineers as second class citizens
2. Eliminate aural enhancing circuits, if the musicians can't play, find new artists
3. Spend more time in school talking about microphone placement than mixing boards
4. Spend more time testing room conditions
5. Improve capex for cable and microphones purchases
6. Try to eliminate as many circuits in the recording chain as possible
7. Lay off the bass emphasis
8. Record in high resolution formats
to name but a few :)
 

John Kotches

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2000
Messages
2,635
Lee,
I suppose none of that SACD stuff you cut and pasted directly from Sony's SACD glossies has bias? :rolleyes:
I posted the source and the link. Everyone is free to read the paper for themselves and come to whatever conclusion they'd like.
Since the discussion deals (among other things) with human perceptual limits, and coding digital audio to surpass those limits, I should think the portion which discusses minimum requiredd bandwidth and noise floor requirements would be of general interest.
 

John Kotches

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2000
Messages
2,635
Lee,
The goal of mass market labels is to sell lots of records.
All of the items you mentioned are great, and really could lead to better sounding "commercial recordings". In the end, it doesn't further the goal of selling lots of records.
Then again, some of the artists that sell lots of records need all the help they can get via signal processing to sound acceptable :D Notice usage of the word "acceptable", and not either good or great.
Regards,
 

Lee Scoggins

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2001
Messages
6,395
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Real Name
Lee
All of the items you mentioned are great, and really could lead to better sounding "commercial recordings". In the end, it doesn't further the goal of selling lots of records.
I disagree, because I think it can sell more. My point is that more records can get sold with better recordings because people get more involved with the music.

The music industry has a short term focus on profits, due to pressures on earnings from Wall Street which is very short-term focused. This, I believe, creates more os "winner take all" atmosphere where a few acts get the daylights promoted out of them and other quality acts suffer financially and on a marketing basis.

As a strategy consultant, I would argue that the long-term health of the industry is better served by cultivation of great and original musicians that more consistently showcase their talent - say less Destiny's Child, more Van Morrison. The royalties are highly dependent on both new sales and "catalog" sales.

The great thing about working with David Chesky is that he started his label as a way to record economically many good musicians who received diminishing attention. When we recorded Joe Henderson in 1991 on New York Reunion, we got the whole band for a bargain and Al Foster, Ron carter, and McCoy Tyner, in addition to Joe, are literally living legends in the classical jazz world. This album in fact helped launch Joe's career and led to several Grammies like Lush Life (although this is very much a popularity contest since the major labels get more votes). The low overhead has allowed David to make weird yet creative choices in the A&R department. And he has done some very amazing things from Rebecca Pidgeon to Dave's True Story, often leading the industry in content selection (for example, latin jazz and acoustic music).

I guess all I am saying is that many of us believe we have gotten away from true craftsman-like music and more Britney Spears/boy band bubble gum music. This leaves older, more discerning listeners out in the cold. And a lack of musical education and/or appreciation has made classical music a money loser.

We simply need to get back to the music.
 

Lee Scoggins

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2001
Messages
6,395
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Real Name
Lee
I want to add another important point that is becoming ever more obvious.
In the "winner take all" world of a few heavily promoted acts, music quality suffers and, I believe, may lead to less repeat listening. Combine this with the Top 40 nature of almost every radio station in the country (even Z93, my favorite Classic Rock station in Atlanta, has the same song list day in, day out) and I think few feel compelled to buy an $18 CD on release date. Heck, a CD costs less than $1.00 on average to create (I have seen the financials friends), pricing really is obscene.
Couple this again with the highly grainy, digital sound of redbook CD and I think you have created an environment where people don't sit around and listen to music at home very often.
That leads to less foot traffic in Tower Records and....
You see where I am going with this. :)
And it has little to do with file sharing according to two recent studies.
 

