SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?



Pages : [1] 2

WmAx
06-02-2004, 02:15 PM
SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

I have made note of two albums that were released on both SACD and CD. The albums were mastered in DSD(SACD native format) and primarily intended to showcase DSD.

(1) Tierney Sutton - Dancing In The Dark (CD version, Telarc)

(2) Mahler - Symphony No. 6 in A minor (CD version, Telarc)

Both of these albums were found, by me, to have audible sections of clipping on the CD versions. I did not analyse the SACD releases. I don't have the SACD versions nor do I have a SACD player. However, I still suspected this may be purposeful.

The point of this post is to question if the proclomations of people claiming SACD is audibly superior to CD format, even when both are used in 2 channel mode, have any validitiy.

Let's consider the following points:

(1) I can not find a scientific research project demonstrating audibly benefits to humans of a wider bandwidth then CD offers.

(2) I can not find definitive research of SACD vs CD releases, to find alternative explanations.

(3) I can not find reason for larger then 16 bit wordlength for audio playback, especially when properly dithered, which can effectively remove the quantitazation noise and allow the theoretical limit of CD of 96dB to be approached and/or met.

This thread is primarily a result of the alarming(my perspective) response I recieved from the cheif audio production engineer from a major audiophile record compnay.

Company: Telarc
Represenative: Michael Bishop

In the following email is posted in it's entiretey. My full name has been edited. No other changes:


Dear Chris,

I forwarded your email to our Chief Engineer and I've copied his reply to
you in the email below:
Thank you for your email regarding CD-83592 Dancing in the Dark.

I checked the waveform example of the piano "distortion." In my opinion,
what is seen there is the peak limiting and "soft clipping" imposed in the
CD mastering process on this particular release. The piano is not
distorted. If that was the case one would see jagged artifacts around the
piano level "peak" rather than the level simply stopping 0.10 dB from the
peak. Of course, this does not mean that such a high peak will not cause
distortion on some playback systems. That's entirely possible and is
something out of our control.

The Tierney Sutton "Dancing in the Dark" CD release is put up side-by-side
with Diana Krall and Norah Jones releases and other similar jazz vocal CDs.
Like it or not, those CDs are quite heavily compressed and limited (much
more so than the Sutton CD) and have very high apparent volumes. They also
exhibit an even more pronounced cut-off of peak levels. Since Tierney's CD
will be put in multi-disc CD players alongside these other CDs, we have to
make sure her CD stands at least a chance of being as "present" as the
competition and still maintain as much of the dynamics of my original mixes
as possible. It's a very delicate balancing act. Certainly compromises
are made, just as in any other mainstream CD that has high apparent volume
level. I know one would find much more aggregious level compression taking
place on most mainstream CDs than what you would find on "Dancing in the
Dark."

If you are interested, the DSD stereo and surround programs on the SACD
release of "Dancing in the Dark" (SA-63592) do NOT have this competitive
compression imposed on the audio. The DSD programs represent what I
recorded in the mixes from the sessions without the compromises needed on
the CD-only release. However, the CD layer of the SACD is exactly the same
as the CD-only release. To access the DSD programs, one needs the
appropriate SACD player which is available at major electronic retailers
starting at around $200 USD, although I never recommend that one gets the
"bottom-of-the-line" player.

I offer that you may trade your CD-only release of "Dancing in the Dark"
for the SACD release. Please contact Ms. Kelly to arrange this trade.

I hope you have the opportunity to hear the DSD program of this release.
That is, after all, the source I had recorded at Ms. Sutton's sessions and
the pcm CD is a derivative of that source.

Thank you again for your email and interest.

Michael Bishop
Chief Recording Engineer
Telarc International Corp.




"WmAx"
<wmax@linaeum.com (wmax@linaeum.com)
> To
<comments@telarc.com (comments@telarc.com)>
05/14/2004 04:29 cc
PM
Subject
Tierney Sutton - Dancing In The
Dark - Quality Control?





Greetings. I have purchased Telarc CD-83592 (Tierney Sutton - Dancing In
The Dark).

I am alarmed to find multiple sections on the CD to have audible distortion
due to levels reaching 0 dB(1.0) on the recording. One example, for
reference, is that several sections of track 10 have distorted peaks of the
piano. Here is a screen capture of track 10. This is not an exclusive
occurance limited to this shot. Just an example for your reference.

Was their an error when some of the CDs were mastered for production? If
you have versions that are not defective, I would appreciate a replacement
CD. The one I have IS defective. The distortion levels are very audible and
thus annoying.

http://www.linaeum.com/images/sutton_clip.jpg (http://www.linaeum.com/images/sutton_clip.jpg)

Thank you.

-Chris XXXXXLet's examine a few points.

-Claims soft clipping/limiting, that should not be audible distortion.

This is not entirely accurate. The sudden transient change(distortion) of the waveform to a plateu MUST result in harmonics not related to teh original waveform.What Bishop is referring to is that the clipped section does not display an oscillating artifact. INdeed, in example of a pure square wave, severe pre and post ringing is visible on the waveforms under analysis(resultant from the limitiations of the format). However, this clipped form on these tracks, while not as abrupt as maximal transient, is still a sudden, drastic change from the linear progression of the original waveform that results in audible distortion(s). See the url I submiteed as the end of my initial email to Telarc for a visual confirmation. This waveform results in audible distortion in every playback device i have access. It also persists when I reduce absolute levels of the clipped waveforms and then play them back on hardware.

This reply from Mr. Bishop, if accurate, means that CD versions, even from this known audiophile record company, are being compromised. This is my definition of unfair competition.

Is this a standard behaviour for other record companies of CD/SACD versions? I can't answer that question. It does seem to be the behaviour of at least one company, according to their own admission(s).

It's especially hard to swallow the admission that they are raising overall loudness levels and allowing artifacts and other negative side effects to arise, because they are 'competeting' with other albums. I had believed that Telarc would not lower their quality purposefully in order to join the 'stupid' race to loudness. I was wrong, apparently.

It is further confusing what he means by competition. I have asked him to clarify in my reply email sent today. However, if he means radio broadcast levels, then his argument is invalid. Music that is radio broadcast is compressed/limited before broadcast in order to maintain optimal signal/noise ratio from the transmitter stations. Does he mean that consumers are so stupid(even audiophiles who largely buy from his compnay) that they think a louder CD is better? That's hard for me to believe. I'de like to see a study on this speculation.

I recommend contacting the company and complaing about this practice. That may be the only recourse.

-Chris

Woochifer
06-02-2004, 03:04 PM
If true, this is reminiscent of the early CDs from audiophile vinyl labels like Sheffield Lab who were pressing CDs while asserting the superiority of their vinyl releases. Almost everyone who did A/B comparisons between Sheffield's LPs and CDs would immediately note that the LP versions sounded much better, and thus conclude that the LP was a superior format. However, it turns out that the direct-to-disc LP pressings were mastered in real time off the board feed (and in some cases, straight from a stereo tube mic with no mixing board), while the CDs were mastered later on from an analog backup tape. These CDs still sounded good because the recordings were done with no mixing or overdubbing, but the analog tape used for those recordings had audible noise (the LP pressings had an audibly lower noise level). A more fair comparison would have obviously been to encode the CD in real time at the same time, but companies like Sheffield Lab were more interested in making their point about analog superiority than putting out something for a fair comparison.

More recently, Groove Note has put together more appropriate comparison sets. They did some direct-to-disc sessions mastered onto 45 RPM vinyl, and the board feed was simultaneously encoded in DSD and issued on SACD. That would be more of a fair comparison since it represents the best possible playback for both formats.

On more than a few occasions, I've heard that the CD layer on a SACD/CD hybrid has audible flaws that aren't necessarily format driven. I know that some record companies want to migrate the market over the SACD because of its built-in copy protection and the potential for consumers to repurchase discs in order to take advantage of the higher resolution format and surround mixes. But, I speculate that they might be trying to stack the deck by deliberately monkeying around with the CD mixes. It's like they know that a lot of consumers will want to do A/B comparisons between the CD and SACD layer, and the last thing they want to hear is a flurry of customers complaining that they can't hear any difference between the CD and SACD versions.

A more interesting comparison for the recordings that you noted would be to compare the CD-only version with the CD layer from a hybrid release from Telarc. If those same flaws are present in the CD-only version, then it's obviously not something deliberate on Telarc's part. But, if they are different and the hybrid CD layer has flaws not present on the CD-only version, then that's a flatout fraudulent business practice and no one should support that.

WmAx
06-02-2004, 03:10 PM
A more interesting comparison for the recordings that you noted would be to compare the CD-only version with the CD layer from a hybrid release from Telarc. If those same flaws are present in the CD-only version, then it's obviously not something deliberate on Telarc's part. But, if they are different and the hybrid CD layer has flaws not present on the CD-only version, then that's a flatout fraudulent business practice and no one should support that.If you read the entire letter from Mr. Bishop, as I posted, he clearly states that he compromised the CD format. He states that the CD layer on the hybrid disc and CD will be the same. He stated that if I want uncompromised version of album, I will have to obtain use the SACD layer. He seemed honest(too honest! :-)).

-Chris

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-02-2004, 04:34 PM
Chris,
Perhaps there are some things that will help you understand why there are some differences between the CD and SACD versions of some Artists titles.

1. As radio stations automate most of their operations, CD's have become the playback medium of choice. The possible wide dynamic range of CD's has a great possiblity of overloading the gain and output stages within a antenna array. So in order to keep this from happening, the overall volume of the CD is mastered as close to maximum level(0db) as possible, and the dynamic range is limited to prevent overload during peaks. This is a very common practice and most all CD's(with the exception of classical titles) have some degree of compression or limiting.(in some cases its rather extreme). This practice did not begin with the CD layers of DSD disc's, but has been employed for years now on almost all commercially released pop, jazz, gospel, and rock CD's


(1) I can not find a scientific research project demonstrating audibly benefits to humans of a wider bandwidth then CD offers.

First I do not think the main object of higher sampling rates is larger bandwidth. I think it is the increased amount of sampling done inband. AES did sponsor a couple of listening test with music recorded at both 44.1khz and 192khz earlier this year. The results were mixed and inconclusive. Some heard more air, cleaner more defined instrument reproduction and better imaging, and some heard absolutely nothing.


(3) I can not find reason for larger then 16 bit wordlength for audio playback, especially when properly dithered, which can effectively remove the quantitazation noise and allow the theoretical limit of CD of 96dB to be approached and/or met.

Unfortunately the maximum volume of some recorded instruments can exceed 96db when no compression or limiting is employed. The sound of a full orchestra with percussion often does exceed 96db. By using longer word lengths you increase the the maximum available level, and can record full dynamic range(no limiting or compression) and still have headroom left over.


This reply from Mr. Bishop, if accurate, means that CD versions, even from this known audiophile record company, are being compromised. This is my definition of unfair competition.

This is a VERY misleading statement. The practice of recording and mastering commercial titles "hot"(close to maximum level) is not new at all. This practice has been done for as long as I can remember. To say that the CD version are "compromised" shows a lack of understanding of how radio, television and other forms of distribution of media works. If you try to playback an unlimited CD over the airwaves, massive distortion and overload will most certainly occur. In order to prevent that, measures must be taken such as limiting and compression. Multichannel SACD are not played back over the air. So no such compromise at the mastering level have to occur on these disc. Limiting and compression are used for the benefit of the playback medium, not to prevent a fair comparison with SACD


It's especially hard to swallow the admission that they are raising overall loudness levels and allowing artifacts and other negative side effects to arise, because they are 'competeting' with other albums. I had believed that Telarc would not lower their quality purposefully in order to join the 'stupid' race to loudness. I was wrong, apparently.

Chris, the music industry is a competitive industry. Telarc would be stupid not to do what they are doing because ALL of the record companies that release jazz, pop, rock, gospel, neo soul and everything else under the sun are doing it. Some CD utilize very little compression, and some use quite a bit. If all of your competitors were doing this practice(no matter how wrong you think it is) don't you think it would be smart to do the same. This is much like snack foods competiting for shelf space. The more colorful packages get notice, the plain ones do not. That is how competition works.

While it may be disturbing to you, As Michael has stated, this is an industry wide practice. It is unfair(and certainly shortsighted) of you to single out Telarc practices as evil and sinister without shining a light on the whole industry. Telearc didn't invent this practice, it is just following the form that was created ages ago. If you are going to be disturbed, be disturbed with the record industry, radio and television. These compromises are done because of the limitations of broadcast equipment, not to cheat someone out of an even comparison with SACD.

WmAx
06-02-2004, 05:04 PM
1. As radio stations automate most of their operations, CD's have become the playback medium of choice. The possible wide dynamic range of CD's has a great possiblity of overloading the gain and output stages within a antenna array. So in order to keep this from happening, the overall volume of the CD is mastered as close to maximum level(0db) as possible, and the dynamic range is limited to prevent overload during peaks.This would make sense on the surface. Hoewver, it does not make sense, considering that the radio station has compressors/limiters that will make all music play at similar loudness regardless of what the original CD contained. This is according to Bob Katz and other sources I have read. It even seems that some program directors at radio stations may be ignorant as to what their own on-air compression/limiting hardware does to the music.




Unfortunately the maximum volume of some recorded instruments can exceed 96db when no compression or limiting is employed. The sound of a full orchestra with percussion often does exceed 96db. By using longer word lengths you increase the the maximum available level, and can record full dynamic range(no limiting or compression) and still have headroom left over.
I specified playback. For recording purposes, it is wise to use a higher bandwidth and longer wordlength, to allow for further flexibility/failsafe. However, in playback, it is not possible to use 96dB in any home environment, excepting some extremely efficient horn speaker setups. The noise florr of the average quiet room is approx. 35-40dB. In order to effectively use that 96db, -96 needs to start at the noisefloor. 40+96=136dB peak. Such SPL is not realistic in home playback circumstances. It would be impossible to use this total range in any commercial recording, unless you specifically targeted people with large line arrays and large horn speakers as your only customers. Anyone else would have to turn down the gain on their preamp to the level that any quiet/subtle audio would be lost in the noise floor of the environment, less they want to damage their speakers.



To say that the CD version are "compromised" shows a lack of understanding of how radio, television and other forms of distribution of media works.Note: Mr. Bishop is the one who decided to call his CD versions compromised. I'm just agreeing with him. :-)


If you try to playback an unlimited CD over the airwaves, massive distortion and overload will most certainly occur. In order to prevent that, measures must be taken such as limiting and compression.That's why the stations have their own compression/limiting systems. This jsut can't happen, it seems.


Chris, the music industry is a competitive industry. Telarc would be stupid not to do what they are doing because ALL of the record companies that release jazz, pop, rock, gospel, neo soul and everything else under the sun are doing it. I disagree. Especially considering Telarc is supposedly a company that specializes in high quality recordings. Besides, I don't buy that the average consumer is quiete that stupid. You should read Bob Katz's take on compression, etc. on http://www.digido.com/



. This is much like snack foods competiting for shelf space. The more colorful packages get notice, the plain ones do not. That is how competition works. Hmm. I agree completeley! But, the heavily compressed music is the plain white packages in my perspective. I am one that believes dynamics of teh music, voices, etc. are what lends a lot of emotional reaction to the audio.


While it may be disturbing to you, As Michael has stated, this is an industry wide practice. The industry needs to reform this practice.


It is unfair(and certainly shortsighted) of you to single out Telarc practices as evil and sinister without shining a light on the whole industry.It's a result of their willingnes to admit their CDs are compromised on purpose. I'll gladly post letters from any othe company that is willing to admit the same. The purpose here is to possibly get more people to complain to the companies, perhaps help get this rediculous practice changed.

What's unfair, is that I am being forced to by a new format and player because of the ignorance of others ruining the sound quality. Not a fault of the medium, itself.



These compromises are done because of the limitations of broadcast equipment, not to cheat someone out of an even comparison with SACD
I can't agree. It seems that according to many professionals, the stations use their own compression/limitig equipment to regulate the loudness/dynamics. Doing so on the Cd for this purpose, is thus rediculous, redundant and unwarranted. Besides, he specifically stated it's becuae he wants the CD to sound a loud as the other mainstream CDs in a Cd changer. He says it right in the email.

-Chris

mtrycraft
06-02-2004, 07:27 PM
Very interesting admission by Telarc. I thought they would be the last to compromize. I was mistaken. Oh, my.
Dissapointing.

maxg
06-03-2004, 01:17 AM
Everyone seems to regard compression as the ultimate evil these days. Not me. I listen to classical CD's in the car a lot - this is very problematic. If they have not compressed the sound sufficiently I spend the entire journey turning the volume up to hear the quiet passages and down to save my ears in the louder passages. (Try it yourself - get a Deutche Grammaphon Dvorak 9th - Karajan. Play from the beginning - for me it is 30 seconds of silence followed by a loan french horn and then on audible music - or 30 seconds of delicacy, a bearable horn and then a ceresendo of kettle drums at around 1 minute in that could blow my eardrums inside out).

Now I am prepared to accept a lesser compression for home use - but nothing like the ranges you guys are talking about. 96 dB range - are you all insane?? My noise floor in my living room is, I guess, something around 35-40 dB (my meter goes down to 50 only - it is below that). when listening, at night, wife and baby asleep, I want something that goes from said level upto around 80 dB MAXIMUM!! - say a 40 dB range. Greater than that and I will never be able to listen to music again. Come to that - 96 db range over a week and I may never be able to listen to anything ever again - except through a hearing aid.

kexodusc
06-03-2004, 03:50 AM
Wholy $hit WmAX, I'm some glad you're not my accountant :)
Man, I just buy CD's and listen to them, I've never actually e-mailed a company.

I should e-mail Pink Floyd, and the Rolling Stones and ask them what the bloody hell THEY are doing compromising their music these days!!!

Excellent post!!!

N. Abstentia
06-03-2004, 07:13 AM
It's redbook CD..there have to be compromises. Deal with it, or buy an SACD player.

WmAx
06-03-2004, 07:16 AM
Everyone seems to regard compression as the ultimate evil these days. Not me. I listen to classical CD's in the car a lot - this is very problematic. If they have not compressed the sound sufficiently I spend the entire journey turning the volume up to hear the quiet passages and down to save my ears in the louder passages. I understand. However, their is no reason to ruin the CD. You can purchase automobile CD players that have built in compressors for just this purpose!

Here is one example:

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-dssxsdScLal/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?a=0&s=0&cc=01&g=300&id=detailed_info&i=130DEHP760


Compression and BMX Functions: Using the "COMP" (compression) and "BMX" functions, you can adjust the playback quality of the CD player. Each function may be set to one of two levels or off. The "COMP" function compresses the audio signal to eliminate distortion caused by the imbalances between the loudest and softest sounds when played at high volumes

-Chris

WmAx
06-03-2004, 07:47 AM
It's redbook CD..there have to be compromises. Deal with it, or buy an SACD player.
Please elaborate. This is vague commentary. One can only speculate as to what you specifically mean based on this reply.

-Chris

N. Abstentia
06-03-2004, 09:47 AM
Redbook CD does not have as much bandwidth available as SACD, therefore compromises must be made.

That's like getting dial up internet and complaining that it's slower and drops packets as compared to a 512k broadband pipeline. Of course it will, the technology is not as good.

WmAx
06-03-2004, 10:06 AM
Redbook CD does not have as much bandwidth available as SACD, therefore compromises must be made.

I do not care to go into detail of this subject in this thread. However, I can not find any audibility research projects(that hold up under scrutiny) that support your assertion that a broader bandwith is needed for purposes of audibility. Your comment seemingly has little to do with the immediate subject of the thread. The main issue is allowance of the signals to clip and/or compressing them severely. These factors discussed in relation to the sample CD in the firt post, for example, were not limitations of the medium, but results of purposeful decisions when mastering the CD. The scope of these effects discussed in not an issue of sample rate(bandwidth), but of wordlength(number of bits). The CD at issue, for example, uses 41dB RMS(calculated not useing the first second or last second, due to the 'fade outs') in one of teh more 'demanding songs' of the 96dB(assuming proper dithering and low noise levels) range available on RBCD. For your reference, every 6dB in ampliltude equal twice the linear value realtive to the last reference. Therfore, 47dB is twice the level of 41dB, 53dB is twice the value of 47dB(53dB is 4x the value of 41dB), 59dB is twice the value of 47db(57dB is 8x the value of 41dB!), etc. etc. etc. The CD in question, for example, used but a tiny fraction of the available dynamic range available. Even if the dynamic range did exceed was is capable on RBCD(thought, this is not feasible, see my reply to Sir Terrence), then proper compression/limiting of the peak signals would have prevented the audibly harsh clipping. However, the file was not even properly compressed to operate in the level range it is operating within. Therfor, their is no valid reason as far as I am concerned, to allow the clipping distortion to exist.

-Chris

kexodusc
06-03-2004, 10:18 AM
Yeah good point, not fair to compare purposely poisoned Redbook CD's, to carefully mastered SACD's.
IMO (no science) SACD's sound better, and the difference can be quite noticeable. Not sure how you'd prove that.
But that doesn't matter, higher bandwidth aside, multi-channel capability alone gives a clear and dominant advantage to SACD's over Redbook CD.

I agree with the frustration though. The switch to SACD should be market driven, not manufacturer imposed by purposely compromising competing products.
At the very least, there should be a "new" standard for CD's that exploits it's full potential, before everyone is forced to buy a new player.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-03-2004, 10:42 AM
This would make sense on the surface. Hoewver, it does not make sense, considering that the radio station has compressors/limiters that will make all music play at similar loudness regardless of what the original CD contained. This is according to Bob Katz and other sources I have read. It even seems that some program directors at radio stations may be ignorant as to what their own on-air compression/limiting hardware does to the music.

Chris, you are not correct in your assertions. Compressors and limiters in radio stations only deal with the maximum peaks in loudness. They don't make every CD the same loudness as you assert. Everyone who has every done any recording that is bound for radio stations know that there must be a compressed/limited radio mix, or your mixes are subject to the not so clean sounding brute force compressors or limiters the station utilizes. I personally have done a radio mix, television mix, and unlimited, uncompressed mixes because I didn't want my product(or my clients) subject to the equipment the station would use to limit the volume of my mixes. Any good engineer worth his salt would.

Chris the music industry right now is in the middle of a level war. Everyone is trying to make their product heard louder than the rest. This is an INDUSTRY WIDE problem that the community has basically discussed to death.

Check out this link on a recording forum I visit:

http://www.recording.org/postt18054.html

As you can see, this is what the clients want, and we deliver. Michael was not making his decision in a vaccum. The producer(even if that is himself) has to make decisions that extend beyond just mega-quality for audiophiles. Its a tough balance and tough decision.


disagree. Especially considering Telarc is supposedly a company that specializes in high quality recordings. Besides, I don't buy that the average consumer is quiete that stupid. You should read Bob Katz's take on compression, etc. on http://www.digido.com/


Telarc is not immune to competition just because the specialize in producing high quality recordings. What good is it if they don't sell. The decision to make whatever compromises one has to make are sometimes partially market driven. If Telarc only made recordings that past mustard with you, it would go out of business. Just like in any other business competition drives the music business. If one record company produces mixes that are louder than other record companies, the consumer will thing this record companies mixes are better. I don't consider that average consumer as stupid as much as I consider them uninformed. Remember, when DVD's first came out, there were no pan and scan movies on that format. Also most DVD's soundtracks Dolby Digital 5.1 was encoded at 384kbps as opposed to the now widely used 448kbps. As more and more non videophiles began purchasing DVD's and buying HTIB, and with the emergence of Dts on DVD, DD data rate went up, and pan and scan was introduced to DVD's. This is the way the market is. A great many more time than most will admit, marketing drives the format, and not quality.


Hmm. I agree completeley! But, the heavily compressed music is the plain white packages in my perspective. I am one that believes dynamics of teh music, voices, etc. are what lends a lot of emotional reaction to the audio.

I agree with you here. However the average consumer does NOT agree with us, or we would not be discussing this issue.


It's a result of their willingnes to admit their CDs are compromised on purpose. I'll gladly post letters from any othe company that is willing to admit the same. The purpose here is to possibly get more people to complain to the companies, perhaps help get this rediculous practice changed.

What's unfair, is that I am being forced to by a new format and player because of the ignorance of others ruining the sound quality. Not a fault of the medium, itself.

Do you REALLY think anyone is going to be as honest as Michael and admit they have been pushing levels at the sacrifice of quality? I don't think so. As long as marketing dominates, quality will suffer. This is the state of the music industry currently, whether we like it or not. The clients want it loud, if you want to stay in business you must meet the clents needs. That is what business is all about.

Chris, I think your analysis of the technical side of this equation is spot on, however your perspective on the broader picture in somewhat shortsighted and lacking in depth. To get a album sold requires the combination of talented artist+ good performance+good engineering+good marketing+the ability to play well on a wide range of equipement and environments=sales. To meet these goals compromise is necessary, less compromise is optimal.

Feanor
06-03-2004, 12:18 PM
SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?
...
Than mass-market equivalents regardless of the distribution media.

To my ear the SACDs I own sound better than my typical CD. At the same time, I'll conceeded that the reason is not necessarily the inherent superiority of distribution medium itself, (SACD), nor the technical process, (DSD). Now we have some evidence from Telarc that it is recording practice that is to blame, at least in many instances.

Personally I very, very strongly suspect that the supposed superiority of vinyl over CD is entirely due to recording practice.

CD recording practice started off bad and remains bad -- we might well complain. That said, I have many excellent CDs though I am mainly a classical rather than a pop listener.

skeptic
06-03-2004, 01:03 PM
"Unfortunately the maximum volume of some recorded instruments can exceed 96db when no compression or limiting is employed. The sound of a full orchestra with percussion often does exceed 96db. "

An obviously bogus arguement because it is not the absolute loudness of the sound which is challenged but its dynamic RANGE. This is the DIFFERENCE between the loudest and softest passages of music. Concert halls are often designed with an absolute nose threshold of 27 db weighted. This means that when there is no other noise like the rattling of papers or coughing, the sound level is 27 db absolute or below. If the loudest passage is 97 db, then a sound recording/reproduction system of 70 db is adequate. This is well within the range of the RBCD system. It's funny that so many people claim that vinyl recordings sound better because they are less compressed but their range is only in the vacinity of 50 to 60 db at best. Unless both the cds and SACDs are made by the same engineers using the same setup and exploiting both systems to their best advantages, comparisons of the limitations of recordings, even what are supposed to be the same recordings are meaningless.

skeptic
06-03-2004, 01:07 PM
I have many very fine cds I enjoy both DDD an ADD. Deutche Gramaphone does an excellent job most of the time. Phillips is very good too although I must admit that there are more flaws in their discs than most other labels. These flaws however seem to me to be the result of poor quality control, not bad recording practice which IMO is also usually excellent.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-03-2004, 02:22 PM
"Unfortunately the maximum volume of some recorded instruments can exceed 96db when no compression or limiting is employed. The sound of a full orchestra with percussion often does exceed 96db. "

An obviously bogus arguement because it is not the absolute loudness of the sound which is challenged but its dynamic RANGE. This is the DIFFERENCE between the loudest and softest passages of music. Concert halls are often designed with an absolute nose threshold of 27 db weighted. This means that when there is no other noise like the rattling of papers or coughing, the sound level is 27 db absolute or below. If the loudest passage is 97 db, then a sound recording/reproduction system of 70 db is adequate. This is well within the range of the RBCD system. It's funny that so many people claim that vinyl recordings sound better because they are less compressed but their range is only in the vacinity of 50 to 60 db at best. Unless both the cds and SACDs are made by the same engineers using the same setup and exploiting both systems to their best advantages, comparisons of the limitations of recordings, even what are supposed to be the same recordings are meaningless.

Skeptic, where do you get your facts, From bubble gum wrappers? First, the noise(not nose) threshold of concerts halls vary all over the map. There are no absolutes as you state. No concert hall is a replica of another. Secondly The peak loudness of a large scale concert hall performance can exceed a short term 110db's in the hall itself depending on were you are listening from. So all of your numbers are meaningless and incorrect.

Also one has to take into consideration were the person/microphone sits relative to the musicians/source. Sitting in row 15 may produce 97db, but on stage at microphone level you may be getting 105-110db's.

skeptic
06-03-2004, 03:24 PM
27db NIC is an AIA standard. Even with a max of 105 db, that still leaves 78 db dynamic range, well within the capabilities of RBCD but well beyond vinyl.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-03-2004, 03:56 PM
27db NIC is an AIA standard. Even with a max of 105 db, that still leaves 78 db dynamic range, well within the capabilities of RBCD but well beyond vinyl.

Problem, the standard might well be 27db, but there are some halls that are quieter, and some that have more noise than that. Also 105db is not a potential maximum, it can be anywhere from 5-10 dbs higher than that. It depends on many variables, too many to name at this point.

WmAx
06-03-2004, 05:22 PM
Chris, you are not correct in your assertions. Compressors and limiters in radio stations only deal with the maximum peaks in loudness. They don't make every CD the same loudness as you assert. Everyone who has every done any recording that is bound for radio stations know that there must be a compressed/limited radio mix, or your mixes are subject to the not so clean sounding brute force compressors or limiters the station utilizes. It would appear that it is a misconception to believe that audio content to be distributed to the staton needs to be highly compressed. Perhaps a perpetuated myth of sorts.

Based on the following sources(i have read others, but these two are the most authoritive IMO), I can only conlude that a CD, for example, that has absolute levels pushed to the limits and features high comporession will be reduced by the station processors. A correctly recorded CD will be compressed, and reduced in dynamic range, and overall levels will remain the same as the 'pushed' audio disc when compared. It seems that authorities suggest that the highly compressed audio disc will actually suffer significant degradation since it wil be subjected to another stage of compression before it is transmitted.

Roy Orban(CEO/Cheif Engineer of Orban Electronics(designs and manufactures most of the equipment used to equalize teh levels for radio stations before it is transmitted) stated this in the manual of the Optimod FM 8400 Broadcast Audio Processor:


There is a myth in the record industry that applying 'radio-style' processing to CDs in mastering will cause them to be louder or will reduce the audible effects of on-air processing. In fact, the opposite is true: these CDs will not be louder on air, but they wil be audibly distorted and unpleasant to listen to, lacking punch and clarity. We hope that the record industry will come to it's senses when it hears the consequences of these practices on the air.Bob Katz(a mastering engineer known for producing high quality works):


Program directors should realize that the sound on their office CD player has little to do with the disc's on-air quality. PD's may think the loudest record they hear is the best, but they forget that when it gets to the air, on-air processors will squash it (drop the volume) more than other records. Producers are afraid that the PD will reject their record if they have to turn up the volume. But by now, hot CDs have put the PD's volume control at the bottom of its travel, so where dowe go from here? Well, let's get the program directors to make decisions on the merits of the music, not on its loudness character. One way to solve that is to install a compressor in the PD's audition system, one that'll squash music as much as his radio station does.
I am open to reading information from other authorities, to possibly change my view of this matter. However, Roy Orban is pretty high up the food chain, considering he makes/designs most of this equipment. I don't automaticly believe anyone, but (1) I am not willing to investigate the equipment and standards in place and calculate the actual effects - i am just not THAT interested (2) It seems that Mr. Orban should be an accurate source of information considering his relation to this matter.



Check out this link on a recording forum I visit:

http://www.recording.org/postt18054.html

As you can see, this is what the clients want, and we deliver. Michael was not making his decision in a vaccum. The producer(even if that is himself) has to make decisions that extend beyond just mega-quality for audiophiles. Its a tough balance and tough decision
Thank you. This was a very interesting thread. I found reading the perspective of various professional to be enlightening.



I agree with you here. However the average consumer does NOT agree with us, or we would not be discussing this issue.

Chris, I think your analysis of the technical side of this equation is spot on, however your perspective on the broader picture in somewhat shortsighted and lacking in depth. To get a album sold requires the combination of talented artist+ good performance+good engineering+good marketing+the ability to play well on a wide range of equipement and environments=sales. To meet these goals compromise is necessary, less compromise is optimal.
I do admit that I am making a good deal of speculation on what I think is fair and unfair. I understand the business pressures, too. However, I was upset that a known audiophile company was found to be doing the same thing as the mainstream pop record companies. This thread is a way of venting, for me. :-)

-Chris

mtrycraft
06-03-2004, 08:31 PM
Everyone seems to regard compression as the ultimate evil these days. Not me. I listen to classical CD's in the car a lot - this is very problematic.

Yes, it is. Maybe that problem should be solved with the CD players designed for cars? Such as built in compression?

If they have not compressed the sound sufficiently I spend the entire journey turning the volume up to hear the quiet passages and down to save my ears in the louder passages.

And when you play that CD on ypour expensive system at home, or the audiophile does, what do you think will be the response? Wow, what a great recording?

[(Try it yourself - get a Deutche Grammaphon Dvorak 9th - Karajan. Play from the beginning - for me it is 30 seconds of silence followed by a loan french horn and then on audible music - or 30 seconds of delicacy, a bearable horn and then a ceresendo of kettle drums at around 1 minute in that could blow my eardrums inside out).

No need to try. I know the issue a car offers with a noise floor of about 65dB +/- you will miss a whole lot. Why would I want that compressed CD playing at home? No life in it, nothing resembling the performance. Maybe one should listen to the radio in the car?

Now I am prepared to accept a lesser compression for home use - but nothing like the ranges you guys are talking about. 96 dB range - are you all insane??

Some time in the not too distant past I read where the most dynamic classical recording at the time only had a 70dB +/- . What he ws discussing is that the peaks were clipped, compresses, distorted. Not needed, even if they design it to your 35-40 dB noise floor.


My noise floor in my living room is, I guess, something around 35-40 dB (my meter goes down to 50 only - it is below that). when listening, at night, wife and baby asleep, I want something that goes from said level upto around 80 dB MAXIMUM!! - say a 40 dB range.

And when they are away at grandma, you cannot enjoy the benefits of a more realistic performance:) I don't have that problem so why should I be limited?

Greater than that and I will never be able to listen to music again. Come to that - 96 db range over a week and I may never be able to listen to anything ever again - except through a hearing aid.

Not so. The the 96 dB would cover the peaks that happen infrequently only. Your average listening level is whatever is comfortable to you. Short peaks would not harm your hearing.

mtrycraft
06-03-2004, 08:32 PM
It's redbook CD..there have to be compromises. Deal with it, or buy an SACD player.


Red book allows for 96 dB dynamic range. Nothing to deal with but the recording practices.

mtrycraft
06-03-2004, 08:35 PM
Redbook CD does not have as much bandwidth available as SACD, therefore compromises must be made.

That's like getting dial up internet and complaining that it's slower and drops packets as compared to a 512k broadband pipeline. Of course it will, the technology is not as good.


You must have misunderstood the original post. the issue is not that CD has insufficient dynamic range whereas SACD does not. The issue is that the CD recording is degraded below the CD specs, distorted, clipped on purpose, not because of the limits of CD.

maxg
06-03-2004, 11:44 PM
Everyone seems to regard compression as the ultimate evil these days. Not me. I listen to classical CD's in the car a lot - this is very problematic.

Yes, it is. Maybe that problem should be solved with the CD players designed for cars? Such as built in compression?

If they have not compressed the sound sufficiently I spend the entire journey turning the volume up to hear the quiet passages and down to save my ears in the louder passages.

As ever the solution involves me spending yet more money I see. Take the existing system out of the car and replace it with one that compresses. The radio is looking to be a more appealing option.

And when you play that CD on ypour expensive system at home, or the audiophile does, what do you think will be the response? Wow, what a great recording?

Sorry - play a CD on my audiophile system at home? Not me - I have vinyl for that!

[(Try it yourself - get a Deutche Grammaphon Dvorak 9th - Karajan. Play from the beginning - for me it is 30 seconds of silence followed by a loan french horn and then on audible music - or 30 seconds of delicacy, a bearable horn and then a ceresendo of kettle drums at around 1 minute in that could blow my eardrums inside out).

No need to try. I know the issue a car offers with a noise floor of about 65dB +/- you will miss a whole lot. Why would I want that compressed CD playing at home? No life in it, nothing resembling the performance. Maybe one should listen to the radio in the car?

My thoughts too

Now I am prepared to accept a lesser compression for home use - but nothing like the ranges you guys are talking about. 96 dB range - are you all insane??

Some time in the not too distant past I read where the most dynamic classical recording at the time only had a 70dB +/- . What he ws discussing is that the peaks were clipped, compresses, distorted. Not needed, even if they design it to your 35-40 dB noise floor.

Agreed

My noise floor in my living room is, I guess, something around 35-40 dB (my meter goes down to 50 only - it is below that). when listening, at night, wife and baby asleep, I want something that goes from said level upto around 80 dB MAXIMUM!! - say a 40 dB range.

And when they are away at grandma, you cannot enjoy the benefits of a more realistic performance:) I don't have that problem so why should I be limited?

When they are away at Grandma I do indeed turn the volume up. But even here I never exceed 100 dB peak at my listening position. I am not saying you should be limited - I am saying that I do not regard compression as the evil everyone here seems to think it is (if done well of course). Might be nice if either the limited or non-limited CD recordings would say as much on the packaging. I have an SACD recording from Telarc of the 1812 that is littered with warnings. Kinda nice to have.

Greater than that and I will never be able to listen to music again. Come to that - 96 db range over a week and I may never be able to listen to anything ever again - except through a hearing aid.

Not so. The the 96 dB would cover the peaks that happen infrequently only. Your average listening level is whatever is comfortable to you. Short peaks would not harm your hearing.

[i] As an absolute peak value I understand that. But if I am listening to a recording at, say 80 db average level, quiet bits at 40 - then volumes could regularly go over 110 and that is not good for ones hearing. The odd peak going upto a theorectial 136 is indeed irrelevent (and impossible on my speakers anyway).

skeptic
06-04-2004, 04:14 AM
It's interesting that vinyl, the darling of audiophiles compressed much classical music out of necessity due to the limitations of the format. Compression is not what so called audiophiles disdain regardless of what they say, it is lack of compression they don't like. When you listen to classical music with a truely wide dynamic range, you have to sit quietly and be attentive or you will miss much of it. If you are far more preoccupied with your sound system than with the music itself, this can be a real problem.

When I listen to classical music in my car, there is a lot of switchable compression from the Sony/JBL/Ford sound system that came with it. Even on a cruise when I am listening through headphones, I use an old Sony car Discman D 808K which offers three levels of compression. The excellent performance of digital compression at a very affordable price allows you to enjoy the most you can get out of classica music under less than ideal listening conditions. ICs provide this performance for pennies when it used to cost thousands of dollars. And I for one am very grateful for it. For pop music, compression is not necessary. Dynamic range is usually very limited, often to within 10 db or so.

skeptic
06-04-2004, 04:25 AM
Of the thousands of classical compostions I have on recordings I own, I cannot think of one that lies outside of the capabilities of the dynamic range offered by the RBCD format. If there is compression, it is invariably on a recording that was originally made in the analog format and was beyond the capability of analog tape. What are some of the compositions which have the greatest dynamic range which could challenge the RBCD format? Off the top of my head, perhaps Bach Mass in B minor, Tchaikowsky's 4th, 5th, and 6th sysmphonies, Turandot, perhaps some large Organ works, maybe Saint Seans Organ Concerto, Holst's The Planets? Even all of these seem to have been very well recorded digitally by someone or other and within the dynamic capabilities of RBCD. One thing is certain, to have any chance of exceeding the available range, you have to have a work which is scored for unusually massive forces and is uses them in ways that takes it from ppp of individual voices to fff+++ of the entire ensemble. These are relatively few and far between.

N. Abstentia
06-04-2004, 05:37 AM
Sounds like some folks can't actually enjoy listening to music because they're too worried about the techincal aspecs of it. That must suck.

Don't like that CD? Return it and get your money back. Can't do that? Sell it on Ebay. No use in making a federal case over it.

WmAx
06-04-2004, 08:47 AM
N. Abstentia]Sounds like some folks can't actually enjoy listening to music because they're too worried about the techincal aspecs of it. That must suck.
Audible clipping, making fuzz sounds is just not apprciable by myself. Maybe such a defect would not bother you?


Don't like that CD? Return it and get your money back. Can't do that? Sell it on Ebay. No use in making a federal case over it

That's right. Everybody knows that when you turn your back to a problem and ignore it, it gets better all by itself.

-Chris

skeptic
06-04-2004, 10:31 AM
If you reject recordings which are less than technically excellent by today's standards, you have cut yourself off from some of the greatest performances ever recorded. These are in many genres of music, not just classical but jazz and pop as well. It's unfortunate that at the time many of the greatest known performers who ever lived were able to make recordings, the technology wasn't very good by the standards of the current state of the art. There will undoubtedly come a day when the recording and playback of music is far more advanced than anything we now know. It would be a shame if people weren't interested in the best of today's recordings because of the technical flaws they will see in them. It's sad that for some people these old recordngs can't be just enjoyed for what they are rather than rejected for what they aren't.

WmAx
06-04-2004, 11:12 AM
If you reject recordings which are less than technically excellent by today's standards, you have cut yourself off from some of the greatest performances ever recorded. These are in many genres of music, not just classical but jazz and pop as well. It's unfortunate that at the time many of the greatest known performers who ever lived were able to make recordings, the technology wasn't very good by the standards of the current state of the art. There will undoubtedly come a day when the recording and playback of music is far more advanced than anything we now know. It would be a shame if people weren't interested in the best of today's recordings because of the technical flaws they will see in them. It's sad that for some people these old recordngs can't be just enjoyed for what they are rather than rejected for what they aren't.
I openly admit that I am not able to tolerate extreme examples of poor recordings, regardless of the music that is contained within the recording. I am able to tolerate moderately bad examples, if the music is of very high quality(subjectively too me, of course). Hard hitting distortion such as in this Tiereney Sutton CD is beyond my tolerance. Hey, I am willing to look over the annoying compression on this release. The sound of digital clipping distortion? Me, I just can't stand that sound. Too me, I guess this is kind of like fingernails on a chalkboard to some people.

-Chris

Pat D
06-04-2004, 11:12 AM
Very interesting admission by Telarc. I thought they would be the last to compromize. I was mistaken. Oh, my.
Dissapointing.
I remember reading something a long time ago, probably Larry Klein in Stereo Review, that a number of CDs will show short term clipped peaks on an oscilloscope--though how much is audible is another question. I believe some of the cannon shots on Ein Straussfest, with Erich Kunzel and the Cincinnati Pops Orchestra, Telarc CD-80098, were said to be clipped. But it was still a great sounding CD the last time I heard it.

N. Abstentia
06-04-2004, 11:24 AM
Audible clipping, making fuzz sounds is just not apprciable by myself. Maybe such a defect would not bother you?

That's right. Everybody knows that when you turn your back to a problem and ignore it, it gets better all by itself.

-Chris

Don't like it? Don't buy it.

Hitting my head with a baseball bat bothers me, so I quit doing it.

Feanor
06-04-2004, 11:50 AM
I have many very fine cds I enjoy both DDD an ADD. Deutche Gramaphone does an excellent job most of the time. Phillips is very good too although I must admit that there are more flaws in their discs than most other labels. These flaws however seem to me to be the result of poor quality control, not bad recording practice which IMO is also usually excellent.
I'm refering to Philips: 456575, Bartok: Concerto for Orchestra Sz 116 / Ivan Fischer & Budapest Festival Orch.

In this case, though, the quality is due to the recording methods I'm certain. The recording portrays the sound of a real ensemble performing in an actual space. So few producers and engineers even attempt to that, it seems to me!

Maybe I'm wrong, but I attribute the failure to too many, too closely-placed microphones plus complicated mixing and equalization. Fewer, carefully placed mics works better judging by the likes of the Mercury Living Presence recordings for example. From your seat in the concert hall you don't get the same sound as a mic placed a foot away from the violin will pick up -- very different mix of direct and reflected sound for one thing.

skeptic
06-04-2004, 12:37 PM
I bought Dave Brubeck's disc "Time Out." It's not so much the over equalized recording that bothers me, it's all the clams he hit. He played like a nervous goose in cut one "Blue Rondo a la Turk." Bad playing is worse than bad recording every time. At least that's the way I see it. Sometimes you can't have everything and if you are too picky, you wind up with nothing.

Mr Peabody
06-04-2004, 01:20 PM
I have, nor had, any plans to buy or support SACD or DVD-A and now I am even more intent not to ever support them out of principle. If it is true that consumers have to bare an inferior product so a recording can be played over the air is an outrage. With multi layers or other technology this shouldn't be necessary. Most radio stations are putting their music in computer anyway. They don't care about any sound quality. And I totally disagree with the statement Telarc shouldn't be singled out. Them and Sheffield tout themselves as being superior recording and sound quality. If they are just another commercial CD company then they misrepresent themselves which is also fraud. What about these guys who paid big bucks for a solid gold disc? They certainly thought they were buying something special. Telarc and so called "superior or audiophile" companies like them who put out an inferior product under the guise of high quality are guilty as hell of fraud and deception and even more so than your average recording company. When you buy Kid Rock you may not expect an audiophile recording but when you buy Telarc you do. I think it is time consumers quit letting these companies in our pockets at their will. If I knew in the 80's that vinyl could sound like I hear it now on my Rega turntable, I wouldn't have jumped on the CD bandwagon, at least until they quit pressing it. My collection is large enough with vinyl and CD that I fully intend not to go with another format. Especially, one that is being forced on the public with deception. If you don't want to believe it is deception that's on you, but it is at least sabotage to the compact disc and it's potential sound quality.

Mr Peabody
06-04-2004, 02:21 PM
Why would consumers jump on the SACD bandwagon when this format could go down the same path as CD, in regard to too high levels and inferior quality? I think Chris brought up a very valid question. Why wouldn't Telarc a so called "audiophile" recording company want a recording to sound it's very best on whatever format? Unless they have another motive. I found Bishop's excuse extremely lame. Either you like Sutton or you don't. What does Krall or Jones have to do with me buying Sutton? It's BS. I personally wrote Bishop a nastygram and my whole perspective has been compromised

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-04-2004, 04:24 PM
It would appear that it is a misconception to believe that audio content to be distributed to the staton needs to be highly compressed. Perhaps a perpetuated myth of sorts.


No, I don't think so. The quality of radio stations compressors/limiters all over the world varies. Most of them do not sound very good, and can really change the flavor(and timbre)of a mix. The harder these limiter/compressors have to work, the worse they sound. So the smart thing to do is to master the CD using GOOD compression/limiting so as to limit the need for limiting/compression at the radio station level. This way you know it what it will pretty much sound like when played over the air.


Based on the following sources(i have read others, but these two are the most authoritive IMO), I can only conlude that a CD, for example, that has absolute levels pushed to the limits and features high comporession will be reduced by the station processors.

If that were the case, then nobody would request that we push the levels. Also doing a mix especially for radio stations will require less use of the stations limiter/compressor. In the long run this makes the product sound better over the air.


A correctly recorded CD will be compressed, and reduced in dynamic range, and overall levels will remain the same as the 'pushed' audio disc when compared. It seems that authorities suggest that the highly compressed audio disc will actually suffer significant degradation since it wil be subjected to another stage of compression before it is transmitted.

A mix that is sent to the station uncompressed will be at the mercy of the stations compressor. As I have previously stated, the quality of these compressors/limiters are all over the map. It may sound fairly decent coming from one station, and like crap from another. If the product sounds like crap, then that equals to lost sales. No recording/mastering house/engineer can afford that to happen too many times.


Roy Orban(CEO/Cheif Engineer of Orban Electronics(designs and manufactures most of the equipment used to equalize teh levels for radio stations before it is transmitted) stated this in the manual of the Optimod FM 8400 Broadcast Audio Processor:

Bob Katz(a mastering engineer known for producing high quality works):

I am VERY familar with Bob Katz, he is very well respected within the industry. Roy Orban's word can only be taken where his products are concerned. There are many products on the market that do what his does. If a station has other products, then all bets are off with his word. One thing you find out pretty quickly in this industry is that everyone has an opinion, and everyone seems to have a rebuttal.



I am open to reading information from other authorities, to possibly change my view of this matter. However, Roy Orban is pretty high up the food chain, considering he makes/designs most of this equipment.

Orban electronix is just one company of many that makes good broadcasting equipment. I would not call myself a formost expert on radio broadcasting equipment.


I don't automaticly believe anyone, but (1) I am not willing to investigate the equipment and standards in place and calculate the actual effects - i am just not THAT interested (2) It seems that Mr. Orban should be an accurate source of information considering his relation to this matter.

I think his opinion is one of many I have heard. Since this is not my area of expertise, his word is just as good as any.


Thank you. This was a very interesting thread. I found reading the perspective of various professional to be enlightening.

No prob. I just wanted you to see how frustrated we engineers get when we have to make compromises to satisfy our clients. We have a tough balancing act between quality and customer satisfaction. I think that is often overlooked by quality conscious consumers like yourself.


I do admit that I am making a good deal of speculation on what I think is fair and unfair. I understand the business pressures, too. However, I was upset that a known audiophile company was found to be doing the same thing as the mainstream pop record companies. This thread is a way of venting, for me. :-)
-Chris

Chris, I really understand your frustration. Put yourself in my shoes, I work really hard to do a high quality mix, then have to make compromises due to the media source its going to, and to please my client. Most of the time the client is happy, but I am not.

WmAx
06-04-2004, 06:23 PM
Why would consumers jump on the SACD bandwagon when this format could go down the same path as CD, in regard to too high levels and inferior quality? I think Chris brought up a very valid question. Why wouldn't Telarc a so called "audiophile" recording company want a recording to sound it's very best on whatever format? Unless they have another motive. I found Bishop's excuse extremely lame. Either you like Sutton or you don't. What does Krall or Jones have to do with me buying Sutton? It's BS. I personally wrote Bishop a nastygram and my whole perspective has been compromised
What exactly is a nastygram?

Here is my reply to Mr. Bishop, that was sent after I recieved the email that is posted in teh beginning of this thread:


Thank you for the reply from Mr. Bishop. I will take advantage of the SACD
trade that was offered. I would prefer a refund, of course, since I do not
own a SACD capable play device. Please let me know what steps I need to
take. BUt please forward the rest of this message to Mr. Bishop:

REPLY To Mr. Bishop:

"I checked the waveform example of the piano "distortion." In my opinion,
what is seen there is the peak limiting and "soft clipping" imposed in the
CD mastering process on this particular release..."

" The piano is not distorted... If that was the case one would see jagged
artifacts around the
piano level "peak" rather than the level simply stopping 0.10 dB from the
peak."

"Of course, this does not mean that such a high peak will not cause
distortion on some playback systems. That's entirely possible and is
something out of our control."

The highly audible distortion remains in all of these following cases: (1)
playing CD in all players I have access (2) ripping waveform to computer,
playing back through soundcard (3) reducing maximum level slightly of the
waveform in a waveform editor, playing back on soundcard.

Indeed, I believe this is easily preventable. Simply could have (1) limited
the peaks (2) reduced absolute levels before downsampling(this is the proper
method)

"The Tierney Sutton "Dancing in the Dark" CD release is put up side-by-side
with Diana Krall and Norah Jones releases and other similar jazz vocal CDs.
Like it or not, those CDs are quite heavily compressed and limited (much
more so than the Sutton CD) and have very high apparent volumes. They also
exhibit an even more pronounced cut-off of peak levels. Since Tierney's CD
will be put in multi-disc CD players alongside these other CDs, we have to
make sure her CD stands at least a chance of being as "present" as the
competition and still maintain as much of the dynamics of my original mixes
as possible. "

I don't understand. Competition of what? I simply do not believe consumer
are this stupid to put a CD into the player and believe the quiter one is
'bad' compared to the louder one. (1) You mean radio play? If so, this is
not valid. Radio broadcast music is heavily compressed/limited before it is
transmitted. As far as I know, this is a universal standard. Diffeernt
levels on the CD istels will not manifest itself on broadcast end-use. (2)
The telarc consumer, i would speculate, is more discriminating then the
average consumer. I can not see this trickery as being effective.

I think Bob Katz has some very good points on this issue:

http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=93/?PHPSESSID=8a7653fe7dab1838c00ed4aeb7310fc8 (http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=93/?PHPSESSID=8a7653fe7dab1838c00ed4aeb7310fc8)

"It's a very delicate balancing act. Certainly compromises
are made, just as in any other mainstream CD that has high apparent volume
level. "

I'm sorry to see such things happening with what I always considered a
label(telarc) that prioritized ultimate sound quality.

"I know one would find much more aggregious level compression taking
place on most mainstream CDs than what you would find on "Dancing in the
Dark."

Yes. Why I always trusted Telarc to have high quality. I guess I have to
change this view in response to this email.

"If you are interested, the DSD stereo and surround programs on the SACD
release of "Dancing in the Dark" (SA-63592) do NOT have this competitive
compression imposed on the audio. The DSD programs represent what I
recorded in the mixes from the sessions without the compromises needed on
the CD-only release. However, the CD layer of the SACD is exactly the same
as the CD-only release. To access the DSD programs, one needs the
appropriate SACD player which is available at major electronic retailers
starting at around $200 USD, although I never recommend that one gets the
"bottom-of-the-line" player."

I have a CD player that functions perfectly. It is rediculous that I must
purchase a new format player to get versions of the albums that ARE NOT
purposefully degraded.

"I hope you have the opportunity to hear the DSD program of this release.
That is, after all, the source I had recorded at Ms. Sutton's sessions and
the pcm CD is a derivative of that source."

I have paid close attention to the playback formats, and associated
scientific research(NHK labs study, Ooashi nueroscicnce study and the
original 1978 optimal bandwidth study(JAES). Besides the multi-channel
format and copy protection(not advantage to consumers, only for record
companies) I don't see any yet confirmed advantage to the added bandwidth. I
also don't see how 16 bit wordlength is limiting for audio playback,e
speciallly when combined with modern dithering techniques. Even if it was a
problem, seems that these PURPOSEFULLY compromised and compressed versions
of music supercede this issue.

Thank you for responding.

-Chris XXXXX
THis email was sent right after I recieved the initial reply. I should have been more specific when i referenced the suggestion of limiting. I also should have referenced time markers in a sample track that are, indeed at 0dB, not 0.1 as he asserts. I consider this an oversight/error on my part. However, I was 'steamed'. You are never as coherant when hot headed.