John Kotches

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2000
Messages
2,635
Lee,
It could be that people are getting tired of hearing the same playlist repeated every two hours as well ;)
As much as we don't want to admit it, the average person doesn't give a whit about playback quality. Sad, but true.
The major labels' high volume outputs are compressed to within an ounce of their death, so that the tracks sound louder, and the radio stations compress the compression even more, so that they are louder on the dial.
After all, "loud is good" ;)
Gratuitous movie paraphrase
My ampliifer has an 11 on it :D
Regards,
 

Philip Hamm

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 23, 1999
Messages
6,874
the radio stations compress the compression even more, so that they are louder on the dial.
I believe that the FM radio format actually works significantly better with a highly compressed source, particularly near the outside of the service area. I think compression is a more of a requirement than a deliberate modification of the signal for radio. Listen to classical and jazz stations that typically you wouldn't think would compress much.
 

John Kotches

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2000
Messages
2,635
Philip,
In college for a couple of years, among other things I was spinning records at the radio station.
I agree some compression is required, but check out the Top40 stations and measure the non-existent dynamic range (+/- 1dB). Listen to the fadeout that's as loud as the last chorus, that's a pretty good giveaway ;)
At least in my area, the jazz and classical stations aren't way overdoing the compression (relatively speaking). While I haven't measured the dynamic range, I'm guessing they're delivering 40 to 50dB, which is pretty good for FM.
Regards,
 

KeithH

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2000
Messages
9,413
John,
Thanks for the link and related information. I'll have to give it a read. However, I'm sure that Bob Stuart guy will go through some lofty, high-level mathematical proof and conclude the paper with, "...so you see, that's why PCM is great. The end." :D
You said:
s said:
I agree with you. Your system is definitely in the top tier when considering the masses. Audiophiles (not targeting Lee specifically) seem to regularly lose sight of the fact that they are in the minority. Most people in our society love music. Few care about equipment or how their music sounds. So long as there are no audio dropouts and no buzzing or static, people are satisfied. Data retrieval and hearing that last detail is not a consideration for the vast majority of music buyers. I know many people with extensive music collections who own mediocre equipment or worse. Even after hearing my systems and being stunned by the sound, they do not have the motivation to upgrade. It's simply not important to them.
My father subscribes to BBC's music magazine. I visited my folks yesterday and read the latest issue while at their place. There is a segment in the issue on equipment upgrades that four or five people have made. One person is a musician, and another is a music reviewer. The music reviewer had been using an older budget JVC receiver, an older budget Sony CD player (not ES), and a cheap pair of Pioneer speakers. This is the system that he used to review music! He upgraded to an NAD C 730 stereo receiver, Marantz CD5000 single-disc CD player, and £250 KEF bookshelf speakers (price for the pair). This is hardly a high-end system, and I was surprised to see that a music reviewer arrived at a mid-fi system. You know what, though? It's still better than what most people have.
One final point about the article that I found interesting. The reviewer commented that since the Marantz CD player is a single-disc model, he would hang onto the Sony player so that he could readily compare two recordings for his reviews. For reviews, he is going to use two different players! Obviously, he cares about music and not sound. We shouldn't be so surprised. Again, we are in the minority.
 

Lee Scoggins

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2001
Messages
6,395
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Real Name
Lee
As much as we don't want to admit it, the average person doesn't give a whit about playback quality. Sad, but true.
I am not quite this negative on the subject, because I believe once people hear the difference and are educated about the difference they will eventually join in, assuming switching costs are reasonably low and backward compatibility is available.

For a while, we heard this about video tape quality being good enough versus DVD. Why would anyone switch to DVD? I joined the HTF under a different name in 1997 and watched all sorts of funny posts about dumb things Blockbuster and others were saying about DVD. But as DVD caught on in a very successful grass roots fashion (thank you Packy, Ron, Bill Hunt, etc.) people slowly came around. Now no one wants video tape and we read about stores dropping the tape as a category.

Why can't this happen with Super Audio also?

Certainly the Rolling Stones release will get people's attention...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top