-Chris

WmAx
06-04-2004, 06:38 PM
No, I don't think so. The quality of radio stations compressors/limiters all over the world varies. Most of them do not sound very good, and can really change the flavor(and timbre)of a mix. The harder these limiter/compressors have to work, the worse they sound. So the smart thing to do is to master the CD using GOOD compression/limiting so as to limit the need for limiting/compression at the radio station level. This way you know it what it will pretty much sound like when played over the air.
Thank you for your opinion.


If that were the case, then nobody would request that we push the levels. Also doing a mix especially for radio stations will require less use of the stations limiter/compressor. In the long run this makes the product sound better over the air.
I refer to the authorities I just quoted.


I think his opinion is one of many I have heard. Since this is not my area of expertise, his word is just as good as any.
Everyone has to pick a side 'blindly' when a certain level of ignorance is present. In this case, it seems we are both ignorant of the actual low level behaviours of the typical radio pre-broadcast processor. Whether Bob Katz and Roy Orban are just BSing the best, or not, they seem the most convincing too me in this case.



Chris, I really understand your frustration. Put yourself in my shoes, I work really hard to do a high quality mix, then have to make compromises due to the media source its going to, and to please my client. Most of the time the client is happy, but I am not

I do understand. I have had to release creative work many times that I was ashamed of, but was forced to produce, if I wanted to get a check. Simply put: it sucks.

-Chris

Mr Peabody
06-05-2004, 07:52 AM
Chris;

You have to do what is best for you, I however feel it is foolish to accept Telarc's offer for exchange. You are going to have to spend money to upgrade to a new SACD player, Bishop said the same distortion was on the CD layer of the SACD. If what you assert is true about playing unfair, why would you want to go along with it? I admit I am disappointed and confused about your news. I am stubborn though, I would eat the $15. for the CD and tell Bishop to shove the SACD.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-07-2004, 01:38 PM
Everyone has to pick a side 'blindly' when a certain level of ignorance is present. In this case, it seems we are both ignorant of the actual low level behaviours of the typical radio pre-broadcast processor. Whether Bob Katz and Roy Orban are just BSing the best, or not, they seem the most convincing too me in this case.

I have no don't doubt for one moment that Bob Katz is correct. However he speaks STRICTLY from a techinical stand point of view, and that is usually NOT the position the producer, or the marketing department is coming from. The level war was not created by mixers and mastering engineers, it was created by marketing and producers. In the link you have provided, every example that he sites with good levels for high quality reproduction came BEFORE the marketing departments of major record labels gained a larger share of the decision making in the production of product. I don't think Bob Katz is BSing, I just don't think he is painting the larger picture very well.

Every radio station in the world is not filled full of Orban products. There are MANY MANY different manufacturers of broadcasting equipment. Everyone of these guys has an opinion about broadcasting standards, equipment, and how they are employed in the field. You can if you desire take both of these gentlemens words as absolute, or you can listen to the thousands of other which offer a differing opinion of the subject matter. As I have stated earlier this business if full of opinions, and those that rebutt them. If it makes you more comfortable to grab one person's words, and make that word. Then by all means do so. But there are others out there with opinons just as valid as Katz and Orban who would argue that you are being just a little short sighted in your beliefs.



And I totally disagree with the statement Telarc shouldn't be singled out. Them and Sheffield tout themselves as being superior recording and sound quality. If they are just another commercial CD company then they misrepresent themselves which is also fraud

Have you read ANY of the content in this thread. How in the heck do you think that Telarc and Sheffield are immune to any market driven compromises. They are business as well as record companies. Do you think it is wise for them NOT to compete with the other record companies, and then go out of business just to satisfy you? That's unreasonable, as it is for you to blame them specifically. There is racism and greed in the world, can I blame you as part of the problem since you exist in the world? I don't think so. Telarc and Sheffield didn't create this problem, all they are doing is competing againist other's who not only initiated it(marketing depts and producers), but continue to drive it.

If you do not understand compromise based on competition, then I am not going to waste my time explaining it. You live in a world driven by competition, you should understand this well or you have been living in a cave.

Mr Peabody
06-07-2004, 05:28 PM
You can blame me for racism, if I was one who took part in it. Your analogy don't hold water.

What is the big competition? Either you like an artist or you don't. Do you all shop by label? Someone might if they were looking for an exceptional recording, that is where Telarc and Sheffield have dropped the ball. They built their reputation on supposedly giving consumers the best recordings possible. I mean, do they get a brass ring for making the hottest recording levels? What is the point? If they wanted to compete, it seems the best sound quality would win. It's not like you're about the see Sutton on the AMA's doing a duet with Nelly, she's not exactly mainstream. That's pure crap Bishop unloaded about competing.

Does anyone know what the advantage of a hot recording is? What will I hear in comparison to a recording with lower levels? I've done thousands of recordings and I notice that too low will sound thin and sometimes tinny, too high produces distortions, there is a correct zone for a good recording.

I can't really believe the hot levels are for the broadcast industry because there are probably tons of recordings that were made before the big high level push, does that mean they don't get played anymore? What if broadcasters start playing SACD, does that mean SACD sound will be sacraficed on the same alter as CD? Many larger market stations don't even play CD anymore, it's all automated on computer. And again Telarc and simular high end recording companies don't exactly have top 100 artists, so Bishop's excuse don't fly.

Bishop claims to be competing with artists like Norah Jones and Diana Krall, I would be interested to know if anyone noticed if they have these high record levels. I have Norah Jones, I thought the recording sounded great. Especially when compared to more popular recording artists.

WmAx
06-07-2004, 09:41 PM
Chris;

You have to do what is best for you, I however feel it is foolish to accept Telarc's offer for exchange. You are going to have to spend money to upgrade to a new SACD player, Bishop said the same distortion was on the CD layer of the SACD. If what you assert is true about playing unfair, why would you want to go along with it? I admit I am disappointed and confused about your news. I am stubborn though, I would eat the $15. for the CD and tell Bishop to shove the SACD.
Hold on now! When I say I was going to buy a SACD player? I might. But not now(I need to buy a new pair of headphones at the moment). However, the very least I can do is take the SACD version, factory sealed, and sell it on ebay. :-)

-Chris

WmAx
06-07-2004, 09:47 PM
I have no don't doubt for one moment that Bob Katz is correct. However he speaks STRICTLY from a techinical stand point of view, and that is usually NOT the position the producer, or the marketing department is coming from...

If it makes you more comfortable to grab one person's words, and make that word. Then by all means do so. But there are others out there with opinons just as valid as Katz and Orban who would argue that you are being just a little short sighted in your beliefs...

I will have to ask you to clarify these seemingly conflicting statements. Do you mean that Bob Katz is absolutely correct, technically? But then you assert others out their have opinions just as valid as Katz that will argue with this.....

Perhaps you mean purely on the issue of the ignorant marketing department, producers and program directors? Not the tecnical issues?

-Chris

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-08-2004, 08:32 AM
I will have to ask you to clarify these seemingly conflicting statements. Do you mean that Bob Katz is absolutely correct, technically? But then you assert others out their have opinions just as valid as Katz that will argue with this.....

Perhaps you mean purely on the issue of the ignorant marketing department, producers and program directors? Not the tecnical issues?

-Chris

Chris, I do not think that calling marketing departments "ignorant" is particularly wise. It is easy for you to sit where you do, and evaluate what they do, and critisize it. You would find it infinitely harder to sit in their seat and take the same perspective that you have now.

As far as Bob Katz, there is no conflicting statement at all. Bob Katz strictly talks about levels in terms of ultimate sound quality. What he does not speak of is the role that the marketing departments have played in this level war, the influence of a customers decision on the mastering engineer, and meeting customer needs so you can stay in business. He presents one perspective, but he doesn't discuss the influence the others put on that one.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-08-2004, 04:25 PM
You can blame me for racism, if I was one who took part in it. Your analogy don't hold water.

Sorry Mr Peabody, but my analogy is spot on. You are singling out two companies out of a whole industry to castigate to no end about a problem they didn't start, and could not change even if they wanted to. Keeping things in perspective, Telarc and Sheffield are a pimple on the butt when you look at where their standing is industry wide.


What is the big competition? Either you like an artist or you don't.

This shows how little you know about both the record industry, and the broadcast industry.


Do you all shop by label? Someone might if they were looking for an exceptional recording, that is where Telarc and Sheffield have dropped the ball.

Why are you pulling the Sheffield label into this? Who mentioned them as part of the level war? They don't record pop music, and nobody has found a single title of their with the same problem that Chris found on a SINGLE CD. Secondly a person would have to be living in a cave to believe that Telarc and Sheffield were the only two companies turning out excellent recordings. What about Nimbus, Decca, Mobile Fidelity, London,Chesky, and so many others? What about the SACD that Telarc(or any other record company has produced. Since you don't even own a player, you don't know the quality of their recording in that format.





They built their reputation on supposedly giving consumers the best recordings possible. I mean, do they get a brass ring for making the hottest recording levels? What is the point? If they wanted to compete, it seems the best sound quality would win.

If you check out Telarc's earlier(and even newly) CLASSICAL(their specialty) offerings on CD, you will find that the quality of their recordings are exemplary. If you listen to ALL of Telarcs SACD recordings as I have, you wouldn't doubt one bit the fact that they turn out some of the most well recorded product out there.

Sorry, but brass rings do not keep record companies in business. Just like with every other business, either you adopt to the market trends, or you go out of business. This is business 101. Right now SOME jazz, and most of all pop has the levels up to increase the impact of its broadcast over the air waves. This is what the artists want, the producers want, and ultimately what the record companies are asking for as a result.

If the average consumer went for quality only, there would be no 16/44.1khz redbook CD's(24/96khz multichannel sounds better). There would be no vinyl records(24/96khz multichannel sounds better) no Dolby Digital(it doesn't sound as good as CD, and 24/96khz Dts sounds better) no VHS(DVD looks better) no laserdisc(DVD looks better) and for that matter no DVD(Film and D-VHS both look better). Since all that has been mentioned has been around, it just goes to show that quality has not been much of a driving force for the average cosumers. Convience and value has always topped the list over sound quality. To add insult to injury, most would prefer downloadable MP3 over CD.(this is according to a study done by RIAA)



That's pure crap Bishop unloaded about competing.

What experience or education do you have that brings you to this conclusion. How many CD's, soundtracks etc have you mixed and mastered? Have you ever produced? Do you run a record company? Have you ever done a mix destined for broadcast?


Does anyone know what the advantage of a hot recording is?
What will I hear in comparison to a recording with lower levels?

The advantage of hot recording and using compression is that the music no matter what the volume, will stay above above the noise floor of the radio medium. Radio tends to have a rather high noise floor, and lower levels(and no use of compression) tends to make softer mixes sound murky, and indistinct as it get's buried in the noise.



I've done thousands of recordings and I notice that too low will sound thin and sometimes tinny, too high produces distortions, there is a correct zone for a good recording.

If this is true, then I would not have to explain so much to you. This is information that is known by every working engineer in the business.


I can't really believe the hot levels are for the broadcast industry because there are probably tons of recordings that were made before the big high level push, does that mean they don't get played anymore?

No, they are still played. They however do not have as much punch and power when played back over the air as the ones that are mastered at a higher level.





What if broadcasters start playing SACD, does that mean SACD sound will be sacraficed on the same alter as CD?

Since this is not common practice, who knows. I highly doubt that radio stations will play SACD. Its broader frequency response, and dynamic range could be very upsetting to studio electronics.



Many larger market stations don't even play CD anymore, it's all automated on computer.

How do you think it gets on those computer? A genie? Radio stations just don't go out and buy computers loaded full of top ten hits you know. The use CD's to download onto computers.


And again Telarc and simular high end recording companies don't exactly have top 100 artists, so Bishop's excuse don't fly.

I think Michael Bishop is a little smarter and more experienced at this than you are, so you are in no position to decide what flies, and what does not. If any of his product is destined for radio(and the particular example that Chris points out is) then it must compete with other product destined for radio.


Bishop claims to be competing with artists like Norah Jones and Diana Krall, I would be interested to know if anyone noticed if they have these high record levels. I have Norah Jones, I thought the recording sounded great. Especially when compared to more popular recording artists.

I don't know about Diana Krall, but I do know about Norah Jones "Come away with me", Yes the dynamics are somewhat restricted, and the overall level is higher than some of my older CD's. Once again, your feeble attempts at making this a solo practice of Telarcs is futile. If you read any of the previous posts, there is a link that talk about this in detail.

Mr Peabody, for a person who claims to have done thousands of recordings, you know amazing little about how the industry operates. It amazes me that in your thousands of mixes that you have never done one destined for a radio station, and have no knowledge of how to master for radio broadcast. Most of what I have posted here is common knowledge amoung mixers, and mastering professionals. The practice of recording "hot" for radio broadcast has been around for years now, discussed to death amoung engineers, and frowned upon by us who enjoy quality over quantity. It surprises me somewhat to know that you have such extensive recording experience, and no knowledge of this practice. Where have YOU been all of these years?

gonefishin
06-08-2004, 05:40 PM
Bishop claims to be competing with artists like Norah Jones and Diana Krall, I would be interested to know if anyone noticed if they have these high record levels. I have Norah Jones, I thought the recording sounded great. Especially when compared to more popular recording artists.



Hi Mr Peabody :)


I have noticed extremely high recording levels on various CD's. The Norah Jones Album (aheem...cd) in particular. Not only is the main body of music recorded "louder" but the dynamic range of the recorded is p!ss poor too.
It's a shame that the recording industry is going toward recording everything sooo hot. CD format is actually capable of producing some pretty nice sound...but if you record the music so dang hot...your getting rid of one of the advantages right off the bat. What a shame!


ok...I'll stop now...but it is a darn shame :mad:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-09-2004, 02:39 PM
Why would consumers jump on the SACD bandwagon when this format could go down the same path as CD, in regard to too high levels and inferior quality?

Aren't you being just a little dramatic here. The format is in its infancy, and you already have it following the same path as the CD. Do the words drama king mean anything here?



I think Chris brought up a very valid question. Why wouldn't Telarc a so called "audiophile" recording company want a recording to sound it's very best on whatever format?

I cannot believe that you have done thousands of recordings and cannot answer this question for yourself. I think that Telarc does turn out recordings that sound very good indeed. The raised levels does not change that. Raising the level does not always compromise sound quality, and it is disengenous for you to implicate that in an indirect way.



Unless they have another motive. I found Bishop's excuse extremely lame. Either you like Sutton or you don't. What does Krall or Jones have to do with me buying Sutton? It's BS. I personally wrote Bishop a nastygram and my whole perspective has been compromised

Nastygrams are childish, ineffective, and serve no purpose. From what I have gathered from your postings, you do not know much about the industry, so that makes you ill qualified to decide if Michael's excuse is lame or not. You don't own a SACD player, so you cannot judge the quality of the higher resolution format in comparison to the CD platform. Based on this, it seems that your complaining about all of this is rather lame itself. Before Chris even bought the topic up, you didn't even know the practice existed!, Now all of a sudden CD's are vile, compromised products, and you are just totally outraged, everyone in the music industry is a evil demon(with Telarc and Sheffield being baal himself) and you are not going to support the high resolution formats. This is good.....

Mr Peabody
06-09-2004, 06:42 PM
I said, I have done recordings, I did not say I was an engineer or producer.
I certainly do not have a SACD player, nor does the person who started this thread. This discussion was not about a comparison of the 2 formats.
You try so hard to make yourself sound like you know something, that you, my man, appear to be lame. I would like to know how you have time to do all your recording and engineering when you claim on the HT forum that you are a professional HT installer. If you are "in the industry" then apparently, you are better off the less we know and Chris's thread is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-10-2004, 11:59 AM
I said, I have done recordings, I did not say I was an engineer or producer.
I certainly do not have a SACD player, nor does the person who started this thread. This discussion was not about a comparison of the 2 formats.
You try so hard to make yourself sound like you know something, that you, my man, appear to be lame. I would like to know how you have time to do all your recording and engineering when you claim on the HT forum that you are a professional HT installer. If you are "in the industry" then apparently, you are better off the less we know and Chris's thread is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.


I really enjoy turning on the lights and seeing roaches scurry for cover. One of the most disengenous things a person can do is to make a statement just ambiguous enough so one could seem knowledgeable, but not specific enough to be pinned down. As illustrated by this comment.


I've done thousands of recordings and I notice that too low will sound thin and sometimes tinny, too high produces distortions, there is a correct zone for a good recording.

Now one could easily conclude that they are talking to a recording engineer from this statement. But alas, this statement comes in the next post.


I said, I have done recordings, I did not say I was an engineer or producer.

What does the words "I have done recordings" mean in this statement. Does it mean 1. You were the musician who was being recorded?
2. You were pretending to be a microphone stand and holding a microphone?
3. You were watching the FOH mixer record a performance?
4. You were trying to appear like you know what recording is all about?

So Mr peabody, what is it for you? I would suspect #4

Another common characteristic of one who has jumped into the water, and realizes that he cannot really swim(in other words they try and interject into a topic for which they know nothing about) is they begin to steer away from the core issue, and throw personal insults as illustrated by this comment;


You try so hard to make yourself sound like you know something, that you, my man, appear to be lame.

First, I do not have to try hard at all to make myself sound like I know something. The proof is in the pudding. You may verify anything that I have said here on the internet. Either you know the information, or you don't. It appears that you don't so you want to try and drag me with you. VERY bad form old chap, this makes you look a little foolish. And the name calling, infantile.


I would like to know how you have time to do all your recording and engineering when you claim on the HT forum that you are a professional HT installer.

Well let's see, there are 24 hours in a day, 7 days in a week. Ahh there is plenty of time.
You mean a person cannot do BOTH? Is it againist the law to work for myself?
This is a rather stupid question that has no relationship with the topic at hand, but I'll answer it anyway. Since I work for myself, I set my own schedule. A recording project can last anywhere from 1 week, to six months. A installation may take 4-6 weeks(or longer depending on the complexity). I work with an interior design person in designing a interior for the theater, then with the architech who makes the blueprints. I hand the blueprints over to the contractor, and if I am doing a recording project I go to work on that. This is called multitasking(since you asked this silly question, you obviously don't know about this yet). I'll bounce back and forth between these projects until they are both finish. If I am doing one OR the other, then the answer is simple.


If you are "in the industry" then apparently, you are better off the less we know and Chris's thread is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Another personal insult. Bah! If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't have to result to this. How much or how little you know about this industry is up to you. If you choose to know less(and I do not know how that is possible with you, you know less than nothing now) that is your business and has no effect on me. Its seems to me that if you knew more about the industry, you would not be here wining like a baby about something that has been going on for years. So If I am better off the less you know, then I am in damn good shape. You don't know very much now.

Mr Peabody
06-11-2004, 10:06 AM
Terry, might I call you Terry, I feel with your insight we know each other so well now. Anyway Terry, I believe upon your review of all previous posts you will realize that it was you that started hurling insults. I try to refrain from reciprecating but you caught me in a bad mood. I think you should look into the mirror because you described yourself so well in your last post. I have to admit I do doubt your knowledge because you evade direct questions in lieu of posting insults and degrading remarks. The only knowledge I need in order to comment on Chris's post is what he said in his first post. Please re-assess here, I never claimed to know jack about the recording industry, that is you that makes out to be Mr. Expert. My lack of knowledge of the recording industry is why I found Chris's post so disturbing.

For example, I know for a fact that some radio stations, if not all, in my market have most of their music library on computer. I really don't know how they got on computer. But you didn't enlighten us any, you just asked a question in your normal demeaning fashion. Maybe they download MP3 or some other music file like DJ's do. There are many on line services that provide this now. It would be time consuming for a station to sit and record all their music direct from CD and set back converting to the computing system by quite some time but maybe they do it that way. Why don't you tell me how so we all know for sure.

As you look back through the posts if you strip away all your snide remarks, insults and dancing around the issue, I find you really don't have much of substance to say. As I have admitted not knowing much about the record industry and reviewing the posts, you, the professed expert, haven't learned me anything. So I believe that it is you who are the cock-a-roach here. I'm sorry for the insect description of you but I guess maybe I did learn something from you.

I am from the Show Me state and done my time on the farm, so I can spot BS when I see it. So if I may quote from John Baultry, "Don't try to lay no Boodgie Woodgie on the King of Rock & Roll".

gonefishin
06-11-2004, 11:25 AM
I am from the Show Me state and done my time on the farm, so I can spot BS when I see it.


dang Mr. Peabody...I ain't from some state that shows me anything ( :rolleyes: well, anything but higher taxes)

...but I know BS when I read it too ;)


now please beer with me a bit.



I've gone back and read the discussion and tho Terrance may have gotten fed up a bit...your post are not as innocent as you suggest in the immediate post above. (however, this is a common tactic when arguing...not a very effective one...but common)

Rather than take the argumentative stance that you seem to be taking...why not simply ask (or learn) more about the subject your discussing. If I remember right...Terrance has a bit of experience in the recording industry (tho I'm not sure how much)...How about asking him or others (reading some books or visiting recording forums) so you may learn what goes into a recording...and what compromises are sometimes made (and why).

This is a dang good subject, but it looks like you would rather (blindly) accuse some recording companies of inexcusably sub-standard merchandise, than actual have a discussion about the actual problem (If it looks like I'm making some assumptions here...it's because I am)


Like you...I'm not in the recording industry either. But I have noticed that some recordings (Norah Jones among others) is recorded much louder than compared to what I view as a good (or decent) recording. Recording at higher levels doesn't always mean the recording is going to sound like sh!t. You can still make a nice sounding album recording at levels which are too high...but I've noticed that these albums have a limited dynamic range. If this is important or not to you...I don't know...but it is to me.


Terrence...it does seem a shame when record labels who have always brought us quality recording starts participating in this "loudness game", but do you see this as something that may just be a phase? Perhaps something we may just need to weather the storm.

Do you (or others) think that quality recording may become a thing of the past? I suppose it doesn't really matter who are why the record companies are producing sub-quality recordings...it only matters that they are (notice I didn't say sub-standard...because I do believe that the standard is already sub-quality)


anyway...cool topic...thanks!

dan

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-11-2004, 04:00 PM
Terry, might I call you Terry, I feel with your insight we know each other so well now. Anyway Terry, I believe upon your review of all previous posts you will realize that it was you that started hurling insults.

Nope, please call me Sir Terrence. Only my friends can call me Terry. I did review, and as was said already, you are not as innocent as you are trying to portray yourself. Why would I need to hurl insults, I know about recording practices, you are the one that does not.



I try to refrain from reciprecating but you caught me in a bad mood.

Perhaps it was that same mood that started you in the negative direction you chose to take.



I think you should look into the mirror because you described yourself so well in your last post.

Sorry Mr Peabody, this is a no spin zone. And you are trying to spin this like a top. Bad form once again old chap.


I have to admit I do doubt your knowledge because you evade direct questions in lieu of posting insults and degrading remarks.

Can't you read???? I answered every one of your questions. The problem is, you are so busy trying to argue back, you are not paying attention to the answers. Pehaps a re-read may(or may not) refresh your memory. You doubt MY knowledge, how could you? You are the one that had no idea this practice was even done. You are the one that doesn't know anything about the music BUSINESS. You are the one that had no idea why one records at hot levels. You are the one how open admitted you don't know jack about recording. So how could you doubt my knowledge. I think you are just saying this because your lack of knowledge made a fool of yourself. Do the words "trying to save face" mean anything to you?


The only knowledge I need in order to comment on Chris's post is what he said in his first post.

If that is all the knowledge that you think you need, you are in alot of trouble. If you just want to spout ignorant crap, then yes this is all the knowledge you need. If you want to speak intelligently on the subject, then you are going to need a little more information than what Chris provided.


Please re-assess here, I never claimed to know jack about the recording industry, that is you that makes out to be Mr. Expert. My lack of knowledge of the recording industry is why I found Chris's post so disturbing.

Considering I have been working in the record industry some twenty years, that makes me at least knowledgeable. You don't know jack, and yet you feel like you can doubt my knowledge. Wow, can anyone have more nuts than that!


For example, I know for a fact that some radio stations, if not all, in my market have most of their music library on computer. I really don't know how they got on computer. But you didn't enlighten us any, you just asked a question in your normal demeaning fashion.

Maybe because common sense(or is it?) would tell you that it was possibly loaded via CD's like most radio stations do. Didn't you read that in my first post, or where you so busy thinking up the next arguementive position to take instead of ingesting what was written. Normal demeaning fashion? So what you are telling me is that you have read 6 years of my posts, and think I have been demeaning in all of them? Right Mr. Peabody, and if these posts that you have presented here are normal for you, then the lights are definately out upstairs. Hate to sound cold, but I like to keep it real if you don't mind.


Maybe they download MP3 or some other music file like DJ's do.

I don't think so,my or my clients would not be asking me to do the things they do. Not likely as the quality if MP3 is pretty compromised.



There are many on line services that provide this now. It would be time consuming for a station to sit and record all their music direct from CD and set back converting to the computing system by quite some time but maybe they do it that way. Why don't you tell me how so we all know for sure.

It takes me all of 10 minutes to download a whole CD to my hard drive, why do you think that this is so time consuming? You seem so quick for a person who claims no knowledge to dismiss so many things. Since you so doubt my knowledge in this area, why bother telling you the answer to your question?


As you look back through the posts if you strip away all your snide remarks, insults and dancing around the issue, I find you really don't have much of substance to say.

By what vast personal knowledge could bring you to this conclusion. If you don't know anything about the industry, how do you know what is substance and what is not? My Peabody, you are unfortunately full of it, and you know it too.


As I have admitted not knowing much about the record industry and reviewing the posts, you, the professed expert, haven't learned me anything.

Then there are a only a couple of conclusions one could reach. Either you have a VERY limited capacity of understanding basic knowledge, you are too combative to learn anything from anyone, or you are just plain retarded. Which is it?


So I believe that it is you who are the cock-a-roach here. I'm sorry for the insect description of you but I guess maybe I did learn something from you.

More spin, you are consistant aren't you. And I agree, you are sorry.


I am from the Show Me state and done my time on the farm, so I can spot BS when I see it.

Now I know you are full of it. First you claim you have no knowledge of the music industry, now you say you can spot BS when you see it. How may I ask given your admitted lack of knowledge can you do this.. Well I can spot BS also, like when somebody claims to have done "thousands" of recordings, yet doesn't even know what the practice of recording hot is. Dude, you are totally exposed, and it is here in writing. No one teaches about the recording arts on a farm, so your time was in vain.


So if I may quote from John Baultry, "Don't try to lay no Boodgie Woodgie on the King of Rock & Roll".

Wow, is this the best that one from the show me state can muster up. OH BROTHER!!!! Give me a break. Boogie Woogie?? You must be from the old school, because nobody talks like that anymore. I guess this is how they speak on the "farm"?

DMK
06-11-2004, 04:42 PM
Wow, is this the best that one from the show me state can muster up. OH BROTHER!!!! Give me a break. Boogie Woogie?? You must be from the old school, because nobody talks like that anymore. I guess this is how they speak on the "farm"?

Not "Boogie Woogie"... as Mr Peabody pointed out, it's "Boodgie Woodgie" with a soft rather than a hard G. But, Mr Peabody, it's Long John BALDRY. As the story goes, he was from England (actually, that's not a story - that's true! the STORY is...) and read the words "boogie woogie" and mispronounced them. It stuck. The quote is accurate and once graced a poster of a past president, although I've forgotten which one. Carter, I think.

Sorry, nothing really to do with the topic at hand but what a voice Long John had! P.S I think they still speak like that "on the farm"... Parchman Farm, that is!

I apologize for the intrusion... and now, back to the battle. Carry on, gents! :)

Mr Peabody
06-11-2004, 10:08 PM
Terry, your not inscenuating we aren't friends are you? I'm hurt.

I can't say I have read all your posts, nor would I want to read them, but every single one I have read, and there have been many, you are always condecending and you try to put yourself on some pedestal. You are full of hot air. I love the way you dissect each of my posts and try to twist my words, then want to pretend you are innocent. Like when you take what I said about not knowing about the recording industry and deliberately leave off the word "industry" to make it look like I was lieing about having done thousands of recordings. I have done thousands of recordings, the majority of which have been source to source. Even with that one has to set record levels and do some experimenting to find what level yields the best result.

You are trying so hard to live up to "the Terrible" that you loose focus of the theme of the discussion. Your purpose is to try to make others look bad and tear them down in order to make yourself look good or to cover up the BS you spread. I have always found you extremely irratating and for a long while have been able to avoid us being on the same discussion. Your like that uncle everyone has but no one likes because whatever the discussion is you always done it too and better than everybody else. My fault is responding to you in the first place. It was you, who addressed me personally on this discussion. I said nothing to you until then. So you should save your tongue spanking or wagging for those who put up with it.

I believe you could brush up on your reading comprehension yourself. The language you refer to me using, if you notice, that was a quote. Not that I would be ashamed of saying it myself. I can tell that reference went right over your head.

If you are such a hot shot in the recording industry for 20 years, indulge me with some name dropping. Who have you recorded we may have heard of? Can we see your name on an album sleeve somewhere?

When doing these elaborate sound installs where you use an architect an such, do you carry any lines of equipment or do you buy from a distributor? Whose equipment do you carry or prefer to use? I've designed a couple of systems when I was in the biz maybe we can find some common ground to discuss. I never had to use an architect. Mine were only systems for athletic clubs, schools and the like. C'mon Eddie, be a sport.

WmAx
06-11-2004, 10:31 PM
Mr. Peabody and Sir Terrence The Terrible...

Would it be possible to cease this 'fight', since it has deteriated into something(essentially a personal conflict, in my perspective) that has little to no relevance to the actual topic of the thread?

Thank you.

-Chris



Terry, your not inscenuating we aren't friends are you? I'm hurt.

I can't say I have read all your posts, nor would I want to read them, but every single one I have read, and there have been many, you are always condecending and you try to put yourself on some pedestal. You are full of hot air. I love the way you dissect each of my posts and try to twist my words, then want to pretend you are innocent. Like when you take what I said about not knowing about the recording industry and deliberately leave off the word "industry" to make it look like I was lieing about having done thousands of recordings. I have done thousands of recordings, the majority of which have been source to source. Even with that one has to set record levels and do some experimenting to find what level yields the best result.

You are trying so hard to live up to "the Terrible" that you loose focus of the theme of the discussion. Your purpose is to try to make others look bad and tear them down in order to make yourself look good or to cover up the BS you spread. I have always found you extremely irratating and for a long while have been able to avoid us being on the same discussion. Your like that uncle everyone has but no one likes because whatever the discussion is you always done it too and better than everybody else. My fault is responding to you in the first place. It was you, who addressed me personally on this discussion. I said nothing to you until then. So you should save your tongue spanking or wagging for those who put up with it.

I believe you could brush up on your reading comprehension yourself. The language you refer to me using, if you notice, that was a quote. Not that I would be ashamed of saying it myself. I can tell that reference went right over your head.

If you are such a hot shot in the recording industry for 20 years, indulge me with some name dropping. Who have you recorded we may have heard of? Can we see your name on an album sleeve somewhere?

When doing these elaborate sound installs where you use an architect an such, do you carry any lines of equipment or do you buy from a distributor? Whose equipment do you carry or prefer to use? I've designed a couple of systems when I was in the biz maybe we can find some common ground to discuss. I never had to use an architect. Mine were only systems for athletic clubs, schools and the like. C'mon Eddie, be a sport.

Mr Peabody
06-11-2004, 10:48 PM
I have always heard him called Long John but when I finally put my hands on a copy of the album I surprised not to see Long on the cover. It just shows John Baldry. Is Long perhaps added on later albums?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-14-2004, 09:36 AM
Terry, your not inscenuating we aren't friends are you? I'm hurt.

Well, since my friends KNOW what I do for a living, they wouldn't make the assumptions, or even attempt to question the replies that I give them regarding audio. You doubt makes us not friends, so your pain is self inflicted.


I can't say I have read all your posts, nor would I want to read them, but every single one I have read, and there have been many, you are always condecending and you try to put yourself on some pedestal.

When you know your stuff, people usually make this statement. Those who know me on this board(as opposed to those who THINK they know me) know this is not true. This is a true fall back statement and has been used by many people who think they know about audio, but the reality is the exact opposite. When someone corrects you, then you say that person is being condescending. So many have tried to spin this in this fashion that it is old, used up, and holds no validity.


You are full of hot air.

Another typical statement(isn't there anybody who is original around here??)


I love the way you dissect each of my posts and try to twist my words, then want to pretend you are innocent.

Your words are not twisted at all, and I never claimed I was innocent. That is your claim. This "I am innocent and you attacked" me stuff is completely disengenous, and it makes you sound weak. Buck up, and chin up old chap, this is VERY uncomely.


Like when you take what I said about not knowing about the recording industry and deliberately leave off the word "industry" to make it look like I was lieing about having done thousands of recordings.

You are lying. Anyone who has done "thousands" of recordings, should not be surprised, or outraged at the practice of recording hot, and using compression. This should be a yawner, as the practice has been going on for years now. The amount of "blather" you have spouted regarding this practice, and calling into question Michael Bishop response shows that you haven't the faintest idea about the process of recording and mastering audio for broadcast or general release. Not only is Michael answer correct, but that answer will be consistant from mastering engineer to mastering engineer. Some don't mind the practice because it is giving the clients what they ask for, and other hate the practice and trying and talk to client out of it.


I have done thousands of recordings, the majority of which have been source to source. Even with that one has to set record levels and do some experimenting to find what level yields the best result.

Recording levels, and mastering levels are VERY different. The complaint that Chris has is with the mastering levels, not the recording levels. Jeeze, you have done thousands of recordings, you should know this.


You are trying so hard to live up to "the Terrible" that you loose focus of the theme of the discussion.

Terrible, I love that.... Thanks Doc Greene for the name!! Well since you took this to the personal level, I think it was you that pulled this off the theme of the discussion.


Your purpose is to try to make others look bad and tear them down in order to make yourself look good or to cover up the BS you spread.

First of all, when non knowledgeable people challenge knowledgeable people, they tear themselves down. When they keep arguing, and changing the subject(spinning) it tears them down further. I don't tear people down there no need to(and its not my style), I get them to keep posting by stating facts(which are verifiable and I have provided links). The very fact that they continue to argue, and 99% of the time change the subject to hide their apparent lack of knowledge allows them to make a fool of themselves. Keep them talking, the more foolish they look, much like you are doing here. Don't blame me for you looking foolish in this subject. Blame yourself for having a online ego so big, that it won't allow you to shut up. Once again I have challenged you to verify what I have stated. If you don't do it, you should just shut up as you have no arguement.


I have always found you extremely irratating and for a long while have been able to avoid us being on the same discussion.

Very strange that you couldn't keep up that trend. It would have probably saved you from appearing so....well....dumb.


Your like that uncle everyone has but no one likes because whatever the discussion is you always done it too and better than everybody else.

Gee thanks. Well unlike yourself I don't talk about things I don't know about. You could stand to learn this lesson yourself.


My fault is responding to you in the first place.

No, that was not your fault. Your fault is trying to respond to a topic that you have no knowledge of. Your fault was for lying and saying that you have done thousands of recordings, but yet do not a common practice that is mention in Chris intial post. Responding to me is not a fault in and of itself.


It was you, who addressed me personally on this discussion. I said nothing to you until then. So you should save your tongue spanking or wagging for those who put up with it.

Actually I was addressing your non factual(and silly sounding rant, but if you want to make that personal, there's not much I can do about it. You had to have said something, or I would not have had anything to respond to. Isn't that much like common sense?


I believe you could brush up on your reading comprehension yourself. The language you refer to me using, if you notice, that was a quote. Not that I would be ashamed of saying it myself. I can tell that reference went right over your head.

Well since I am not a farm type dude, then its understandable that such "colorful" language would go over my head. I noticed it was a quote when I saw it, but I was somewhat amused that someone would actually use that in the 21st century.


If you are such a hot shot in the recording industry for 20 years, indulge me with some name dropping. Who have you recorded we may have heard of? Can we see your name on an album sleeve somewhere?

This has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. This is just ANOTHER attempt to spin away from the issue, and personalize it. I am not now, or ever going to take this stupid kind of bait. Did you notice I never one time ask for your name, or the titles of the thousands(eh) of recordings that you have made? It's irrelevant, and Stevie Wonder could see that!


When doing these elaborate sound installs where you use an architect an such, do you carry any lines of equipment or do you buy from a distributor? Whose equipment do you carry or prefer to use? I've designed a couple of systems when I was in the biz maybe we can find some common ground to discuss. I never had to use an architect. Mine were only systems for athletic clubs, schools and the like. C'mon Eddie, be a sport.


Who is Eddie may I ask? I haven't been a "sport" since I was 9 y/o. I wouldn't mind at all discussing all of this information with you. But this thread is not the place. Pehaps you could start a thread in the hometheater section, and I'll be glad to participate. This thread concerns hot mastering levels, and out of respect for Chris, we should stay on topic as we have already venture well out of it as it is.

kingdaddykeith
06-14-2004, 01:09 PM
"You must have misunderstood the original post. the issue is not that CD has insufficient dynamic range whereas SACD does not. The issue is that the CD recording is degraded below the CD specs, distorted, clipped on purpose, not because of the limits of CD".

Wish I knew how to do quots..


Thatís what I got out of it, and I agree to a cretin extent. Although I might be wrong, It has been my understanding that limiting has been going on from the vinyl days, even LP's were compressed because they were used as masters to cut cassette and 8-track tapes from, and they had playback range issues. Also just like recording you own cassette, you want to get as close to saturation as possible, if you donít or you have a very dynamic source, then the recording level is so low that an unacceptable noise floor is introduced, and on mid-fi playback gear this is annoyingly noticeable. At least thatís my take on those two subjects.

Very interesting reply from Telarc though.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-14-2004, 01:51 PM
"You must have misunderstood the original post. the issue is not that CD has insufficient dynamic range whereas SACD does not. The issue is that the CD recording is degraded below the CD specs, distorted, clipped on purpose, not because of the limits of CD".

Wish I knew how to do quots..


Thatís what I got out of it, and I agree to a cretin extent. Although I might be wrong, It has been my understanding that limiting has been going on from the vinyl days, even LP's were compressed because they were used as masters to cut cassette and 8-track tapes from, and they had playback range issues. Also just like recording you own cassette, you want to get as close to saturation as possible, if you donít or you have a very dynamic source, then the recording level is so low that an unacceptable noise floor is introduced, and on mid-fi playback gear this is annoyingly noticeable. At least thatís my take on those two subjects.

Very interesting reply from Telarc though.

Now can someone, anyone explain to me why this man can get it(who makes no claims to be an audio engineer), but the one who has done thousands of recording can't. I guess this is one of lifes mysteries.

Mr Peabody
06-14-2004, 05:27 PM
I spoke with the Programming Asst. of our album rock station here and he says when they went to computer they subscribed to a programming service called Scott's Service, as I suggested, and even when they add new songs they don't just record from CD, as Terrence tried to tell us, they use a ripping program to save time. This is a 100,000 watt major market station www.kshe95.com.

Uh, Terry, mastering levels aren't for recording? Don't have anything to do with recording? Interesting.

Mr Peabody
06-14-2004, 05:45 PM
The computer service I referred to is Scott's Studios. When a station subscribes they receive a library for their particular format. Now I know why variety in radio has gone down the toilet. Radio ain't what it used to be. I wonder what the Wolfman would say. What if we could tell the computer store what genre we like and music would come on our home computer like Windows. Actually, I was in Best Buy and they were trying to sign people up for a computer service that allowed you access to 30,000 albums for a monthly fee. I also notice that receivers are now coming with computer inputs. I saw the new Onkyo's have some type of computer interface. I guess to somehow remotely tie this back into the theme, are those of us who care about quality a very small majority? And when push comes to shove, will convenience win over sound quality? And why would a recording studio worry about compression when a song will be compressed to the max to be stored on a radio station computer anyway?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-14-2004, 07:16 PM
I spoke with the Programming Asst. of our album rock station here and he says when they went to computer they subscribed to a programming service called Scott's Service, as I suggested, and even when they add new songs they don't just record from CD, as Terrence tried to tell us, they use a ripping program to save time. This is a 100,000 watt major market station www.kshe95.com.

Uh, Terry, mastering levels aren't for recording? Don't have anything to do with recording? Interesting.


Mr. Peabody, you record your audio, get levels correct, finalize the mix, and send it to a mastering engineer for final tweaking. That is the process. You don't just record, mix, and send it out for duplication and only idiots believe that. The recording levels(or raw mix) may have a different level than the final mastered mix. Read this article:

http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=31/

And no, mastering levels are not for recording, its a completely different process. Damn, did you say you have recorded before, and you have no idea of the process. Keep talking, this picture is becoming more clear for everyone to see. Just keep talking

Mr Peabody, what do you think they ripped them from? An air sandwich. You asked one station out of 10,000, get this one answer, and you think you have made a point? You are only fooling yourself sir. And the service, where do you think they get their music from? Carrier pegion? No, a stork drops it right into the service, optimized, and ready to go. RIGHT!!! If you think I am BS'ing read these threads.

http://www.berkleemusic.com/discuss/message?message_id=180308&forum_id=13331

http://www.mindspring.com/~mrichter/dynamics/dynamics.htm

http://www.broadcastpapers.com/radio/OmniaWhatHappens01.htm

http://www.proaudiorx.com/dynamicrange.htm

No matter what the local radio station uses, the originating source was the CD, or there would not be a loudness war. I cannot believe that you cannot see the logic of this, well maybe I can.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-14-2004, 07:24 PM
The computer service I referred to is Scott's Studios. When a station subscribes they receive a library for their particular format. Now I know why variety in radio has gone down the toilet. Radio ain't what it used to be. I wonder what the Wolfman would say. What if we could tell the computer store what genre we like and music would come on our home computer like Windows. Actually, I was in Best Buy and they were trying to sign people up for a computer service that allowed you access to 30,000 albums for a monthly fee. I also notice that receivers are now coming with computer inputs. I saw the new Onkyo's have some type of computer interface. I guess to somehow remotely tie this back into the theme, are those of us who care about quality a very small majority? And when push comes to shove, will convenience win over sound quality? And why would a recording studio worry about compression when a song will be compressed to the max to be stored on a radio station computer anyway?

Were does Scott studio get their music from? How is it delivered? How do they build their libraries?

The answer is they come from CD's. These CD's are ripped, compiled by genre by places like Scotts Studio(so the radio station does not have to do it) and have their services purchased by radio station. In the final analysis, the originating carrier of the music was the CD.

So the bottom line is that you still do not know what you are speaking of, however you are still talking and continuing to make a fool of yourself.

Geeze Mr. Peabody, you are making this too easy. Just keep posting, your ignorance of this subject matter becomes more revealing with every post. I certainly hope the board is reading this.

Mr Peabody
06-14-2004, 08:09 PM
Well, Terry, there really aren't too many "local" radio stations anymore. They are all being sucked up by multi-media corporations. So try as you will, K-SHE is a substantially large market station and owned by a corporation who owns most of the stations in St. Louis and others across the U.S. Also, Scott's wouldn't be in business very long if stations weren't using them.

Whether it's the original recording, remastering or duplicating if the level goes to high, damage is done.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-15-2004, 11:01 AM
Well, Terry, there really aren't too many "local" radio stations anymore. They are all being sucked up by multi-media corporations. So try as you will, K-SHE is a substantially large market station and owned by a corporation who owns most of the stations in St. Louis and others across the U.S. Also, Scott's wouldn't be in business very long if stations weren't using them.

Whether it's the original recording, remastering or duplicating if the level goes to high, damage is done.

It doesn't make any difference whether the station is owned by a person, or a corporation, it doesn't matter if the station rips the music themselves, or subscribes to a service, they get their media via the CD. So try as YOU WILL to deny that, but I gave you evidence that says as much.

As you run out of ways to scurry around the issue, it appears that you have less and less to say. So you are now running to micro information, micro detail, or skirting some issues all together.

High levels DO NOT necessarily mean there is damage. Excessively loud levels where peak transients go over 0db reference are damaging. A good mastering engineer will analyze a complete song, determine the loudest peak, and reduce the overall level so that the loudest peak registers just under 0db reference. This is an especially common practice with material that is not very dynamic.

It's really not good to make blanket statements like"once the level goes up, the damage is done". It takes a little more than high levels to damage the signal.

mtrycraft
06-15-2004, 08:30 PM
You have patience of job? Correcting all his errors Great job.

Steve1000
06-21-2004, 05:58 PM
This is my first post here. I've been lurking and like it here a lot. However, as far as the technical expertise displayed by many of the regulars, I am way over my head.

I would like to see an analysis of the merits of the question posed below (by the original poster in this thread). I'm not really competent to answer. But my belief is this -- that for two-channel music, SACD has no audible advantage over CD, given that the mastering for both media is given proper attention and the playback equipment is maybe in the solid-performing $150 range or better.

Am I right? Am I wrong? WHY?


SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

The point of this post is to question if the proclomations of people claiming SACD is audibly superior to CD format, even when both are used in 2 channel mode, have any validitiy.

Let's consider the following points:

(1) I can not find a scientific research project demonstrating audibly benefits to humans of a wider bandwidth then CD offers.

(2) I can not find definitive research of SACD vs CD releases, to find alternative explanations.

(3) I can not find reason for larger then 16 bit wordlength for audio playback, especially when properly dithered, which can effectively remove the quantitazation noise and allow the theoretical limit of CD of 96dB to be approached and/or met.

-Chris

Woochifer
06-21-2004, 07:13 PM
This is my first post here. I've been lurking and like it here a lot. However, as far as the technical expertise displayed by many of the regulars, I am way over my head.

I would like to see an analysis of the merits of the question posed below (by the original poster in this thread). I'm not really competent to answer. But my belief is this -- that for two-channel music, SACD has no audible advantage over CD, given that the mastering for both media is given proper attention and the playback equipment is maybe in the solid-performing $150 range or better.

Am I right? Am I wrong? WHY?

You're welcome to believe whatever you want. If you have a belief, then test it by doing your own comparisons. If you level match it, and apply some kind of bias control, then you'll have your own answer.

The thing is that there are plenty of CDs still sitting around music store bins that were not done correctly in the first place. Your assumption regarding proper mastering for both media is a huge leap of faith. My only exposure thus far to high res digital audio is classic records' 96/24 audio discs, which are playable through any DVD player. The quality of the playback through those discs is a clear cut improvement over the CD versions, including "remastered" versions. Whether or not it's generalizable to SACD or DVD-A can only be answered when I get around to getting a universal player. But, based on my own sample, I certainly would not rule out higher resolution as a causal effect for the improveed sound quality that I heard.

WmAx
06-21-2004, 08:07 PM
Whether or not it's generalizable to SACD or DVD-A can only be answered when I get around to getting a universal player. But, based on my own sample, I certainly would not rule out higher resolution as a causal effect for the improveed sound quality that I heard.
Transmission of a bandwidth not proven to be audible in a controlled test should not be ruled out as a casual effect for the improved sound quality that you heard? Perhaps, I don't like to 'absolutely' rule anything 'out'. However, I don't see it as logical to presume that a larger bandwidth, in itself, is enhancing the audible data appreciably. Failure to achieve positive results in controlled tests does not lend support to the idea.

-Chris

Steve1000
06-22-2004, 04:49 AM
I'm certianly not going to buy into "hi-res" audio if it is inherently no better for two-channel music than CD "low-res" [??] audio. I won't buy into the new format simply because they are paying better attention to the mastering with the new format. A LOT of people join me in this sentiment. If this is what the recording companies are doing, "hi-res" is toast, IMHO.

I have a VERY rudimentary understanding of these things. As I understand it, CDs are sampled at 44.1 khz, so that the frequency response maxes out at about 22 khz, which is well in excess of the hearing of the vast majority of the human population, though dogs may be able to appreciate it.

I'm not going to be running double-blind of ABX tests between SACD and CD disks listening for audible consequences of 23 khz info in this lifetime. Life's too short, I'm not going to spend my money on such silliness if there's no support for it in theory, and I have too little expertise. If I am persuaded that CDs should have the same two-channel audio quailty as SACDs, DVD audio, etc., I'm not gonna bite for the "high-res" stuff, as a matter of principle. That' why I'm asking.

The vast majority of households, including mine, have no interest whatsoever in anything more than highly euphonic two-channel sound or in trying to hear what little information is conveyed above 22 khz.

I am quite willing to alter my views, but not based on the thin reed of purely subjective assertions.


You're welcome to believe whatever you want. If you have a belief, then test it by doing your own comparisons. If you level match it, and apply some kind of bias control, then you'll have your own answer.

The thing is that there are plenty of CDs still sitting around music store bins that were not done correctly in the first place. Your assumption regarding proper mastering for both media is a huge leap of faith. My only exposure thus far to high res digital audio is classic records' 96/24 audio discs, which are playable through any DVD player. The quality of the playback through those discs is a clear cut improvement over the CD versions, including "remastered" versions. Whether or not it's generalizable to SACD or DVD-A can only be answered when I get around to getting a universal player. But, based on my own sample, I certainly would not rule out higher resolution as a causal effect for the improveed sound quality that I heard.

kingdaddykeith
06-22-2004, 10:10 AM
I did a test with my TA-E/TA-P9KES combo a few years back between the SACDís DSD (untouched analog) version against the same layer down-mixed to 48/16 PCM. This particular combo allowed for easy level matching (2 separate volume controls) and lightning fast switching since I wasnít changing layers, I was just switching in or out the TA-E pre/processor (Bypass mode). My results using a SACD 2-ch recording was that there was absolutely no audible difference in my setup with my ears, I wanted to hear a difference, but I just couldnít, and the switching could be done so that I could not tell which version I was listening to.

This test which I have posted about over at Audio Asylum Hi-Rez forum made a lot of people very angry over there, WmAx can attest to that, I believe he posted one of the few level headed responses.

However, there is something about the technology that should give better dynamic range and allow for higher peaks and less compression if done properly, so I believe that there is some hope for this or similar recordings. So far with my collection of about 15 SACDís I am of the opinion that the best thing, or maybe the only thing that makes SACD sound any better is the re-mastered recording which is usually better then the older Redbook version. In addition, the Multi-Track recording are IMO much better then the 2 ch, so there is some good from these new Hi-Rez formats, but like all formats it is very dependant on the mix and mastering.

In truth I only like about 1 in 3 of my SACDís, the rest are either the same or worse then their original masters, but some are just outstanding, like Goodbye Yellow brick Road, Toys in the Attic and Avalon. All the 2-ch mixes Iíve heard so far are terrible, very shrill on the top end, and with no ability to adjust the tone or equalize, I just canít stand to listen more then a few minutes, which is perfect for demo only.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-22-2004, 11:14 AM
Transmission of a bandwidth not proven to be audible in a controlled test should not be ruled out as a casual effect for the improved sound quality that you heard? Perhaps, I don't like to 'absolutely' rule anything 'out'. However, I don't see it as logical to presume that a larger bandwidth, in itself, is enhancing the audible data appreciably. Failure to achieve positive results in controlled tests does not lend support to the idea.

-Chris

Chris,

You seemed VERY locked in to bandwith as a higher sampling rate benefit. That is not a higher sampling rates true benefit. The true benefit of using a higher sampling rate comes from more in band sampling of the voltage of analog waveform. The more times you sample the waveform, the more precise the imaging, the better the tonal quality, and the higher the resolution of the audible signal.

The higher up in sampling frequency you go, the more these things improve up until a point Read;

http://www.digitalproducer.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=7408

Also read what Bob Stuart of Meridan Audio says about higher sampling rates.

http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Coding2.PDF

IMO, and already documented, there is absolutely no reason to record(or any need for)at 192khz sampling rate. Some very odd things happen to the bass response at that sample rate. Bass appears thin and out of time to these ears, and have been noted and documented. Read this

http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/papers/effects.pdf

So while the higher bandwith is an argueable point, getting more samples really isn't amoung the engineering community. Keep in mind, tests concerning the audiblity of high frequency information above human hearing are still inconclusive. So the perceived effects of higher frequencies on the listening experience have not been determined, and therefore CANNOT be ruled out.

WmAx
06-22-2004, 11:56 AM
The true benefit of using a higher sampling rate comes from more in band sampling of the voltage of analog waveform. The more times you sample the waveform, the more precise the imaging, the better the tonal quality, and the higher the resolution of the audible signal.All undeniably true if you remove the word audible from the end of this statement. You state this as if it's proven fact, and I am not aware of any research coming to this conclusion as far as audibility is concerned.



The higher up in sampling frequency you go, the more these things improve up until a point Read;

http://www.digitalproducer.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=7408
Certainly it improves accuracy. Audibly with normal music playback? I don't see subtantial evidence of this.


Keep in mind, tests concerning the audiblity of high frequency information above human hearing are still inconclusiveThat is the issue So far, the respected controlled tests/references on this subject have not been able to achieve a positive result.



So the perceived effects of higher frequencies on the listening experience have not been determined, and therefore CANNOT be ruled out
I did not state the contrary. I stated exactly this sediment, but I also stated that it is not logical to attribute the things 'credited' to hi-rez playback since their is no strong evidence that suggests that this should be the case. Until a peer-reviewed, scrutinized, valid audiblity test has been performed that achieves positive statistical signficance, then it can not be accepted as fact.

-Chris

Woochifer
06-22-2004, 12:13 PM
Transmission of a bandwidth not proven to be audible in a controlled test should not be ruled out as a casual effect for the improved sound quality that you heard? Perhaps, I don't like to 'absolutely' rule anything 'out'. However, I don't see it as logical to presume that a larger bandwidth, in itself, is enhancing the audible data appreciably. Failure to achieve positive results in controlled tests does not lend support to the idea.

-Chris

How's it not logical? I'm basically pointing out a variable that's not accounted for. I don't have the mechanisms or access to source material to prove that any other factor is a more valid causal link than another, and neither do you. I know that the bandwidth is one of the variables, so therefore it has to remain on the table as potential causal factor until it is demonstrated to me that some other variable is more responsible for what I observed.

You cite the need for controlled tests. Fine. Bring over the original master tapes and we can set the blind controlled listenings anywhere you want. If the CD, 96/24 disc, and original master are all transparent to one another under those conditions, then we have the answer. Otherwise, you are making a conclusion in the absence of proof as well by trying to rule out the bandwidth as a causal factor without knowing anything else about the source material.

Monstrous Mike
06-22-2004, 12:13 PM
The higher up in sampling frequency you go, the more these things improve up until a point Read;

http://www.digitalproducer.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=7408
Ok, I read that article and I have extracted the following quote:

<i>"It’s been determined that time delay differences of 15 microseconds between left and right ears are easily discernible by nearly anyone. That’s less than the time difference between two samples at 48kHz (about 20 microseconds). Using a single pulse, one microsecond in length as a source, some listeners can perceive time delay differences of as little as five microseconds between left and right. It is therefore, indicated that, in order to provide a system with exact accuracy concerning imaging and positioning, the individual samples should be less than five microseconds apart. At 96kHz (a popularly preferred sample rate) there is a 10.417-microsecond space between samples. At 192kHz sample rate there is a 5.208-microsecond space between samples. This reasoning suggests that a sample rate of 192kHz is probably a good choice. As processors increase in speed and efficiency and as storage capacity expands high sample rates, long word length will become an insignificant concern and we’ll be able to focus on the next audio catastrophe. </i>

I'm having some trouble understanding the above. The author is talking about time delay differences between the left and right ear and this might refer to sound coming from the left and right speakers which left the speaker a different times or sound coming from one speaker but the listener's ears are not the same distance (i.e. head turned) from that speaker. I believe this allows the listener to determine the direction the sound is coming from.

However, for the life of me, I cannot see how the has anything to with the sampling frequency of the digital audio signal. Do you have any ideas?

WmAx
06-22-2004, 01:55 PM
[QUOTE=Monstrous Mike]Ok, I read that article and I have extracted the following quote:

"Itís been determined that time delay differences of 15 microseconds between left and right ears are easily discernible by nearly anyone. Thatís less than the time difference between two samples at 48kHz (about 20 microseconds). Using a single pulse, one microsecond in length as a source, some listeners can perceive time delay differences of as little as five microseconds between left and right. It is therefore, indicated that, in order to provide a system with exact accuracy concerning imaging and positioning, the individual samples should be less than five microseconds apart. At 96kHz (a popularly preferred sample rate) there is a 10.417-microsecond space between samples. At 192kHz sample rate there is a 5.208-microsecond space between samples.

I'm having some trouble understanding the above. The author is talking about time delay differences between the left and right ear and this might refer to sound coming from the left and right speakers which left the speaker a different times or sound coming from one speaker but the listener's ears are not the same distance (i.e. head turned) from that speaker. I believe this allows the listener to determine the direction the sound is coming from.
This sounds like reference to Nordmark research(1.5us) and another research study. These studies found that humans can detect very slight time differences between channels under special conditinos. These conditinos were (5us) impulses and (1.5us) assymetricaly jittered pulses between two channels. These have not shown to be relevant to music that I am aware. As far as general bandwidth, in testing, humans are more sensitive to test tones in special test signals as opposed to music, also. The same goes for audibility of phase, polarity, distortions,e tc. The relevance to music playback is not clear.



However, for the life of me, I cannot see how the has anything to with the sampling frequency of the digital audio signal. Do you have any ideas?
Sampling frequency(bandwidth) dictates the precison of sampling an amplitude in a given space of time. While in a simple analysis, the bandwidth of 20kHz is adequte to adress raw bandwidth sensitivy, in order to replicate the test tone circumstance times suggested(5us, etc.), a far higher bandwidth would be requrined in order to record/playback. For example, if y ou have an acoustic event that contains only audible data(<20kHz), this still does not account for the potential tiny time dealy differences between channels(ears) that will occur since each ear is a discrete sensor essentially. Apparently, the interchannel time sensitivity of human ears is far higher then the raw bandwidth detectability. For a simplistic model, imagine 2 microphones(let's pretend it has a 200khz bandwidth for this discussion) imagine a sound source, of the same spectral content that is within 20khz bandwidth, one mike is placed 2mm farther away then the other. Obviously, it woudl require a 170kHz bandwidth to accurately record and play back this difference betweeen the two sources. Your ears apparently have this type of effect. Just remember that this been demonstrated to be readily audible with special test tones, not music.

-Chris

WmAx
06-22-2004, 02:14 PM
I don't have the mechanisms or access to source material to prove that any other factor is a more valid causal link than another, and neither do you. I know that the bandwidth is one of the variables, so therefore it has to remain on the table as potential causal factor until it is demonstrated to me that some other variable is more responsible for what I observed. It has not been demonstrated to be important. Their have been careful studies to attempt to confirm, but none that stood up to scrutiny have demonstrated positive results.

Which Bandwidth Is Necesarry for Optimal Sound Transmission?
G. Plenge, H. Jakubowski, P. Schone, JAES, 1978

Perceptual Discrimination between Musical Sounds with and without Very High Frequency Components
JAES, Preprint 5876, Convention 115, 2003
Toshiyuki Nishiguchi, Kimio Hamasaki, Masakazu Iwaki, and Akio Ando



Otherwise, you are making a conclusion in the absence of proof as well by trying to rule out the bandwidth as a causal factor without knowing anything else about the source material.
Read the above papers.

As far as conclusion without proof? No. I CAN NOT conclude that your claim has any signfigance. Data does not suggest this conclusion. You would have me assume things are true before such has been proven?

-Chris

Woochifer
06-22-2004, 02:52 PM
It has not been demonstrated to be important. Their have been careful studies to attempt to confirm, but none that stood up to scrutiny have demonstrated positive results.

If the 44.1/16 bandwidth is sufficient to cover all audible phenomena, then why is it that this bandwidth has never been the standard used by professional sound engineers and mixers with original recordings and during the mixing process?


As far as conclusion without proof? No. I CAN NOT conclude that your claim has any signfigance. Data does not suggest this conclusion. You would have me assume things are true before such has been proven?

And I never suggested a conclusion. I'm pointing out that I've not ruled out any causal factors and have insufficient information to reach a conclusion. However you want to preclude variables without knowing anything about the source material is entirely your prerogative.

kingdaddykeith
06-22-2004, 03:05 PM
If the 44.1/16 bandwidth is sufficient to cover all audible phenomena, then why is it that this bandwidth has never been the standard used by professional sound engineers and mixers with original recordings and during the mixing process? .

It's always been my understanding that it is more of a headroom issue, the higher sampling rates allows for more headroom so the recording level can be hotter, which lowers the noise floor.

WmAx
06-22-2004, 03:09 PM
If the 44.1/16 bandwidth is sufficient to cover all audible phenomena, then why is it that this bandwidth has never been the standard used by professional sound engineers and mixers with original recordings and during the mixing process? The optimal parameters for playback do not necsarrily translate into the optimal parameters for flexible/versatile attributes for recording/format change, etc.

JAES, July/August 1978, Volume 26, Number 7/8, Page 562

Here is the relevant quote:



In the discussions of standards relative to digital audio to date we feel that the needs of broadcasting organizations have been little mentioned, and we would like to make a few points.
In Europe a standard sampling rate of 32kHz +/- 50 parts per million, giving an audio bandwidth of 15kHz, has been agreed within the EBU for use by broadcasters. As commercial applications assume a bandwidth of about 20Khz, and hence sampling rates from 40-60 kHz, it is probable that broadcasters who will need to interface between these standards will do so by means of a digital rate-changing filter, so avoiding D/A and A/D conversion.
To make this rate-changing filter as simple as possible to instrument, it is desirable to choose certain sampling frequencies for the commercial recording application. These in order of merit are:

(1)_________48
(2)40 ______________56
(3) ___44 ________52 __60
(4) __42 _46 ___50

Each row of frequencies requires twice as many calculations in the filter as the previous one. For easy rate-changing of this kind, both the input and the output sampling rates should be locked, and so any choice of system-clock frequency should be integer related to 32kHz, as well as to the system sampling rate.
-Chris

WmAx
06-22-2004, 03:17 PM
It's always been my understanding that it is more of a headroom issue, the higher sampling rates allows for more headroom so the recording level can be hotter, which lowers the noise floor.Higher bitrate, indeed, allows or eaiser digital recording. It allows a an additional safeguard against improper level settings to the recorder causing clipping(slight improper seetings won't be a disaster later on), clipping due to extraordinary dynamic sources, as well as allowing for different dithering processes to be used when reduced to standard 16 bit depth.

-Chris

Woochifer
06-22-2004, 03:26 PM
I'm certianly not going to buy into "hi-res" audio if it is inherently no better for two-channel music than CD "low-res" [??] audio. I won't buy into the new format simply because they are paying better attention to the mastering with the new format. A LOT of people join me in this sentiment. If this is what the recording companies are doing, "hi-res" is toast, IMHO.

I have a VERY rudimentary understanding of these things. As I understand it, CDs are sampled at 44.1 khz, so that the frequency response maxes out at about 22 khz, which is well in excess of the hearing of the vast majority of the human population, though dogs may be able to appreciate it.

I'm not going to be running double-blind of ABX tests between SACD and CD disks listening for audible consequences of 23 khz info in this lifetime. Life's too short, I'm not going to spend my money on such silliness if there's no support for it in theory, and I have too little expertise. If I am persuaded that CDs should have the same two-channel audio quailty as SACDs, DVD audio, etc., I'm not gonna bite for the "high-res" stuff, as a matter of principle. That' why I'm asking.

The vast majority of households, including mine, have no interest whatsoever in anything more than highly euphonic two-channel sound or in trying to hear what little information is conveyed above 22 khz.

I am quite willing to alter my views, but not based on the thin reed of purely subjective assertions.

To me, it boils down to a very simple question. Do the high res discs improve upon the listening experience over what the CD versions offer?

So far, whether it's the audible improvements I've observed with two-channel material, or with the whole new dimension of 5.1 surround mixes, my answer is a definite yes. The 96/24 discs I've bought thus far are a clear cut improvement upon their CD counterparts, and what 5.1 surround music brings to the table is a whole new way to enjoy music. If this is typical of SACD and DVD-A, then I see no drawback to it whatsoever.

There are still plenty of poorly done CDs out there, and any chance to revisit these recordings and give them an improved transfer is welcome in my view. In addition, creating a 5.1 surround mix requires going back to the original multitrack master, which means that it's possible to obtain a higher resolution mixdown than a version that was originally done using analog recorders (and potentially degraded by going through successive iterations during the mixdown process on analog equipment). This would include the two-channel mixdown as well, if the artist chooses to have an album remixed at the higher resolution.

You're more than welcome to quibble about what the true causal effect is, or choose not to get into high res based on some personal principle. I don't have the answer on what the true causal effects are (and absent access to the original source material, nobody else does either), and frankly, I don't care. In the meantime, I'll just enjoy what these new versions offer with better sound quality and listening to familiar music in a new way. In my view, results count and what I've observed so far, the new high res discs have delivered.

Steve1000
06-22-2004, 03:43 PM
Fair enough! Your point of view is entirely reasonable, IMHO. Mine's just a little different. :)


You're more than welcome to quibble about what the true causal effect is, or choose not to get into high res based on some personal principle. I don't have the answer on what the true causal effects are (and absent access to the original source material, nobody else does either), and frankly, I don't care. In the meantime, I'll just enjoy what these new versions offer with better sound quality and listening to familiar music in a new way. In my view, results count and what I've observed so far, the new high res discs have delivered.

kingdaddykeith
06-22-2004, 04:05 PM
I'm starting to believe that a hi-Rez recording is better when down converted at the end of the chain. The DAD-A's and especially the SACDís that I've sampled are, well I hate to use the word grunge, but that what the higher frequencies sound like for the lack of a better word. Maybe itís some kind of artificial noise or something but it's not right to my ears. However when I buy a 24/96 DTS or DD 5.1 mix it sounds much more real and less fatiguing on the top and much fuller on the bottom then any of my SACDís.

I donít know if this is true but I've read, and was told by a Parasound engineer that the higher the sampling rate the more noise, and the reason most all (if not all) 24/96 input compatible processors down convert to 16/48 (even my Halo C2) is because of the lack of technology to either filter or negate this noise. It makes sense at the recording end to have the most resolution and headroom as possible, but the playback of this full resolution has yet to impress me.

Monstrous Mike
06-23-2004, 06:46 AM
If the 44.1/16 bandwidth is sufficient to cover all audible phenomena, then why is it that this bandwidth has never been the standard used by professional sound engineers and mixers with original recordings and during the mixing process?
When working with digital audio it is better to record and process the audio at higher sampling rates and bit lengths and then produce the master CD at 44.1/16. If an audio engineer kept his signal at 44.1/16 from microphone to master, the possibility of some losses and distortions being introduced are more likely than when handling the digital audio at the higher levels during processing, mixing, filtering, normalization, equalization, etc.

Monstrous Mike
06-23-2004, 06:57 AM
[QUOTE] Sampling frequency(bandwidth) dictates the precison of sampling an amplitude in a given space of time. While in a simple analysis, the bandwidth of 20kHz is adequte to adress raw bandwidth sensitivy, in order to replicate the test tone circumstance times suggested(5us, etc.), a far higher bandwidth would be requrined in order to record/playback. For example, if y ou have an acoustic event that contains only audible data(<20kHz), this still does not account for the potential tiny time dealy differences between channels(ears) that will occur since each ear is a discrete sensor essentially. Apparently, the interchannel time sensitivity of human ears is far higher then the raw bandwidth detectability. For a simplistic model, imagine 2 microphones(let's pretend it has a 200khz bandwidth for this discussion) imagine a sound source, of the same spectral content that is within 20khz bandwidth, one mike is placed 2mm farther away then the other. Obviously, it woudl require a 170kHz bandwidth to accurately record and play back this difference betweeen the two sources. Your ears apparently have this type of effect. Just remember that this been demonstrated to be readily audible with special test tones, not music.

-Chris
I really don't have any idea what you are explaining here.

The author of my previous quote is very clearly implying that a 96 kHz sampling rate is audibly better and a 192 kHz sampling rate is even better than that. And the implication is that the time distance between the samples can affect the imaging vis-a-vis a time delay.

I agree that a phenomenon called "interaural time delay" can be detected by humans and is used in conjunction with intensity differences to determine a direction for sound. But like I said I do not see how time delay is related in any way to bit sampling rate.

WmAx
06-23-2004, 07:44 AM
The author of my previous quote is very clearly implying that a 96 kHz sampling rate is audibly better and a 192 kHz sampling rate is even better than that. And the implication is that the time distance between the samples can affect the imaging vis-a-vis a time delay.I was not addressing the author, I was addressing the specific question/issue you presented about the interchannel time delays that he mentioned.



I agree that a phenomenon called "interaural time delay" can be detected by humans and is used in conjunction with intensity differences to determine a direction for sound. But like I said I do not see how time delay is related in any way to bit sampling rate.
I don't know what it has to do with bit sampling rate, either. BUt as for frequency sampling rate, how else would you propose to record/playback at a 5us or 1.5us accuracy with 44.1Khz? While the audible spectral informatin will be recorded with redbook format, the specific coordinates in time will be shifted into what can be stored in a 44.1kHz rate.

Here is an over-simplified illustration of my understanding of this phenomena and how it related to sampling frequency:

H=2mm(approx. 6us)(0dB)
UUUUUUUU=17mm(50us)(1 cycle 20khz sine wave)

Potential difference example:

170Khz bandwidth limited
L:
HHHHHUUUUUUUUHHHUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUHH
R:
HHHHUUUUUUUUHHHHUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUU

20kHz bandwidth limited
L:
HHHHHHHHUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUU
R:
HHHHHHHHUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUU

The higher bandiwdth can allow for the interchannel time difference to exist at finer resolution, as illustrated in the crude graphic above. While a 20kHz cycle is 50us in duration, the actual time at where this amplitude can actually originate is not limited. The 20kHz wavelength can begin at 200us or 204us or 201.3486 us, etc. Lower sampling rated reduces this possible difference relative the sampling rate limits.

If my understanding is wrong, please explain.

All of this and how it relates to audibility are a different issue.

-Chris

Monstrous Mike
06-23-2004, 10:31 AM
I don't know what it has to do with bit sampling rate, either. BUt as for frequency sampling rate, how else would you propose to record/playback at a 5us or 1.5us accuracy with 44.1Khz?

-Chris
I do not know what you mean by a 5 microsecond accuracy.

Let's look at this from another angle. Let's assume we have two signals which are identical but signal B is delayed by 5 microseconds. I presume this is what we are talking about. Now let's assume these signals are a 1kH sine wave with an amplitude of +/- 1 volt.

And I presume the premise is that a 44.1 kHz sampling rate will not be able to accurate capture this time delay. Using 48 kHz (which is close to 44.1) the time between each sample is 20 microseconds. Again the premise is that this long period between samples is not sufficient to capture the 5 microsecond delay. I guess that would seem obvious at first glance.

However we have our two identical 1 kHz sine waves where the second has started 5 microseconds behind the first. This represents a 1.8 degree phase shift. Therefore, sampling at 48 kHz (i.e. 20 microsecond intervals) yields this:

Digital Sample Number One

Time = 0 seconds
Signal A = sin (0 degrees) = 0
Signal B = sin (-1.8 degrees) = - 0.0314

Digital Sample Number Two

Time = 20 microseconds
Signal A = sin (7.2 degrees) = 0.126
Signal B = sin (5.4 degrees) = 0.0941

Digital Sample Number Three

Time = 40 microseconds
Signal A = sin (14.4 degrees) = 0.249
Signal B = sin (12.6 degrees) = 0.218
Digital Sample Number Four

Time = 60 microseconds
Signal A = sin (21.6 degrees) = 0.377
Signal B = sin (19.8 degrees) = 0.339
.
.

Digital Sample Number Ten
Time = 200 microseconds
Signal A = sin (72.0 degrees) = 0.951
Signal B = sin (70.2 degrees) = 0.941
.
.

Digital Sample Number Thirty
Time = 600 microseconds
Signal A = sin (216.0 degrees) = - 0.588
Signal B = sin (214.2 degrees) = - 0.562
.
. etc.

I think that clearly shows that a 5 microsecond delay is captured quite well with a 20 microsecond sampling interval. As a matter of fact, I think the number of bits representing those analog amplitude values have more of an affect on capturing the delay than the sampling rate does.

Further, using Nyquist's Theorum, the above will hold true for frequencies up to 24 kHz.

WmAx
06-23-2004, 11:35 AM
However we have our two identical 1 kHz sine waves where the second has started 5 microseconds behind the first. This represents a 1.8 degree phase shift. Therefore, sampling at 48 kHz (i.e. 20 microsecond intervals) yields this:

I think that clearly shows that a 5 microsecond delay is captured quite well with a 20 microsecond sampling interval.
Thank you for the correction. I simulated this after your explanation, and you are correct, that the time difference is indeed more accurate then the raw sampling frequency lead me to believe. Appears I was shortsighted - thinking of only the sample frequency. My error.

-Chris

kingdaddykeith
06-23-2004, 04:29 PM
I though someone would find this interesting, itís a recording engineers opinion of the compression problem with CD's. Didnít read it all so forgive the poor description.

http://georgegraham.com/compress.html

Feanor
06-23-2004, 04:31 PM
...Let's look at this from another angle. Let's assume we have two signals which are identical but signal B is delayed by 5 microseconds. I presume this is what we are talking about. Now let's assume these signals are a 1kH sine wave with an amplitude of +/- 1 volt.

...
I think that clearly shows that a 5 microsecond delay is captured quite well with a 20 microsecond sampling interval. As a matter of fact, I think the number of bits representing those analog amplitude values have more of an affect on capturing the delay than the sampling rate does.

Further, using Nyquist's Theorum, the above will hold true for frequencies up to 24 kHz.
Your example proves that 44.1KHz can distinguish two sine waves 5 us apart. But we don't listen to sine waves. Suppose there is a pair of complex wave forms where there are instantaneous spikes 5 us apart?

WmAx
06-23-2004, 05:22 PM
Your example proves that 44.1KHz can distinguish two sine waves 5 us apart. But we don't listen to sine waves. Suppose there is a pair of complex wave forms where there are instantaneous spikes 5 us apart?
Spikes? You mean 'impulses'? That's not something you find in music or nature. However, with nearly any natural sound, you can express the signals as a sum of sine waves. This extends to any symmterical waveform(as opposed to assymetrical which is only common in a synthetic environment(usually test signals)): square wave, triangle wave, etc. They are a result of many sine waves.

-Chris

Feanor
06-24-2004, 07:54 AM
Spikes? You mean 'impulses'? That's not something you find in music or nature. ...
... if not in music. Isn't true that supersonic events, (at least), cause impulses? These everts aren't all that uncommon, e.g. base ball hit by a bat, crack of a bull wip, gun shots, some explosions. No wonder these things never sound real except heard live!

Monstrous Mike
06-24-2004, 08:18 AM
Your example proves that 44.1KHz can distinguish two sine waves 5 us apart. But we don't listen to sine waves. Suppose there is a pair of complex wave forms where there are instantaneous spikes 5 us apart?
A spike of 5 us would certain be missed by a sampling interval of 20 us. However, that 5 us pulse would have frequency components in the 384 kHz range or greater and thus are not audible and cannot be reproduced by standard amplifiers or speakers. A sampling interval of 20 us represents a sampling rate of 48 kHz. According to Nyquist Theorem, that means it can only capture frequency components of 24 kHz or less. Spikes and other spurious noise over 24 kHz will not be captured.

So a 48 kHz sampling rate can capture frequencies with a period of 20 us or more and can also capture two signals which are offset by 5 us (assuming a large enough bit word length).

You are confusing time shifting with spectral content..

WmAx
06-24-2004, 09:19 AM
... if not in music. Isn't true that supersonic events, (at least), cause impulses? These everts aren't all that uncommon, e.g. base ball hit by a bat, crack of a bull wip, gun shots, some explosions. No wonder these things never sound real except heard live!The events you describe are composed of primarily symmetrical waveforms. Perhaps not perfect, but I don't know. An impulse is assymetrical. However, this is immaterial. It is possible for some speakers to reproduce assymetrical waveforms with great accuracy.

An assymetrical waveform is one that does not have inversely matching values in it's two 180 degree halves. These can be seperated and looked at as negative and positive sections of the waveform.

Here are two simplified illustrations, represent a waveform with symetry and the same waveform without.

Symmetrical Wave form

+ Pos
.......H..............
.....H...H...........
...H.......H......H.. 0 zero
.............H....H..
................H.....
- Neg


Assymetrical(extreme - for illustration)

+ Pos
......H...............
....H..H.............
..H......HHH....... 0 zero
........................
........................
-Neg

-Chris

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-24-2004, 04:00 PM
All undeniably true if you remove the word audible from the end of this statement. You state this as if it's proven fact, and I am not aware of any research coming to this conclusion as far as audibility is concerned.

Chris, it is not financially feasible for any engineer to sit around a wait for science to tell them what they already hear. It is well documented that engineers get better imaging from the use of higher sampling rates. It is well documented that engineers hear their mixes more clearly at higher sampling rates, so I don't think any intelligent engineer is going to sit around waiting for research on the issue.


Certainly it improves accuracy. Audibly with normal music playback? I don't see subtantial evidence of this.

What would constitute substantial to you? I mean considering that just about every studio in Los Angeles, New York, Memphis, and every other major city that has a large music community has migrated from 16/44.1khz to 24/96khz, I would call that VERY substantial. Someone had to have heard an audible improvement, or there would be nothing to justify the cost of the upgrade, which can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. So if you are looking for science to prove what many already know, then by all means do so, but that doesn't make good business sense to me.


That is the issue So far, the respected controlled tests/references on this subject have not been able to achieve a positive result.

They have not been able to acheive a negative result either. So it would be short sighted to discount it altogether.


did not state the contrary. I stated exactly this sediment, but I also stated that it is not logical to attribute the things 'credited' to hi-rez playback since their is no strong evidence that suggests that this should be the case. Until a peer-reviewed, scrutinized, valid audiblity test has been performed that achieves positive statistical signficance, then it can not be accepted as fact.

I disagree with your perspective entirely. In case you didn't know it, I (like many other engineers) sit down for many hours testing and listening to new equipment to decide whether it is worth my investment. I (like many engineers) have my own set of test that allow me to do this in a way that I can make an educated decision. It is not my job to become a scientist, conduct listening test to obtain a statistical measure just to justify my purchase. That is inefficient and unnecessary. After I am finish testing a piece of equipment, I know for a fact that my decision to purchase, or not is an educated one. I do not need DBT , and a peer review to make that decision for me. It is my feeling that most engineers feel this way.

(This is just my opinion) DBT, research and publishing for peer review is for the scientific community. That is not the job of a audio engineer. We only need one answer, does it sound better than my current equipment. According to polls taken at the Surround 2004 conference, about 86% of engineers polled believes that 24/96khz sounds better than 16/44.1khz. Is that scientific? No, but it leads me to believe that where there is smoke, there is fire.

I have taken this position and I am going to pretty much stick by it for now. I have done my own homework listening to various recordings I have done at various bit and sample rates. I have used several recorders during the same session set at various bit and sample rates so I can play them back and listen. I made my decision based on what I heard. If I heard no differences between 44.1, 48, and 96khz, I would have probably stuck with 44.1 since it required no investment. That however was not the case, and I invested in what I thought sounded the best.

Does the sample rate make a difference in sould quality? Definately. Why? I know it improves imaging, and the sound is cleaner and more distinct to the ear, but otherwise I don't know. Does bitrate matter? Only in recording and post production. I'll let the scientist figure the other crap out

mtrycraft
06-24-2004, 06:43 PM
Chris, it is not financially feasible for any engineer to sit around a wait for science to tell them what they already hear.


Or what they imagine to hear?
They should at least see what science has to say about it when that data is available.


It is well documented that engineers get better imaging from the use of higher sampling rates.

What kind of documents? Not all documents are created equal.


It is well documented that engineers hear their mixes more clearly at higher sampling rates,

Same as above.

o I don't think any intelligent engineer is going to sit around waiting for research on the issue.


But what will that intelligent engineer do when the data is in? Or, cannot be demonstrated? Ignore it?


I mean considering that just about every studio in Los Angeles, New York, Memphis, and every other major city that has a large music community has migrated from 16/44.1khz to 24/96khz, I would call that VERY substantial.


Substantial only by numbers. Doesn't mean much beyond that though. After all a huge number of people on the planet believe in the supreme being.

Someone had to have heard an audible improvement, or there would be nothing to justify the cost of the upgrade,


That is absolute nonsense. One only has to look at the high end audio, and audio cable industry in specific.
This is a trend driven by numerous drivers. Besides, mastering is different from consumer audio listening and reproduction.


So if you are looking for science to prove what many already know,

Or, what they only think they know as that is certainly not out of question and is certainly a valid and real possibiolity.





In case you didn't know it, I (like many other engineers) sit down for many hours testing and listening to new equipment to decide whether it is worth my investment.


Subjectively, of course, right? So, it is prone top bias and gullibility?

It is not my job to become a scientist, conduct listening test to obtain a statistical measure just to justify my purchase.

Ah, but if you did do such lisening tests, maybe you wouldn't follow the herd blindly and not waste you money foolishly?


That is inefficient and unnecessary.

Not if it gets you to an objective answer instead of guessing or just an expensive preference issue.

After I am finish testing a piece of equipment, I know for a fact that my decision to purchase, or not is an educated one.

How can you? It is based on a very subjective test prone to bias and unreliability.

I do not need DBT ,

That is unfortunate.



It is my feeling that most engineers feel this way.

That is unfortunate also.


(This is just my opinion) DBT, research and publishing for peer review is for the scientific community.


While you have this opinion, it is unfounded.

That is not the job of a audio engineer.

Why not? I would think you wanted real answers, the truths, not maybe or whatever.


We only need one answer, does it sound better than my current equipment.


That is the whole point. You don't know, not in an objective manner. You think you do but far from being a fact.

According to polls taken at the Surround 2004 conference, about 86% of engineers polled believes that 24/96khz sounds better than 16/44.1khz. Is that scientific? No, but it leads me to believe that where there is smoke, there is fire.

Well, at least you know it is not scientific. Why not find out for sure?
A higher percent believe in the supreme being. Where there is smoke there is fire, right?
How about psychics? Homeopathic medicines? We can go on and on, audio doesn't have immunity from nonsense, myths, hype, etc.

Mr Peabody
06-24-2004, 06:48 PM
Chris, while attending a training session, many years ago, given by Harmon Kardon, they explained the benefit of wide bandwidth in amplifiers. At the time they were only one a few companies that had bandwidth ratings up to 100kHz. They said it was for harmonics. For example, when middle C is struck on a piano it vibrates the other strings up and down from it. Phono cartridges are capable of reproducing very high frequencies as well as good home speakers. It would seem if analog is a 100% signal that more sampling would bring you closer to representing that 100%. And maybe these harmonics are what people are missing when listening to digital.

From what I understand of 5.1 music they do not use the extra channels for ambient reproduction but there is actually musical information in the rear channels. Is this true? If so, 2 channel may not be perfect but how can you fool yourself into thinking you are at a show with a guitar behind you in one channel and a trumpet in the other rear channel?

Terry, it is interesting to hear you confess you use your ears to evaluate sound when you tell those on the HT forum their system is crap if they don't use a SPL meter and measure every little thing. What is even more interesting is that your buddy mtrycraft is trying to convince me that 3dB difference is barely audible at all.

mtrycraft
06-24-2004, 07:02 PM
Also read what Bob Stuart of Meridan Audio says about higher sampling rates.

http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Coding2.PDF

.


Did you read the whole article by Stewart? Did you read how much emphasis he places on science and research, psychoacoustic data on hearing?

Did you read page 8, 'Do we need more thatn 44.1 ...'

I am shagrined to read the two references he offeres up by Ohashi as they are anything but credible and has since been shown to be flawed.

Not much guessing on his part. He takes the science route, not what feels good.

This paper was also presented at an AES conference as well and published as a preprint which I happen to have:)

mtrycraft
06-24-2004, 07:11 PM
However, for the life of me, I cannot see how the has anything to with the sampling frequency of the digital audio signal. Do you have any ideas?

It doesn't. But, it has everything to do with the recording engineer setting up the left and right channels.

This time difference between the two channels has an interesting impact:)
Diana Deutsch has an interesting CD on this 'Musical Illusions and paradoxes' at Amazon.

Monstrous Mike
06-25-2004, 06:07 AM
This audio business is a funny business indeed. To proceed with experimentation in audio engineering based on a presumption that humans can hear above 20 kHz is absurd, IMHO, and I'm sure will form the basis of the next generation of audio snake oil.

I fully appreciate the need to digitally process (e.g. record, mix, master, filter, etc.) at word lengths greater than 16 bits and sampling rates greater than 44.1 kHz. But the PCM 16/44.1 signal has the dynamic range and frequency range that exceeds human hearing capabilities. Demonstrating that CDs in this format can sound bad is not proof that the format is incapable. It is proof that the digital processing was inadequate.

The "more is better" attitude is not restricted to audio but it sure is prevalent in audio.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-25-2004, 01:42 PM
Chris, it is not financially feasible for any engineer to sit around a wait for science to tell them what they already hear.


[quote=Mtry]Or what they imagine to hear?
They should at least see what science has to say about it when that data is available.

Mtry, sorry man, I do not play into the "imagined" stuff. IN THIS CASE if we go by what you say, then you are the only sane one, and 90% of the engineers are there are suffering from mass suggestion. That is not logical, and is quite arrogant on your behalf. I do not think people who make a living at listening to audio are that stupid. Either you hear a benefit of a higher sampling rate, or you don't. It is that simple.


It is well documented that engineers get better imaging from the use of higher sampling rates.


What kind of documents? Not all documents are created equal.

Can you decode this response and play it back to me?


It is well documented that engineers hear their mixes more clearly at higher sampling rates,


Same as above.

Yeah, same as above

o I don't think any intelligent engineer is going to sit around waiting for research on the issue.



But what will that intelligent engineer do when the data is in? Or, cannot be demonstrated? Ignore it?

I guess the answer will come when we cross that bridge, right? We haven't gotten there yet.


I mean considering that just about every studio in Los Angeles, New York, Memphis, and every other major city that has a large music community has migrated from 16/44.1khz to 24/96khz, I would call that VERY substantial.


Substantial only by numbers. Doesn't mean much beyond that though. After all a huge number of people on the planet believe in the supreme being.

What does a person believing in a supreme being have to do with audio? And what makes you think that a studio would invest hundreds of thousands of dollars on something that was a figment of their imagination. Your response is incredibly silly. I gather you don't think audio engineers are very smart, and are subject to hearing things. Incredible!


Someone had to have heard an audible improvement, or there would be nothing to justify the cost of the upgrade,


That is absolute nonsense. One only has to look at the high end audio, and audio cable industry in specific.
This is a trend driven by numerous drivers. Besides, mastering is different from consumer audio listening and reproduction.

Here is the problem with discussing recording with someone who has never done it. A piece of wire and a $8000.00 amp costs no where near a Sonic Solution DAW. These things cost $100,000-$200,000 , a far cry from a piece of wire, or any high end product. If there was no improvement in the sonics of this workstation, how could a studio(working on a margin)justify its costs? You are trying to use the woes of the high end audio and cable industry, and apply it to the recording industry. Sorry Mtry, this is a round peg, and you are trying to squeeze it into a square hole. Not the same.


So if you are looking for science to prove what many already know,


Or, what they only think they know as that is certainly not out of question and is certainly a valid and real possibiolity.

What right do you think you have to question their judgement? Do you know more than they do? I do not think so, and everyone cannot be imagining everything. If left up to you everyone is delusional, and there is no reason to pursue any sonic improvements ever. That is not logical or reasonable, and VERY shortsighted.

In case you didn't know it, I (like many other engineers) sit down for many hours testing and listening to new equipment to decide whether it is worth my investment.


Subjectively, of course, right? So, it is prone top bias and gullibility?

Audio quality is indeed a subjective thing don't you agree?. Some people like the sound of MP3, and I think it is crap. Some engineers(like myself) test randomly, and unlabeled do we do not know what is what. Some know exactly what they are listening to. The point is not to prove anything scientifically as YOU desire, but to listen and judge for yourself. Do you understand that concept, or are you too skeptical to actually LISTEN to music rather than testing it?

It is not my job to become a scientist, conduct listening test to obtain a statistical measure just to justify my purchase.


Ah, but if you did do such lisening tests, maybe you wouldn't follow the herd blindly and not waste you money foolishly?

So that's what you think everyone is doing(except you of course), just being sheep. Mtry either you are the most airheaded individual in the world, or you are just plain arrogant as hell. EVERYONE is not blind and deaf as you loosely assert. Some people hear no difference between 48khz and 96khz sampling rate, and therefore remain stuck in redbook standards, and some hear a definate improvement and upgrade. I guess you would say that there is no audible improvement going from MP3 at 128kbps to 24/96khz

That is inefficient and unnecessary.


Not if it gets you to an objective answer instead of guessing or just an expensive preference issue.

You are only assuming they are guessing, and that would be presumptuous on your part. No smart engineer or studio is going to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in new equipment unless it has been rigorous tested by more than one individual(in the case of a studio) or objectively in the case of a smart freelancer. It would be too costly of a mistake for no benefit. Do you think you are the only one that thinks this stuff up?

After I am finish testing a piece of equipment, I know for a fact that my decision to purchase, or not is an educated one.


How can you? It is based on a very subjective test prone to bias and unreliability.

How do you know what it is based on? I never released that information.

I do not need DBT ,


That is unfortunate.

For you maybe.

It is my feeling that most engineers feel this way.


That is unfortunate also.

Once again for you, not for us.


(This is just my opinion) DBT, research and publishing for peer review is for the scientific community.




Who made you God so you could decide this?

That is not the job of a audio engineer.

[quote]Why not? I would think you wanted real answers, the truths, not maybe or whatever.

You are assuming that an engineer testing methods do not yield accurate answers. More arrogance on your behalf. Maybe we are not quite as smart as you are in this area (sarcasm off)


We only need one answer, does it sound better than my current equipment.



That is the whole point. You don't know, not in an objective manner. You think you do but far from being a fact.

Once again, how do you know YOU are correct? More presumptuous statements here

According to polls taken at the Surround 2004 conference, about 86% of engineers polled believes that 24/96khz sounds better than 16/44.1khz. Is that scientific? No, but it leads me to believe that where there is smoke, there is fire.


Well, at least you know it is not scientific. Why not find out for sure?
A higher percent believe in the supreme being. Where there is smoke there is fire, right?
How about psychics? Homeopathic medicines? We can go on and on, audio doesn't have immunity from nonsense, myths, hype, etc.

Everything is hype to you. So why bother with anything? Audio may not be immune from nonsense, but everyone is not ignorant as you would believe either. So what is your approach, everyone is stupid until science proves them smart?

Lets see, Mtry= no recordings, no experience recording, no recording education, but knows everything. Eliott Scheiner, Chuck Ainsley, Tony Brown, George Massenburg, Shawn Murphy and many more=almost a hundred years of experience between them, audio educated and degreed, thousands of recording between them, and they know nothing. Wow, Mtry you are a real legend(sarcasm off again)

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-25-2004, 02:16 PM
From what I understand of 5.1 music they do not use the extra channels for ambient reproduction but there is actually musical information in the rear channels. Is this true? If so, 2 channel may not be perfect but how can you fool yourself into thinking you are at a show with a guitar behind you in one channel and a trumpet in the other rear channel?

Terry, it is interesting to hear you confess you use your ears to evaluate sound when you tell those on the HT forum their system is crap if they don't use a SPL meter and measure every little thing. What is even more interesting is that your buddy mtrycraft is trying to convince me that 3dB difference is barely audible at all.

Mr Peabody;

Your understanding is lacking quite a bit. The rear channels are used for both ambient information, and for musical information. It is the artist/producers choice how the mix is done, not yours. The answer to this question is it depends on the mix, as there are no hard fast rules for how to use the surround channels.

How can you fool yourself into thinking that you are at a show when the audience is clapping behind the performers where two channel places them? Is that where they are in real life? I don't think so.

Lastly, your reading comprehension is lacking. You can use your ears to measure the QUALITY of a signal. You CANNOT use your ears as MEASURING devices for amplitude. Your ears know what sounds good, but they cannot tell you that your speakers are precisely balanced with any accuracy. Room acoustics make this impossible, as do the fact that your ears do not know exactly how loud 75db is. How many recording have you said you have done?????

A 3db imbalance is enough to pull the soundfield to the loudest channel, if you are talking about using 1khz as the test tone. 3db difference between channels in the bass region is very difficult to hear because of our hearing insensitivities in the bass region.

A man with your profound recording background ought to be able to go toe to toe with Mtry effortlessly. So what's up?

WmAx
06-25-2004, 05:00 PM
Chris, it is not financially feasible for any engineer to sit around a wait for science to tell them what they already hear. It is well documented that engineers get better imaging from the use of higher sampling rates.....

I mean considering that just about every studio in Los Angeles, New York, Memphis, and every other major city that has a large music community has migrated from 16/44.1khz to 24/96khz, I would call that VERY substantial. Someone had to have heard an audible improvement, or there would be nothing to justify the cost of the upgrade, which can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. So if you are looking for science to prove what many already know, then by all means do so, but that doesn't make good business sense to me.....

They have not been able to acheive a negative result either. So it would be short sighted to discount it altogether. ....

I disagree with your perspective entirely.....
This seems like a lot of explaining. This is not needed. I stated my position. I don't see any reason I should excuse a certain group of people from the requirements of proof that everyone else is bound to. I don't buy the 'popular opinion' - this is no substantial evidence. At one time, everyone believed the Earth was flat ... that the Earth was the center of the universe and other various fallacies. The opinion of hundreds of millions of people did not make it so.


-Chris

Woochifer
06-25-2004, 06:51 PM
T-man, Mtry, et al

Just when I thought the general audio forum had gone peace and love on me, you guys decide to go old school! Now, I'm just waiting for references to space aliens, voodoo, and missile animations, and the cycle will be complete. You guys are keeping me young! :D

mtrycraft
06-25-2004, 08:48 PM
T-man, Mtry, et al

Just when I thought the general audio forum had gone peace and love on me, you guys decide to go old school! Now, I'm just waiting for references to space aliens, voodoo, and missile animations, and the cycle will be complete. You guys are keeping me young! :D


Keeps me young too:)

mtrycraft
06-25-2004, 09:07 PM
This audio business is a funny business indeed. To proceed with experimentation in audio engineering based on a presumption that humans can hear above 20 kHz is absurd, IMHO, and I'm sure will form the basis of the next generation of audio snake oil.

I fully appreciate the need to digitally process (e.g. record, mix, master, filter, etc.) at word lengths greater than 16 bits and sampling rates greater than 44.1 kHz. But the PCM 16/44.1 signal has the dynamic range and frequency range that exceeds human hearing capabilities. Demonstrating that CDs in this format can sound bad is not proof that the format is incapable. It is proof that the digital processing was inadequate.

The "more is better" attitude is not restricted to audio but it sure is prevalent in audio.


We know this but then one only needs to read SirT's responses. If most do it or believe it, it must be so, etc.

mtrycraft
06-25-2004, 09:15 PM
exchange. So wonderful to get the facts from ones who know they are correct, never question anything or anyone.

Oh, I cannot claim to be supernatural. That I will leave to others.

DMK
06-26-2004, 07:33 AM
Oh, I cannot claim to be supernatural. That I will leave to others.

You may not be supernatural but I see you are an A/R Elite Member. There's just GOTTA be some perks in that! :D

mtrycraft
06-26-2004, 06:34 PM
You may not be supernatural but I see you are an A/R Elite Member. There's just GOTTA be some perks in that! :D


You bet:)
More get to pound on me, longer :D

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-28-2004, 02:02 PM
This audio business is a funny business indeed. To proceed with experimentation in audio engineering based on a presumption that humans can hear above 20 kHz is absurd, IMHO, and I'm sure will form the basis of the next generation of audio snake oil.

I fully appreciate the need to digitally process (e.g. record, mix, master, filter, etc.) at word lengths greater than 16 bits and sampling rates greater than 44.1 kHz. But the PCM 16/44.1 signal has the dynamic range and frequency range that exceeds human hearing capabilities. Demonstrating that CDs in this format can sound bad is not proof that the format is incapable. It is proof that the digital processing was inadequate.

The "more is better" attitude is not restricted to audio but it sure is prevalent in audio.

MM,

You have read enough of my posts to know that I do not believe in 75% of the things the music industry says. A scientist does and hearing experiment, publishes his results at AES, and the next year someone comes back to AES disputing that person findings. This merry go round goes on year after year.

What you think is absurd may not be at all. At the last AES meeting, listening test were conducted to determine whether we could perceive tones, or overtones that lie outside of what is know to be the upper hearing of humans. This listening test proved inconclusive, with some individuals(who had great hearing tests) being able to hear the roll off of instruments with content above 20khz, and some not hearing a thing. So it maybe just a little quick to say this is absurd. While no one can say for sure, you certainly at this stage cannot rule ANY possibility out.

I do not think any says that we can 'hear" above 20khz. I also do not think the switch to 96khz was about that. What I think (and what is echo'd by other's) is the accuracy of the higher sampling inband. . You can plainly see what 44.1khz does to a 1khz( I choose that frequency for my test) sinewave, and it's not pretty. When you see that same 1khz sinewave at 192khz sampling, it is spot on the original waveform. So you are right, in terms of dynamic range, and ability to produce signals up to the limit of human hearing, 16/44.1khz is adequate. If accurate tracking of the musical waveforms is highly desired, the 44.1khz just does not cut it.

This same test was done at Surround 2002, except they used a signal much higher in frequency. Here is the link for your perusal.

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surround2002/technology/page_07.shtml

DcnBlu
06-28-2004, 03:46 PM
I will keep this initial brief short, the idea that the human ear can hear the difference between 44.1Khz and 96.1Khz is a large stretch of the imagination. The average healthy human can hear 40hz to 18Khz without much concentration. Notes below ~40hz are not heard, they are felt, and notes above 18khz are heard by few. If you doubt me, go get a hearing test done at your local hospital, it will surprize you. How do I know you ask? I have over 15yrs in the medical profession to draw upon.

Now when it comes to the electronic component of this little equation, lets keep in mind that all the pretty sine waves don't matter a bit, when it comes to "human" perception. Not one person alive can tell the difference in a 1khz wave at 44.1khz or at 192khz, sorry :eek:

With this being said, I love a well put together system. The ability to be "transparent" in the audio path is a must. TRANSPARENT; performing its' given task without adding distortion or altering the signal. The proof in any system, IMO, is in its ability to reproduce the music as it was recorded, good or bad. I actually like finding/discovering poorly recorded material; shows my system is not bias... :p

Again, let me go on the forum record for saying, MEDICALLY, it is impossible to hear any difference between a signal sampled at 44.1 or 96khz. The human ear doesn't even function in a way that would facilitate such discriminatory properties. :D A good reminder of this is the use of the terms Decibel and linear. Human hearing is linear, we notice a doubling of power when there is a 10db change in amplification. Audio equipment will actually double the power of a signal with a 3db change in amplification.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-28-2004, 04:10 PM
This seems like a lot of explaining. This is not needed. I stated my position. I don't see any reason I should excuse a certain group of people from the requirements of proof that everyone else is bound to. I don't buy the 'popular opinion' - this is no substantial evidence. At one time, everyone believed the Earth was flat ... that the Earth was the center of the universe and other various fallacies. The opinion of hundreds of millions of people did not make it so.


-Chris

Chris,

I hate to be the one that bursts your bubble, but know one in the industry really cares about your position. They don't care whether you excuse them or not from providing proof. What you need to do if you are so gung ho about holding audio engineers to your personal scrutiny, is to visit a studio and listen for yourself. You can postulate and pontificate on this audio forum all you desire, but if you are looking for evidence that someone hears improvements at higher sampling rate, you will be waiting a long time. You have heard neither DVD-A or SACD, and already by technical means (and not actually listening) condemning them as unnecessary. Music is for listening, and that what engineers do, they listen. If you really don't believe anything, and EVERYTHING is a marketing ploy then take a trip to a studio, and listen for yourself. If you are firm in your position, and are not willing to take a trip to a studio and listen for yourself, then you will find yourself still here at audioreview complaining like mad that science is the only way to tell what your ears hear. Science cannot measure imaging. Science cannot measure hearing more tightness in percussion, or space and air around instruments. So to rely so purely on science in a medium that requires that you listen, can sometime make you walk away with half a picture.

I am in the belief that more testing has to be done before anyone can discount anything. I think that bandwidth issue is pretty settled, but there are remaining issues yet to be explored. Rather than taking a hard fast position as you have, I will wait until more testing with filters, and converters and their influence on what we hear before I decide that 96khz is a waste. In the mean time, I will use what God gave me(my ears) and listening to those things that need listening to, and watch things that require my sight.

As far as your analogy about the earth, its off base. Audio has already discovered the earth was round, now we are looking into what is akin to the oceans, or best said area's where was have not sonically explored yet.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-28-2004, 04:31 PM
I will keep this initial brief short, the idea that the human ear can hear the difference between 44.1Khz and 96.1Khz is a large stretch of the imagination.

Since Chris is demanding scientific evidence to support everything under the sun, what scientific support do you have that backs your point?








The average healthy human can hear 40hz to 18Khz without much concentration. Notes below ~40hz are not heard, they are felt, and notes above 18khz are heard by few.

Not correct at all. Humans can hear 20hz signals, but below that they are felt. The average human cannot hear as high as 18khz, very few can. Lower that to around 16khz through your twenties(approximately) 16khz through part of your thirties, and no higher than 12khz above that. Those who have taken good care of the hearing do much better than those who have not.


If you doubt me, go get a hearing test done at your local hospital, it will surprize you. How do I know you ask? I have over 15yrs in the medical profession to draw upon.

I do every year. My last test showed I could hear signals up to 17khz, which is approximately 1khz down from last year.


Now when it comes to the electronic component of this little equation, lets keep in mind that all the pretty sine waves don't matter a bit, when it comes to "human" perception. Not one person alive can tell the difference in a 1khz wave at 44.1khz or at 192khz, sorry :eek:

So you are telling me that we will hear no difference in the most sensitive frequencies that we can hear? okay.........


With this being said, I love a well put together system. The ability to be "transparent" in the audio path is a must. TRANSPARENT; performing its' given task without adding distortion or altering the signal.

So what you are telling me so far is that 44.1khz sample rate is transparent compared to the analog original? okay........



The proof in any system, IMO, is in its ability to reproduce the music as it was recorded, good or bad. I actually like finding/discovering poorly recorded material; shows my system is not bias... :p

Do you realize music has gone through alot of transformation before it get's to your system? Compression, eq, conversion, downsampling etc. Unless you have spent hundreds of thousand of dollars, I seriously doubt your system is TRANSPARENT. Especially if the room is taken into consideration.


Again, let me go on the forum record for saying, MEDICALLY, it is impossible to hear any difference between a signal sampled at 44.1 or 96khz. The human ear doesn't even function in a way that would facilitate such discriminatory properties. :D A good reminder of this is the use of the terms Decibel and linear. Human hearing is linear, we notice a doubling of power when there is a 10db change in amplification. Audio equipment will actually double the power of a signal with a 3db change in amplification.

This is so off, I am not going to touch it. Human hearing linear????? How do you explain the fletcher-Munson curve if our hearing is linear. Wow!!!

mtrycraft
06-28-2004, 04:50 PM
science is the only way to tell what your ears hear.

That is the only way to tell in a reliable manner. If you don't believe that and it appears that you don't, that is unfortunate. I suppose acoustics was arrived without the scientific approach? Without DBT listeing?

Science cannot measure imaging.

You think? Perhaps phase shift between the two front speakers cannot be measured? But why measure it and spec it? As soon as you change your acoutic environment, it affects the phase shift at your ears.

Science cannot measure hearing more tightness in percussion, or space and air around instruments.

You really think this? I bet the scope can detect what you perceive that better than you can imagine it, at times.

So to rely so purely on science in a medium that requires that you listen, can sometime make you walk away with half a picture.

One thing to measure it which you stated cannot be done which would imply something beyond science and the physical world, kind of supernatural, and, another having a real need for it as these are greatly affected by the acoustic space, speakers and recording quality.
Perhaps you deal in mysticism?


I will use what God gave me(my ears) and listening to those things that need listening to, and watch things that require my sight.

Unfortunately he also threw in a monkey wrench, the brain that can confuse the issue, make stuff up and fill in blank information or a different bit when nothing has changed. But, hey, blame science for that for discovering it. Throw it out. Burn them at the stake.

DcnBlu
06-28-2004, 06:55 PM
Since Chris is demanding scientific evidence to support everything under the sun, what scientific support do you have that backs your point?



Not correct at all. Humans can hear 20hz signals, but below that they are felt. The average human cannot hear as high as 18khz, very few can. Lower that to around 16khz through your twenties(approximately) 16khz through part of your thirties, and no higher than 12khz above that. Those who have taken good care of the hearing do much better than those who have not.

Yes I am correct, and I did not bother to break out the age chart to offer such data in this post. I did want to keep it short. First, you are wrong, young healthy adults can and do easily hear the range of 18 to 20k..I test them all the time. As with anything else some have better hearing than others. Those that earn an H-1 rating can hear into 18khz +. As we age we do experience hearing loss. Most of this loss comes from our neglect in protecting our ears during our "super human" youth (blasting loud music in the car, turning up the tone controls on our parents stereos ect).
Since frequencies below 40hz or primarily non direcitonal, and very large ( a 44hz tone produces a wave larger than a mid size car) I am wondering where you get this information from. What you call hearing is actually a perceived feeling. If you want to get technical, yes our ears do respond to 20hz and 16hz and 13hz ect...the pressure wave at 90db is down right commanding. You can't "hear" them persay, you feel/perceive them.
With that said, I think we must define hearing. That which is decernable and identifable from and to its source. But if you don't believe me, grab a telarc/bose testing CD that has 50hz, 40hz and 20hz tones played -10db. Please remember to use a SPL meter and begin the test at 50db and increase ect. ect.


I do every year. My last test showed I could hear signals up to 17khz, which is approximately 1khz down from last year.

I am glad you have your hearing tested yearly, the 1khz difference in the test means little to nothing. It could have been you had more wax in your ears that day than last year. There are any number of factors to explain the drop, even the fact that you don't hear as well. What was the SD from left to right for this test and last years test?

So you are telling me that we will hear no difference in the most sensitive frequencies that we can hear? okay.........

Not at all, and I never said that. Since that range covers several octaves (~800hz to 8khz) there will be peaks and vallies depending on where a person is most sensitive. Note, this will differ from person to person. On AVERAGE, this range is not the problem when it comes to hearing, and we all will hear it just fine. Damage to the TM or ET will alter our perception of these tones, so lets just stick with the healthy adult ages 20-50.

So what you are telling me so far is that 44.1khz sample rate is transparent compared to the analog original? okay........

Transparent = the ability to reproduce the analog signal without coloration. As far as our ears are concerned, the 44.1khz reproduction of the analog original is more than adequate. Without sine wave generators, our ears can't tell if the signal is a perfect copy of the original or not. Hence, to our ears 44.1khz makes a transparent copy. I would bet that even at lower sampling rates the average person couldn't tell the difference.


Do you realize music has gone through alot of transformation before it get's to your system? Compression, eq, conversion, downsampling etc. Unless you have spent hundreds of thousand of dollars, I seriously doubt your system is TRANSPARENT. Especially if the room is taken into consideration.

:) Yes, I am aware of the transformation music goes through before it gets to our system. These uncontrolable variables differ from company to company. Are you telling me you know just how each CD is made? Are stereo mics or dual mono mics used? My system is very transparent/neutral in its reporduction of the signal supplied on the original CD. That is where we take our measurements and such from, not the recording studio. If you do, wow, you must some awesome ties in the music world.

This is so off, I am not going to touch it. Human hearing linear????? How do you explain the fletcher-Munson curve if our hearing is linear. Wow!!!
Lets discuss this. I know the fletcher-Munson test. Did you even review the sampling data used?
http://www.webervst.com/fm1.gif

This is a copy of the graphed results. Notice not one person could hear the test tones in the 20hz range. Looks more like 40ish to me. On the high end 20khz was not reached either, maybe 18k. Look at the intensity of the signal used to even the lowest freq range, somewhere 100db (average loudness was kept to around 85db for testing purposes) to hear the lowest noted freq. Now this is only a graph of the end result, but lets use it as a basis to end this nick-picking on every little variable...unless you just want to ;) I am enjoying this so. Oh did you also notice that they raised the intensity of each tone in 3db steps (linear raising the power/doubling it). LOL, I am sorry I noticed I said linear hearing, ack. I am incorrect, we hear analog, machines are linear :D. I see why you gave me the mental frown. You could have just pointed to my mistake though. If you notice any other obvious errors please just say so, I'm typing this while watching cartoons with my son. Oh, spelling errors don't count, that's my wife's expertise. Either way this test does support my original statement; we hear (~40hz to around 18khz) on average.

If the original poster wants loads of research data, more power to him. I am not going to spend hours typing a single point of view, audio is a "living" hobby, it grows as the equipment becomes better and the users become more demanding on reaching that near point in dopple-ganging the original signal flawlessly.

The whole point of digital is to mimic analog. Happy listening everyone.

WmAx
06-28-2004, 07:35 PM
Chris,

I hate to be the one that bursts your bubble, but know one in the industry really cares about your position. They don't care whether you excuse them or not from providing proof.
I do not see any new issues being brought up. Only a defense of non-scientific evaluation. You can refer to my previous replies, as if i reply at this point, it will be redundant.

-Chris

Monstrous Mike
06-29-2004, 07:29 AM
While no one can say for sure, you certainly at this stage cannot rule ANY possibility out. I do not think any says that we can 'hear" above 20khz.
I haven't ruled out people be affected, whether it is hearing or some other perception, by frequencies over 20 kHz. However, there is simply no audio equipment to produce these frequencies. When that day comes, and source material is recorded up to 100 kHz and amps can amplify 100 kHz and speakers have supertweeters at 100 kHz, then yes, let's ditch 44.1/16



You can plainly see what 44.1khz does to a 1khz( I choose that frequency for my test) sinewave, and it's not pretty.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Even in your reference link they show a 10 kHz square wave that is processed with 44.1/16 and it produces a nice 10 kHz sine wave. That is really all we are asking 44.1/16 to do for us.



So you are right, in terms of dynamic range, and ability to produce signals up to the limit of human hearing, 16/44.1khz is adequate. If accurate tracking of the musical waveforms is highly desired, the 44.1khz just does not cut it.
I do not know what you mean here wrt to "accurate tracking" of musical waveforms. Higher sampling rates give you more bandwidth. Longer word lengths give you more dynamic range. What do you mean by "accurate tracking"?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-29-2004, 07:49 AM
I do not see any new issues being brought up. Only a defense of non-scientific evaluation. You can refer to my previous replies, as if i reply at this point, it will be redundant.

-Chris

I think I have learned enough from your replies that tell me that you would rather talk than listen. So I think its fair to say we have taken our debate as far as it can go.

WmAx
06-29-2004, 08:40 AM
I think I have learned enough from your replies that tell me that you would rather talk than listen. So I think its fair to say we have taken our debate as far as it can go.
It is true that I have no desire to listen to a subjectively-based standpoint on the issue(bandwidth audibility). I did try to make it clear I was uninterested in subjective perspecitve on this issue. I apologize if I was not satisfactorily clear. In the event that research data collected via controlled scenarios is discussed in this matter, I am all ears. :-)

-Chris

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-29-2004, 12:44 PM
I haven't ruled out people be affected, whether it is hearing or some other perception, by frequencies over 20 kHz. However, there is simply no audio equipment to produce these frequencies. When that day comes, and source material is recorded up to 100 kHz and amps can amplify 100 kHz and speakers have supertweeters at 100 kHz, then yes, let's ditch 44.1/16

Mike, I don't know about that. My amp in my receiver is spec't out to 100khz. The tweeters in my speakers are flat to 45khz. My DVD player outputs DVD-A and SACD, so right there is the potential(key word) to playback higher frequencies. But admittedly you are right, not many speakers are flat past 19khz or so, but Tannoy has come out with a supertweeter that is flat to 54khz that can be added on to any speaker.

http://www.tannoyna.com/downloads/spec_ST50.pdf



I'm not sure what you mean here. Even in your reference link they show a 10 kHz square wave that is processed with 44.1/16 and it produces a nice 10 kHz sine wave. That is really all we are asking 44.1/16 to do for us.

Mike, the square wave of 44.1khz is rounded(averaged with only 4.
4 samples). Now look at the 96khz, and the 192khz square wave, it more closely follows the form of the squarewave, with some variation in the 96khz due to harmonics appearing in the sample.



I do not know what you mean here wrt to "accurate tracking" of musical waveforms. Higher sampling rates give you more bandwidth. Longer word lengths give you more dynamic range. What do you mean by "accurate tracking"?

You are correct about the longer word lengths, but only partially correct about the higher sampling rate. The higher sampling rate takes more snapshot of the waveform. So(to use an extreme example) when 44.1khz sample rate takes two snapshots at 20khz, 96khz takes four. The more snapshots taken, the more the digital audio looks like its original analog waveform. That is what I mean by more accurate tracking of the waveform.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-29-2004, 12:50 PM
It is true that I have no desire to listen to a subjectively-based standpoint on the issue(bandwidth audibility). I did try to make it clear I was uninterested in subjective perspecitve on this issue. I apologize if I was not satisfactorily clear. In the event that research data collected via controlled scenarios is discussed in this matter, I am all ears. :-)

-Chris

Chris,

How am I to take you seriously. You admittedly do not own DVD-A or SACD player, yet you are already dismissing the formats as unnecessary. You are trying to analyze a listening format with a bunch of technical mumbo jumbo. I am unimpressed with someone who chooses to do more talking and less listening to a format that REQUIRES listening.

As far as what you desire, I don't really care. Sorry

WmAx
06-29-2004, 07:24 PM
Chris,

How am I to take you seriously. You admittedly do not own DVD-A or SACD player, yet you are already dismissing the formats as unnecessary. You are trying to analyze a listening format with a bunch of technical mumbo jumbo. I am unimpressed with someone who chooses to do more talking and less listening to a format that REQUIRES listening.

As far as what you desire, I don't really care. SorryTechnical mumbo jumbo? Do you resent controlled studies/research?

As far as 'my listening', do you think i should trust what I 'hear'? I don't. At least not the point I would try to state something as fact. Not under conditions that are not strictly controlled in order to remove psychological bias. Let's imagine I did own a SACD player. I can not compare to the RBCD layer or RBCD release, as these are very likely different masters/mixes. The only valid method would be to use a 44.1/16 A-D-A in line of the analogue SACD output and switch between the two outputs(SACD output vs. SACD output-->A-D-A output) in a carefully controlled, level matched DBT, ABX or other similar protocol and attempt to score positive signficnat statisical results. Let's assume I did score positive results...then it is still not safe to assume that the format is to blame. In this theoretical setup, I would have to analyse/measure the A-D-A system/process in order to insure that no known audible artifacts and/or distortions are being introduced to the original signal. IN addition, then the loudspeaker system or headphone would have to be analysed for these two discrete scenarios in order to see if IMD caused by non-linearity of the tranducer(s) is the cause of audibility. Not a quick task to accomplish. Besides, why should I think that I can achieve positive results where highly competant acoustics researchers have failed in a very similar subject? THis makes this particular test seemingly redundant and purposeless for me to carry out unless I suspect or identify a critical flaw in those tests which I attempt to account for in a new test.

-Chris

Thomas_A
06-30-2004, 01:07 AM
My take,

the 44.1 kHz/16 bit format was tested in one of the best studios in the world (i.e. highest sound quality, Studio Blue in Stockholm) and they could not hear the difference between a high-quality analog tape and the corresponding transfer to digital. Also, down-sampling from higher sampling rates did not improve the signal audibly. So for consumers there is no need to go higher.

Thomas

Thomas_A
06-30-2004, 03:10 AM
Also, a 20 kHz dithered sinewave will be perfectly reproduced by the 16/44.1 kHz standard. Increasing the sampling rate will not increase the resolution of a 20 kHz sinewave.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-30-2004, 12:55 PM
Technical mumbo jumbo? Do you resent controlled studies/research?

As far as 'my listening', do you think i should trust what I 'hear'? I don't. At least not the point I would try to state something as fact.

Controlled studies and research have their place, and no I do not resent them. But what do people who do controlled studies have over me? They listen with their ears, and so do I. When many people LISTEN and say the same thing, then I am willing to have an open mind. Your mind is pretty closed, and I am not interested in opening it, that is up to you. I never stated anything as FACT(that's what you gathered), its is a broad based opinion. While you are quick to dimiss it, I am not. Engineers who know their stuff have as much credibility to me as a scientist does.



Not under conditions that are not strictly controlled in order to remove psychological bias. Let's imagine I did own a SACD player. I can not compare to the RBCD layer or RBCD release, as these are very likely different masters/mixes. The only valid method would be to use a 44.1/16 A-D-A in line of the analogue SACD output and switch between the two outputs(SACD output vs. SACD output-->A-D-A output) in a carefully controlled, level matched DBT, ABX or other similar protocol and attempt to score positive signficnat statisical results

A pschological bias would only exist if you were in favor of a certain format. I have no favorites and therefore no psycological bias.

I would suggest you do just what you propose instead of talking down a technology you haven't even heard. I did just what you suggested, and that is what convinced me to upgrade my processing boxes, and various equipment to handle high resolution audio. You would be surprised if you quit talking and started listening what you will learn.



. Let's assume I did score positive results...then it is still not safe to assume that the format is to blame. In this theoretical setup, I would have to analyse/measure the A-D-A system/process in order to insure that no known audible artifacts and/or distortions are being introduced to the original signal.

The already have gear to do this on the fly, so there is no need for a second process as you suggest. Much of what you mention here I would have already done in the beginning.


IN addition, then the loudspeaker system or headphone would have to be analysed for these two discrete scenarios in order to see if IMD caused by non-linearity of the tranducer(s) is the cause of audibility. Not a quick task to accomplish. Besides, why should I think that I can achieve positive results where highly competant acoustics researchers have failed in a very similar subject? THis makes this particular test seemingly redundant and purposeless for me to carry out unless I suspect or identify a critical flaw in those tests which I attempt to account for in a new test.
-Chris

When I was deciding to upgrade, I made no attempt to test so as to attain a peer review. I wasn't interested in proving, or disproving the increased bandwidth arguement. I was interested in improvements only within the audible band. My interest was to find out if it was worth the significant investment to upgrade my equipment to handle the higher resolution. After careful listening in at least 12 different studios during mixing and mastering sessions, my own listening room, several conferences and seminars, and recording sessions, I made my decision. All testing was DBT. My decision was based on what I heard, and saw on the scope, nothing more. No interest in peer review, publishing, challenging what is already known, or setting new trends, only does it improve the audio enough to warrant a upgrade.

I am not a scientist, and have no desire to do what scientist do. I do not want to publish, so I am not interested in having a protocol that passes peer scrutiny.

I have plenty of faith in my ears, I have no faith in claims made by equipment manufacturer unless my EARS can verify them. I have no biases, so my ears cannot fooled by biases. The object is to be open minded(something you have trouble doing) and if you cannot hear an improvement, then there is none to be found, test over.

WmAx
06-30-2004, 01:19 PM
Engineers who know their stuff have as much credibility to me as a scientist does.
The issue of whether someone is a scientist or not is not the issue. The methodology used is the issue.


A pschological bias would only exist if you were in favor of a certain format. I have no favorites and therefore no psycological bias.
Not true. It is an error to believe that your senses can be controlled this easily.


I would suggest you do just what you propose instead of talking down a technology you haven't even heard. I did just what you suggested, and that is what convinced me to upgrade my processing boxes, and various equipment to handle high resolution audio. You would be surprised if you quit talking and started listening what you will learn.
If you have done what you seem to claim("did just what i suggested"), then publish the data including the scores, confirmed measurements of the equipment, speakers, etc.. It would be interesting -- since you would have done what acoustics researchers have not been able to do. I have no good reason to do this testing, as I specified in the last reply. I would be motivated to change this perspective if you have positive test results that stand under scrutiny.


. All testing was DBT. My decision was based on what I heard, and saw on the scope, nothing more. No interest in peer review, publishing, challenging what is already known, or setting new trends, only does it improve the audio enough to warrant a upgrade.

I do not want to publish, so I am not interested in having a protocol that passes peer scrutiny.
You are not interested in a protocol that passes peer scrutiny? But all testing was DBT, no? Double blind testing is a valid protocol. I would be very interested in the test if it was scrutinized, with no errors found.



I have no biases, so my ears cannot fooled by biases.

Not possible. Human senses are interpretted by the brain, which can and will subject your perception(s) to subconcious variables.

-Chris

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-30-2004, 02:49 PM
My take,

the 44.1 kHz/16 bit format was tested in one of the best studios in the world (i.e. highest sound quality, Studio Blue in Stockholm) and they could not hear the difference between a high-quality analog tape and the corresponding transfer to digital. Also, down-sampling from higher sampling rates did not improve the signal audibly. So for consumers there is no need to go higher.

Thomas

Thomas,
Hardly anyone uses analog tape anymore. So this is out of context with audio engineering done today. Downsampling from a higher sampling rate NEVER improves the signal, so this is a worthless statement. When I did use tape, 44.1khz NEVER sounded like my master tapes, and I think that is a pretty broad based opinion amoung most sound engineers.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-30-2004, 03:16 PM
The issue of whether someone is a scientist or not is not the issue. The methodology used is the issue.

Sorry, but the spirit of your posts don't translate this perspective.



Not true. It is an error to believe that your senses can be controlled this easily.

It is more of an error to believe they can easily be pushed in any direction without my will.


If you have done what you seem to claim("did just what i suggested"), then publish the data including the scores, confirmed measurements of the equipment, speakers, etc.. It would be interesting -- since you would have done what acoustics researchers have not been able to do. I have no good reason to do this testing, as I specified in the last reply. I would be motivated to change this perspective if you have positive test results that stand under scrutiny.

I am not quite understanding why you do not seem to comprehend what I have written. I believe I have mentioned multiple times that I have no interest in publishing, no, I HAVE NO INTEREST IN PUBLISHING. Did you get that? Can you also get this, I HAVE NO INTEREST IN CHANGING YOUR MIND. You may think whatever you desire, it has no reflection on me, or my business.



You are not interested in a protocol that passes peer scrutiny? But all testing was DBT, no? Double blind testing is a valid protocol. I would be very interested in the test if it was scrutinized, with no errors found.

I am not interested in peer scrutiny, and DBT is what works for me when I am going to spend significant amounts of money on upgrades. That has nothing to do with my peers. What interests you, doesn't interest me obviously.


Not possible. Human senses are interpretted by the brain, which can and will subject your perception(s) to subconcious variables.

-Chris

Human senses only effected when stimulated. No stimulation, and there is nothing to be interepreted by the brain. So if I haven't heard it, then there is no stimulus, and thus no interpretation by the brain. It's just that simple, you can't be bias in a listening test if you haven't heard anything right?

I walked into this not expecting anything, not to prove anything, and not trying to disprove anything. I had just one interest, is it worth it to upgrade my equipment. If there was any bias to be found, it would have went against the results that came of my tests. I didn't really want to spend the money, so my test should have been biased against hearing any differences.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-30-2004, 03:40 PM
Also, a 20 kHz dithered sinewave will be perfectly reproduced by the 16/44.1 kHz standard. Increasing the sampling rate will not increase the resolution of a 20 kHz sinewave.

Irrelevant, since nobody can hear that high anyway. I just used that as an example.

E-Stat
06-30-2004, 03:57 PM
Also, a 20 kHz dithered sinewave will be perfectly reproduced by the 16/44.1 kHz standard. Increasing the sampling rate will not increase the resolution of a 20 kHz sinewave.
Great news for everyone who listens to sine waves.

rw

mtrycraft
06-30-2004, 07:56 PM
Great news for everyone who listens to sine waves.

rw


Ah, the straw man argument, unsupported by facts. What else is new?

mtrycraft
06-30-2004, 07:57 PM
Irrelevant, since nobody can hear that high anyway. I just used that as an example.


Then what's the beef?

WmAx
06-30-2004, 08:33 PM
Human senses only effected when stimulated. No stimulation, and there is nothing to be interepreted by the brain. So if I haven't heard it, then there is no stimulus, and thus no interpretation by the brain. It's just that simple, you can't be bias in a listening test if you haven't heard anything right?With NO other variables this is true, and why DBT and ABX testing is extremely important in testing. However, in lack of protocols such as these, variables such as look, name, color, sound of the name, etc., etc. can effect your perception of what you *think that you may or may not hear. These work on a subconscious level, are subject to great variability and can not be over-ridden. DBT and ABX protocols prevent one from knowing exactly what they are listening to at a specific point in time so that potentially only the actual audible properties are present in the test -- not the other factors.

Since you have made it clear in a recent reply that is only your opinion(and that you are not asserting as fact) that a braoder bandwidth then RBCD provides is audible --- I don't understand what you are arguing in that regard or why you persist in that issue since I have constantly made a point that I am only interested in scientifically valid research with this subject - not speculation(s). If your supposed point is that most recording engineers 'believe' a higher bandwidth is audible for playback purposes - then I acknowledge that you made this point and I acknowledge that I read what you stated.

If you choose to once again argue this point based solely on popular opinion without the support of valid research/testing to validate this assertion, I will not reply to you again in this thread concernig this subject.

If you have something new or different to discuss, I'll be glad to reply.

-Chris

Thomas_A
06-30-2004, 10:51 PM
Thomas,
Hardly anyone uses analog tape anymore. So this is out of context with audio engineering done today. Downsampling from a higher sampling rate NEVER improves the signal, so this is a worthless statement. When I did use tape, 44.1khz NEVER sounded like my master tapes, and I think that is a pretty broad based opinion amoung most sound engineers.

That's entitled to you opinion. Studio Blue in Stockholm uses the best equipment there is, and also, a place where scientific tests (i.e. blind tests) are performed. They were not able to distinguish the original master from the 16/44.1 kHz digitial copy when done under blind conditions.

T

Thomas_A
06-30-2004, 10:54 PM
Irrelevant, since nobody can hear that high anyway. I just used that as an example.

Me too, I just used it as an example. The resolution of the 20 kHz sine wave will be no better at 192 kHz sampling rate. A 10 kHz square wave will look better, but since few can hear above about 18 kHz, it is as you say, irrelevant.

T

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-01-2004, 09:10 AM
With NO other variables this is true, and why DBT and ABX testing is extremely important in testing. However, in lack of protocols such as these, variables such as look, name, color, sound of the name, etc., etc. can effect your perception of what you *think that you may or may not hear. These work on a subconscious level, are subject to great variability and can not be over-ridden.

If you don't care about the look, name, color, sound of the name or any variable you present, then you arguement is moot. Don't you have control over your own brain? Can't you discipline your own mind? I came to listen, not look. A black box with the name Lexicon tells me nothing about how that product sounds. Once again I say to you, something has to be written to be over-written. The only thing written in my mind when I approach this is prove to me that your sound is worth the money. With that kind of attitude it is very difficult to be biased in favor of the product.


DBT and ABX protocols prevent one from knowing exactly what they are listening to at a specific point in time so that potentially only the actual audible properties are present in the test -- not the other factors.

You are preaching to the choir here.


Since you have made it clear in a recent reply that is only your opinion(and that you are not asserting as fact) that a braoder bandwidth then RBCD provides is audible --- I don't understand what you are arguing in that regard or why you persist in that issue since I have constantly made a point that I am only interested in scientifically valid research with this subject - not speculation(s).

It is apparent to me your mind is not keeping up with the thread. I took bandwidth off the table several responses ago. That was NEVER my arguement, its only what you choose to latch onto. My arguement is simple, 16/44.1khz is not good enough and it never was. That has been a complaint loooooong echo'd by audio engineers. It sounds digital, and nothing like the analog component it was sampled from. That is my arguement. Now I hope you get it this time so it doesn't have to be mentioned in every thread.




If your supposed point is that most recording engineers 'believe' a higher bandwidth is audible for playback purposes - then I acknowledge that you made this point and I acknowledge that I read what you stated.

No Chris, this was not my point at all, what have you been reading these last several posts? Recording engineers believe that imaging, clarity, and tonality are improved by a higher sampling rate, not bandwidth. Bandwidth cannot be quickly dismissed, as the most recent testing at AES proved inconclusive. Unless something can be ruled completely out, then you cannot remove it's possibility


If you choose to once again argue this point based solely on popular opinion without the support of valid research/testing to validate this assertion, I will not reply to you again in this thread concernig this subject.

If you have something new or different to discuss, I'll be glad to reply.

-Chris

Chris, you don't have to reply, and I hope you don't. You haven't one clue about the contents of this discussion based on what you wrote here. I feel like I have been talking to a wall that talks, but cannot read. You have argued one point, and stuck with that point even though it hasn't been apart of this discussion for days. So please, take you ball and jacks and go home!

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-01-2004, 09:41 AM
That's entitled to you opinion. Studio Blue in Stockholm uses the best equipment there is, and also, a place where scientific tests (i.e. blind tests) are performed. They were not able to distinguish the original master from the 16/44.1 kHz digitial copy when done under blind conditions.
T

Thomas, that is not the only studio in the world that testing has been conducted. And what constitutes the BEST of anything is in the eye(or ear) of the beholder. Blind testing has been done in studio's all over the world, so there is nothing special or unique about studio blue. Gateaway Studio's in Los Angeles has been called the best mastering studio in the world, does that make it any better than Studio Blue?

If what you state is true concerning 16/44.1khz, then why do audio engineers have to tweak it some much to make it sound like the master tape? Why do I hear over and over at AES that 16/44.khz was never transparent when compared to the master tapes? I heard this myself at AES this year when they compared a master tape to red book CD 16/44.1khz, 16/48khz, 16/96khz, 24/44.1khz, 24/48khz and 24/96khz. 16/44.1khz and 24/44.1khz sounded subtlely(and sometimes not so subtle)different from the master depending on the genre of music that was played. I heard this with my own ears, instead of repeating what I read somewhere.

Thomas_A
07-01-2004, 10:26 AM
Thomas, that is not the only studio in the world that testing has been conducted. And what constitutes the BEST of anything is in the eye(or ear) of the beholder. Blind testing has been done in studio's all over the world, so there is nothing special or unique about studio blue. Gateaway Studio's in Los Angeles has been called the best mastering studio in the world, does that make it any better than Studio Blue?

If what you state is true concerning 16/44.1khz, then why do audio engineers have to tweak it some much to make it sound like the master tape? Why do I hear over and over at AES that 16/44.khz was never transparent when compared to the master tapes? I heard this myself at AES this year when they compared a master tape to red book CD 16/44.1khz, 16/48khz, 16/96khz, 24/44.1khz, 24/48khz and 24/96khz. 16/44.1khz and 24/44.1khz sounded subtlely(and sometimes not so subtle)different from the master depending on the genre of music that was played. I heard this with my own ears, instead of repeating what I read somewhere.

All equipment in Studio Blue has been tested for transparency using before/after tests or bypass/wire tests. The speaker system are capable of producing sound at realistic levels with very low distortion, e.g. reproducing a drum set at played at maximal possible level. The maximal level is 139 dB @ 20 Hz in-room response, before distorsion starts rise rapidly. Also, the speakers are recreating the original waveform, i.e. squarewaves and impulse responses. Those who have worked there praise it to be world-leading, e.g.

Cited and translated to english:
Roger Hinchliffe
american artist
"Studio Blue is the best Studio that I have worked in. Even studios in USA have a long way to go to match the sound quality in Studio Blue"

The link is in Swedish though and the studio is first of all a place for education of recording engineers.

http://www.studioblue.se/

I don't say that there are many other good studios, but can you really be sure that previous tests have included a careful selection method for the best and transparent equipment for a digital transfer? Can you be sure that there has been non-biased testing procedures?

T

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-01-2004, 11:29 AM
All equipment in Studio Blue has been tested for transparency using before/after tests or bypass/wire tests. The speaker system are capable of producing sound at realistic levels with very low distortion, e.g. reproducing a drum set at played at maximal possible level. The maximal level is 139 dB @ 20 Hz in-room response, before distorsion starts rise rapidly. Also, the speakers are recreating the original waveform, i.e. squarewaves and impulse responses. Those who have worked there praise it to be world-leading, e.g.

Alot of very good studios do the very same thing as this studio. Nothing noteworthy here.


Cited and translated to english:
Roger Hinchliffe
american artist
"Studio Blue is the best Studio that I have worked in. Even studios in USA have a long way to go to match the sound quality in Studio Blue"

The link is in Swedish though and the studio is first of all a place for education of recording engineers.

http://www.studioblue.se/

I have never heard of the artist you have mentioned, but I have heard simular comments made about Gateaway studio's, Chuck Ainley studio's in Memphis, Elliot Schieners studio, Mi Casa in Los Angeles, Capitol Studio's in Hollywood, The Sound Plant here in San Francisco, Fantasy Studio's in Berkeley Cal. and the list goes on.

The stat's you mention for this studio are not above any high end studio in America.


I don't say that there are many other good studios, but can you really be sure that previous tests have included a careful selection method for the best and transparent equipment for a digital transfer? Can you be sure that there has been non-biased testing procedures?

Are you insinuating that this place is the only proper place in the world were PROPER DBT test can be conducted? That's absurd! Surely you can see the foolishness of your own statement. AES does credible DBT at studio's all over the world. This studio you mention is not special in any way from other very good high end recording studio

Thomas_A
07-01-2004, 12:19 PM
Alot of very good studios do the very same thing as this studio. Nothing noteworthy here.



I have never heard of the artist you have mentioned, but I have heard simular comments made about Gateaway studio's, Chuck Ainley studio's in Memphis, Elliot Schieners studio, Mi Casa in Los Angeles, Capitol Studio's in Hollywood, The Sound Plant here in San Francisco, Fantasy Studio's in Berkeley Cal. and the list goes on.

The stat's you mention for this studio are not above any high end studio in America.



Are you insinuating that this place is the only proper place in the world were PROPER DBT test can be conducted? That's absurd! Surely you can see the foolishness of your own statement. AES does credible DBT at studio's all over the world. This studio you mention is not special in any way from other very good high end recording studio

First, I am not insuinuating anything, but you have not provided anything that can be discussed so far.

Secondly, what studio use speakers that recreate the original waveform through the monitor speakers with Ī1 dB 20 Hz to 20 khz at listening position (extending up to 40 kHz Ī 3 dB), up to 139 dB SPL @ 20 Hz? Name 10 studios in the world that can do that.

Third, are you "insinuating" that digital transfers 16/44.1 khz when made with the highest possible standard is audibly different from the original? Or can you point out a series of peer reviewed articles that independently and consistently can distinguish the digital copy from the master?

DMK
07-01-2004, 02:46 PM
Cited and translated to english:
Roger Hinchliffe
american artist
"Studio Blue is the best Studio that I have worked in. Even studios in USA have a long way to go to match the sound quality in Studio Blue
T

That sounds amazingly like a testimonial! Where are Mr Hinchliffe's citations and peer reviewed papers?

Sorry... YOU left the opening! :)

mtrycraft
07-01-2004, 04:00 PM
Human senses only effected when stimulated. No stimulation, and there is nothing to be interepreted by the brain.


Are you so sure about this?

Have you never responded just to be told they didn't ask a question or say anything to be responded to? Oh, please. The brain make up things all the time. Why do you think you use DBT then?

So if I haven't heard it, then there is no stimulus, and thus no interpretation by the brain. It's just that simple, you can't be bias in a listening test if you haven't heard anything right?

That is too funny to respond to, from a professional. Or, is that rhetorical?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-01-2004, 04:18 PM
First, I am not insuinuating anything, but you have not provided anything that can be discussed so far.

I believe it was you who chimed in rather late in this discussion. What needed to be said, already has.


Secondly, what studio use speakers that recreate the original waveform through the monitor speakers with Ī1 dB 20 Hz to 20 khz at listening position (extending up to 40 kHz Ī 3 dB), up to 139 dB SPL @ 20 Hz? Name 10 studios in the world that can do that.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand, please stay on the topic being discussed, you are hijacking this thread.

Third, are you "insinuating" that digital transfers 16/44.1 khz when made with the highest possible standard is audibly different from the original? Or can you point out a series of peer reviewed articles that independently and consistently can distinguish the digital copy from the master?[/QUOTE]

Not many recording are made to the highest of standards. Economics prevent this from happening. So this is out of line with reality, and does not represent everyday events from which I am coming from. VERY few audio engineers publish, but they do hold listening seminars. The one comment you hear over and over amoung those in my industry is that 16/44.1khz blunts transients, cannot reproduce muted trumpets, cymbals, or any other instruments with high frequency harmonics. this is almost universally heard in every seminar I have attended in the last couple of years. Where there is smoke, there is fire, and when so many people say the same thing, my ears perk up. When this information is delivered via some of the best audio engineers in the world, I am definately going to pay some attention. When I experience it myself, then it really drives the point home.

Since I have nothing to prove to you(or anyone else for that matter) I see no need in providing anyone with peer reviewed papers or articles.



As far as I am concerned, this thread is dead. It's just going around, and around in circles.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-01-2004, 04:20 PM
Human senses only effected when stimulated. No stimulation, and there is nothing to be interepreted by the brain.


Are you so sure about this?

Have you never responded just to be told they didn't ask a question or say anything to be responded to? Oh, please. The brain make up things all the time. Why do you think you use DBT then?

So if I haven't heard it, then there is no stimulus, and thus no interpretation by the brain. It's just that simple, you can't be bias in a listening test if you haven't heard anything right?

That is too funny to respond to, from a professional. Or, is that rhetorical?

Mtry, just because you are a weak minded fool doesn't mean everyone is

E-Stat
07-01-2004, 06:05 PM
Ah, the straw man argument, unsupported by facts. What else is new?
I forget that in your non-experience world there is no music. My apologies. Enjoy your test tones.

rw

Thomas_A
07-01-2004, 11:07 PM
That sounds amazingly like a testimonial! Where are Mr Hinchliffe's citations and peer reviewed papers?

Sorry... YOU left the opening! :)

:)

Well,

the issue in this thread is whether 16/44.1 is transparent or not. I have provided some data of the studio where the 16/44.1 tests were made. Besides, how do you test a studio in a peer reviewed report? One can start with the weakest point, the speakers, for which I already have mentioned some spec. I also mentioned the procedure for testing the equipment, with before/after test. If you don't know the method, see:

http://www.sonicdesign.se/amptest.htm

So, again, what studio has the spec I mentioned?

And if the digital transfer has been made with the highest quality standard and listened to with carefully selected equipment with no audible loss under blind conditions, what are the conditions where the 16/44.1 khz standard has been detected to be audibly different? Have there been controlled listening tests with removal of bias? Apparently, it is not known, as I understand it from this thread. It is only "generelly agreed" among studio people, that the 16/44.1 is not good enough. Since studio people I know has another opinion based on controlled listening tests with some of the best equpiments that can be bought for money and there apparently appear to be no peer reviewed report of audible difference, why should anyone believe the "general opinion"?

T

Thomas_A
07-01-2004, 11:10 PM
I believe it was you who chimed in rather late in this discussion. What needed to be said, already has.



Irrelevant to the topic at hand, please stay on the topic being discussed, you are hijacking this thread.

Third, are you "insinuating" that digital transfers 16/44.1 khz when made with the highest possible standard is audibly different from the original? Or can you point out a series of peer reviewed articles that independently and consistently can distinguish the digital copy from the master?

Not many recording are made to the highest of standards. Economics prevent this from happening. So this is out of line with reality, and does not represent everyday events from which I am coming from. VERY few audio engineers publish, but they do hold listening seminars. The one comment you hear over and over amoung those in my industry is that 16/44.1khz blunts transients, cannot reproduce muted trumpets, cymbals, or any other instruments with high frequency harmonics. this is almost universally heard in every seminar I have attended in the last couple of years. Where there is smoke, there is fire, and when so many people say the same thing, my ears perk up. When this information is delivered via some of the best audio engineers in the world, I am definately going to pay some attention. When I experience it myself, then it really drives the point home.

Since I have nothing to prove to you(or anyone else for that matter) I see no need in providing anyone with peer reviewed papers or articles.



As far as I am concerned, this thread is dead. It's just going around, and around in circles.[/QUOTE]

I agree that many CDs are not produced to the highest standard, especially taken into account the many mastering processes. But the issue is the quality of the medium itself. I also agree that there is no way this discussion can continue without any credible data.

Thomas_A
07-02-2004, 02:53 AM
Just one more comment. Higher performance PCM encoding (96 and 192 kHz/24 bits etc) and decoding is of course welcome for recording engineers because of the easier way of recording (better headroom etc).

But as a consumer, is it relevant? Quality-wise, that is. If the consumers have no reason for having higher quality than 16/44.1 kHz as a medium for 2-channel music, there is no reason to distribute higher than 16/44.1 kHz. The reason for introducing a new media is pushed on by market forces and not by the proposal that nobody will ever hear a difference with higher sampling rates. As has been discussed previously, is it so that the quality is decreased on purpose on 16/44.1 to push for other media? What has the recording industry to prove for the consumers? Do the push for a new media so that most records need to be bought again, claiming its superiority to 16/44.1 kHz? But when people look for this. there is no evidence for it. I suggest that the recording industry really have something they need to show and prove and that they take responsibility for the many poor recordings that are produced today.

(I have not talked about DSD and SACD, with its inherent non-linearites (or any other single-bit system). Highest possible quality and consistency is achieved with multibit systems. The inconsistency of one-bit systems and DSD can be seen on the impulse response where asymmetry and inconsistency is seen in and between pulses. This is not observed with good-quality multibit systems. I have also not talked about multi-channel music, but only to 2-channel recordings.)

T

DMK
07-02-2004, 05:21 AM
:)

Well,

the issue in this thread is whether 16/44.1 is transparent or not. I have provided some data of the studio where the 16/44.1 tests were made. Besides, how do you test a studio in a peer reviewed report? One can start with the weakest point, the speakers, for which I already have mentioned some spec. I also mentioned the procedure for testing the equipment, with before/after test. If you don't know the method, see:

http://www.sonicdesign.se/amptest.htm

So, again, what studio has the spec I mentioned?

And if the digital transfer has been made with the highest quality standard and listened to with carefully selected equipment with no audible loss under blind conditions, what are the conditions where the 16/44.1 khz standard has been detected to be audibly different? Have there been controlled listening tests with removal of bias? Apparently, it is not known, as I understand it from this thread. It is only "generelly agreed" among studio people, that the 16/44.1 is not good enough. Since studio people I know has another opinion based on controlled listening tests with some of the best equpiments that can be bought for money and there apparently appear to be no peer reviewed report of audible difference, why should anyone believe the "general opinion"?

T

I'm sure there are exceptions, but most of the posts I've read on this board show that the poster isn't concerned with what others believe. I know that I'm not and it doesn't appear that Sir Terrence is, either. I have posted a few things that go against the grain of the "naysayer" crowd and if they don't believe, they're free to test for themselves. Most of we poor audio lovers don't have the wherewithal or the desire to have our listening tests peer reviewed as we seek only musical enjoyment. This is a hobby for us, not a means to change the world of electronics and audiology theory. Perhaps that's shortsighted of us but it is what it is.

I brought up my earlier post to call your quote into question (in what I hope was a non-threatening way!) for a reason. You first question whether 16/44.1 is transparent and then you produce test results to show evidence that it is. Fine. But then you quote the artist who provides nothing more than anecdotal info regarding sound quality. It's the same type of posts that draw ire when we discuss the sound of the latest CDP or amp. Why should we believe Mr Hinchliffe, particularly when I've never heard of him? The specs are impressive but so are the specs on a $50 Pioneer receiver. Why should I believe this receiver sounds as good as anything when I've heard otherwise? Why should Sir Terrence believe something that goes against what he's heard?

For the record, I'll state that I own an SACD player and several SACD's. They sound better than their corresponding RBCD's and on some, they have dual layers. I'm not convinced it's the medium at this point. It may simply be the mix/mastering quality is better on the SACD. The jury (MY jury) is still out. But there is no question that my SACD's sound better. Consequently, I'm purchasing more. Results speak more loudly to me than measurements or lack of peer reviewed papers.

Steve1000
07-02-2004, 07:02 AM
I'm quite convinced that 44.1 khz mastering is transparent. No offense intended to the yeasaysers. One thing I do wonder about, though, is whether mastering at 96 khz thingies (I'm a layman, obviously) can make it more likely that future mastering changes of the recording in the digital domain can be accomplished without sonic degradation, sort of the way a 196 kbps mp3 might be transparent but a 196 kbps MP3 of a 196 kbps mp3 would likely not be transparent. If so, this could justify studio sampling at higher rates, I suppose. Any thoughts? I just don't know the answer.

Thomas_A
07-02-2004, 08:45 AM
I'm sure there are exceptions, but most of the posts I've read on this board show that the poster isn't concerned with what others believe. I know that I'm not and it doesn't appear that Sir Terrence is, either. I have posted a few things that go against the grain of the "naysayer" crowd and if they don't believe, they're free to test for themselves. Most of we poor audio lovers don't have the wherewithal or the desire to have our listening tests peer reviewed as we seek only musical enjoyment. This is a hobby for us, not a means to change the world of electronics and audiology theory. Perhaps that's shortsighted of us but it is what it is.

I brought up my earlier post to call your quote into question (in what I hope was a non-threatening way!) for a reason. You first question whether 16/44.1 is transparent and then you produce test results to show evidence that it is. Fine. But then you quote the artist who provides nothing more than anecdotal info regarding sound quality. It's the same type of posts that draw ire when we discuss the sound of the latest CDP or amp. Why should we believe Mr Hinchliffe, particularly when I've never heard of him? The specs are impressive but so are the specs on a $50 Pioneer receiver. Why should I believe this receiver sounds as good as anything when I've heard otherwise? Why should Sir Terrence believe something that goes against what he's heard?

For the record, I'll state that I own an SACD player and several SACD's. They sound better than their corresponding RBCD's and on some, they have dual layers. I'm not convinced it's the medium at this point. It may simply be the mix/mastering quality is better on the SACD. The jury (MY jury) is still out. But there is no question that my SACD's sound better. Consequently, I'm purchasing more. Results speak more loudly to me than measurements or lack of peer reviewed papers.

Regarding the quote, I agree. It's no use to put them there and I made a mistake. The studio is not primarily not a recording studio, but they have educational programs for students that wants to be recording engineers. Only a few records have been made there, but mainly as demonstration of the potential of how it may sound when everything has been recorded the best way. The records can be bought from them, but it's not easy to get them though.

A second point, even if a person has not been heard of before (no matter what the subject), there is nothing that says that there some substance in it. Just because someone don't want to be seen or heard does not mean he/she is incorrect, or? I know that there are people that are not known among the audience at forums like this, but they may be known by others in the audio industry. See e.g. this discussion:

http://www.fivechannels.com/artiklar/CDvsSACDvsDVD-A-followup.htm

The english has not been good translated, but anyway.

Third,

as I mentioned above - is the pushing for new formats only a way to get more money for the industry OR that the 16/44.1 kHz is flawed audibly? As consumers we can choose the best format if both are available. But there is no way the consumer can decide which is best if poor quality is deliberately put on 16/44.1 medium, is there? Marketforces decide, and the recording industry have "decided" that the new formats are audibly better. But nothing has ever come up when one looks at what has been done. There is no evidence that the new format IS audibly better. Simply put.

T

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-02-2004, 11:26 AM
I'm quite convinced that 44.1 khz mastering is transparent.

As a admitted layman, what experience can you draw from that supports this conclusion?
My experience certailnly doesn't support this claim. If you receive a product that has been RECORDED at 176.4khz, and you mix, master it, and downsample for release to 16/44.1khz, you will notice some significant losses in air, imaging, tonality, cymbals sound different, and god forbid any muted trumpet is the mix. What also noticeably missing but takes some critical listening is the inner detail of the mix. The leading edge of transients in percussion sound blurred and fuzzy. This is the case with every one of the recordings I have done at a high sample rate, and downconverted to 16/44.1khz, so redbook is far from transparent. you cannot throw samples away and not expect some degredation.




No offense intended to the yeasaysers. One thing I do wonder about, though, is whether mastering at 96 khz thingies (I'm a layman, obviously) can make it more likely that future mastering changes of the recording in the digital domain can be accomplished without sonic degradation, sort of the way a 196 kbps mp3 might be transparent but a 196 kbps MP3 of a 196 kbps mp3 would likely not be transparent. If so, this could justify studio sampling at higher rates, I suppose. Any thoughts? I just don't know the answer.

MP3 are never transparent unless the recorded sources were of lower quality than the potiential resolution at the highest bit rate. With the exception of high bitrate Dts, no lossy codec is completely transparent, especially at the low data rates MP3 uses. Secondly if you record at 176.4khz or 88.2khz and have to downconvert to redbook, you will also experience losses. Archiving at a higher sampling rate for release in a format with a higher sampling rate is advantageous. Recording at a high sampling rate for transparency into a lower sample rate yields no benefits whatsoever. It won't be transparent.

Steve1000
07-02-2004, 04:18 PM
Deleted. :)

DMK
07-02-2004, 04:19 PM
as I mentioned above - is the pushing for new formats only a way to get more money for the industry OR that the 16/44.1 kHz is flawed audibly? As consumers we can choose the best format if both are available. But there is no way the consumer can decide which is best if poor quality is deliberately put on 16/44.1 medium, is there? Marketforces decide, and the recording industry have "decided" that the new formats are audibly better. But nothing has ever come up when one looks at what has been done. There is no evidence that the new format IS audibly better. Simply put.

T

I'll leave it to folks such as Sir Terrence and others who have a stake in proving one format or the other. I can't comment on that, other than my own experience. But your looking to determine if there is a format that is audibly superior and I differ in that I'm only looking for an audibly superior finished product. On the other hand, I would be horrified to learn that the 16/44.1 recordings were deliberately tampered with in order to make SACD sound inferior with the further intent to force consumers to repurchase our collection (which I'd never do, anyway - at least not on a wholesale scale).

One area not covered (although you specifically said you were NOT covering it) is that SACD has the ability to give us multi-channels. That could tip the scales soundly (pardon the pun) in the higher rez format's favor. If for no other reason, I'd have to say higher rez digital is superior to redbook for the purpose of multichannel.

mtrycraft
07-02-2004, 08:15 PM
Mtry, just because you are a weak minded fool doesn't mean everyone is


I suppose then, you are the perfect one. Good for you.

However, a bit of consulting with clinical psychologists might shed some light on human senses, gullibility, bias, fallibility of perception, brain filling in empty or missing data.
Hey, maybe you are right, but I seriously doubt it.
TGry a little outside research beyond the mixing panel. Might do you some good, or it might be embarrassing to your beliefs.

hifitommy
07-03-2004, 06:44 AM
"brain filling in empty or missing data"

yes, yours seems to. that is why rbcd is adequate for you. the missing data just isnt missing for you. you never heard the complete data to start with.

of all mouths here on the AR, yours is the one spouting comparison testing. i assure you that the terrible one could easily prove his statements using your favorite dbt methodology.

mtrycraft
07-03-2004, 08:56 PM
"brain filling in empty or missing data"

yes, yours seems to. that is why rbcd is adequate for you. the missing data just isnt missing for you. you never heard the complete data to start with.

of all mouths here on the AR, yours is the one spouting comparison testing. i assure you that the terrible one could easily prove his statements using your favorite dbt methodology.


I am so happy that you are number two who is perfectly built ande designed. Must be by that intelligent designer?

Why hasn't he proven anything yet then? Or, for that matter, anyone? Really, anyone.

Keep on trying. One day you may get it but, my prediction is that day will not come in your life time, nor mine.

hifitommy
07-03-2004, 09:09 PM
even if one were to prove conclusively to you that the higher sampling rates capture more of the music (and they DO), you would ridicule it and call it floobie dust. you continuously show by example that your intelligence doesnt preclude stupidity.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-06-2004, 08:30 AM
I suppose then, you are the perfect one. Good for you.

However, a bit of consulting with clinical psychologists might shed some light on human senses, gullibility, bias, fallibility of perception, brain filling in empty or missing data.
Hey, maybe you are right, but I seriously doubt it.
TGry a little outside research beyond the mixing panel. Might do you some good, or it might be embarrassing to your beliefs.

Nobody is perfect and you know this I am sure. But I understood about bias, gullibilty and perception long before I knew a Mtry even existed. So I am far ahead of you on this issue. Once you understand how these things creep in, it is not difficult at all to control the information that sets these things into play. Not perfection, but control.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-06-2004, 08:33 AM
I am so happy that you are number two who is perfectly built ande designed. Must be by that intelligent designer?

Why hasn't he proven anything yet then? Or, for that matter, anyone? Really, anyone.

Keep on trying. One day you may get it but, my prediction is that day will not come in your life time, nor mine.

I don't have anything to prove to you, that is why I don't do it. Besides, you are an expert at scoffing and dismissing any information that doesn't support you thought process. I am not going to waste my time on an individual like you. Sorry

And as far as your predictions, Irelevent to the issue at hand. You don't even know what is going to happen in the next minute, let alone a lifetime.

mtrycraft
07-06-2004, 07:52 PM
I don't have anything to prove to you, that is why I don't do it. Besides, you are an expert at scoffing and dismissing any information that doesn't support you thought process. I am not going to waste my time on an individual like you. Sorry

And as far as your predictions, Irelevent to the issue at hand. You don't even know what is going to happen in the next minute, let alone a lifetime.


No, you don't have to prove anything to anyone. Just feel free to claim anything you'd like.

As to my prediction, I guess we'll just have to wait and see, right.

mtrycraft
07-06-2004, 07:56 PM
Once you understand how these things creep in, it is not difficult at all to control the information that sets these things into play. Not perfection, but control.

Really? I wonder why those pros who know all these factors rely only on a DBT validated outcome? You are so funny. But, that is exactely what I expect from you, these silly statements.

mtrycraft
07-06-2004, 08:00 PM
even if one were to prove conclusively to you that the higher sampling rates capture more of the music (and they DO), [b]

Youe supposition only. When will you supply something more?




[b]you would ridicule it and call it floobie dust.

Really? Try me. Make sure it is evidence, not speculations.


you continuously show by example that your intelligence doesnt preclude stupidity.

Of course not. It happens to the best. But not today. You are too much as well. After all this time, you could have learned something important but no. Why is that?

hifitommy
07-06-2004, 08:05 PM
try LISTENING.

E-Stat
07-07-2004, 04:29 AM
try LISTENING.
But then that would be against his "experience free" philosophy. :)

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-07-2004, 08:12 AM
No, you don't have to prove anything to anyone. Just feel free to claim anything you'd like.

I don't usually claim just anything, but whatever.


As to my prediction, I guess we'll just have to wait and see, right.

Not going to hold my breath, predictions are unreliable.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-07-2004, 09:57 AM
Really? I wonder why those pros who know all these factors rely only on a DBT validated outcome? You are so funny. But, that is exactely what I expect from you, these silly statements.

I do not believe I have said that DBT are unnecessary, I simply said if you understand what creates biases it helps when doing DBT. I do not see anything silly about that at all. It is no more sillier than you arguing with me about something that requires YOU to actually do something. Shout your mouth and do some listening. Since it is so important for you to argue this so rabidly, go to a studio, arrange a DBT with a source encoded at 16/44.1khz, 16/48khz and 16/96khz, and compare it to a master. If you cannot hear a difference, then fine you have something to argue about. But in the absence of not really listening to anything, you really do not have much to argue about.

I have said this to you before, there is nothing like first hand experience. Sitting behind your computer and arguing theory about a media that requires that you listen is silly and stupid. I am somewhat surprised that you cannot see this. Purchasing AES papers, searching online can only provide you a narrow window of information. Music REQUIRES that you listen, and compare.

Most of what you spout off is off the backs of others. Second hand information. How about actually getting some first hand knowledge for a change.

mtrycraft
07-07-2004, 06:35 PM
I simply said if you understand what creates biases it helps when doing DBT.[b]

I understand what you said. Now you are changing position by adding during DBT listening.

The whole purpose of DBT is to minimize and eliminate the effect of any bias you have, one way or another, as one just cannot control it. Otherwise, there would be no reason for DBT. So, it matters not during DBt if you understnd bias or not. Golden ears demonstrate that every time during DBT that they don't need any understand of bias as the protocol will take care of it whether you want it or not, whether you understnd it or not. Understanding is Irrelevant.

[b] It is no more sillier than you arguing with me about something that requires YOU to actually do something.


Not at all. I don't need to do anything if you make testable claims, just challenge them when I see it fit.

Since it is so important for you to argue this so rabidly, go to a studio, arrange a DBT with a source encoded at 16/44.1khz, 16/48khz and 16/96khz, and compare it to a master.


Meaningless what I can hear when you make certain claims to what you can hear, isn't it?
My hearing is irrelevant toi these issues.

If you cannot hear a difference, then fine you have something to argue about.

Wrong. I have something to argue about when you do not have the necessary evidence supporting your claims.

But in the absence of not really listening to anything, you really do not have much to argue about.

Wrong, as above.

I have said this to you before, there is nothing like first hand experience.


Yes, I need to kick a few more concrete footballs, be abducted by aliens, sit down with John Edwards and have a reading, etc.

Sitting behind your computer and arguing theory about a media that requires that you listen is silly and stupid.

Theory is just that. Listeing is something else again, isn't it? Besides, I think you were the one making the testable claims that I questioned, right?


I am somewhat surprised that you cannot see this.

I am not that you don't.

Purchasing AES papers, searching online can only provide you a narrow window of information. Music REQUIRES that you listen, and compare.

Maybe and no. I don't really need to comapre anything. Remember who made what claims?

Most of what you spout off is off the backs of others.

Yes, that is how the world goes forward, not reinventiong everything by everyone. You'd never get anywhere.

Second hand information.

Yep. Doesn't mean that your first hand information is reliable, right?

mtrycraft
07-07-2004, 06:40 PM
On the other hand, I would be horrified to learn that the 16/44.1 recordings were deliberately tampered with in order to make SACD sound inferior with the further intent to force consumers to repurchase our collection (which I'd never do, anyway - at least not on a wholesale scale).

.

I am sure you mean SACD superior.
But, Sony did just that a number of years ago trying to demo the superiority of SACD. They were caught at it. It was published, yes, and I have it someplace:)

mtrycraft
07-07-2004, 06:42 PM
try LISTENING.


Oh, yes, nothing to add. That is your usual post though, isn't it?

But then, your listening isn't doing much good.

mtrycraft
07-07-2004, 06:46 PM
Not going to hold my breath, predictions are unreliable.


Oh, Really? Is that my predictions or in general? Be very careful.

Monstrous Mike
07-08-2004, 07:27 AM
... arrange a DBT with a source encoded at 16/44.1khz, 16/48khz and 16/96khz, and compare it to a master.
I'll admit I not 100% up on audio recording processes and techniques but I have a few points.

I think it is reasonable to assume that the first time recorded analog sound is converted to digital, a high sample rate and high word length would be wise to capture as much information as possible. Then working with this high resolution data would minimize losses when the final stage is downconverting it to redbook CD.

So in my mind, the real question is that when you have your 24/192 master digital CD, is there an audible sonic difference/degradation if you downconvert it to 16/44.1 (i.e. a redbook CD format)?

I have read lots of stories about SACD and how they sound better than the redbook CD format. But the whole story isn't being told. How do we know what source the engineer used to produce the SACD? Perhaps the redbook master was not done as well as possible but the SACD was better produced. In other words, the SACD may sound better but not for the reason that it is a higher digital resolution.

I think this is highlighted when an existing CD is remastered and remixed and sounds better than the original CD. Anyways, being an engineer, I am always skeptical and investigate when I hear people claiming "more is better" like more bandwidth, higher data rates, greater word lengths, more jitter reduction, etc. Sometimes "more" doesn't do a damn thing for you other than waste money.

And in audio land, the need for "more" is very pervasive and may cloud peoples' judgement.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-08-2004, 09:58 AM
I simply said if you understand what creates biases it helps when doing DBT][b]


I understand what you said. Now you are changing position by adding during DBT listening.

No, I am not changing position. I am a big believer in DBT and do it frequently.



The whole purpose of DBT is to minimize and eliminate the effect of any bias you have, one way or another, as one just cannot control it. Otherwise, there would be no reason for DBT. So, it matters not during DBt if you understnd bias or not. Golden ears demonstrate that every time during DBT that they don't need any understand of bias as the protocol will take care of it whether you want it or not, whether you understnd it or not. Understanding is Irrelevant.

So tell me something I didn't know, this is old information.


It is no more sillier than you arguing with me about something that requires YOU to actually do something.


Not at all. I don't need to do anything if you make testable claims, just challenge them when I see it fit.

This is sooooo typical Mtry. Don't do anything, so you can argue about everything.


Since it is so important for you to argue this so rabidly, go to a studio, arrange a DBT with a source encoded at 16/44.1khz, 16/48khz and 16/96khz, and compare it to a master.


Meaningless what I can hear when you make certain claims to what you can hear, isn't it?

My hearing is irrelevant toi these issues.

I think it is VERY relevant. Theory can only carry you so far, then you really need to actually DO something to get to the next level. If you think that 16/44.1khz is all you need, then it would be a eye(and ear) opening experience to actually HEAR what it sounds like when compared to a master tape. Once again you are content with talking rather than listening. A very convient position wouldn't you say?




If you cannot hear a difference, then fine you have something to argue about.


Wrong. I have something to argue about when you do not have the necessary evidence supporting your claims.

The evidence would be a listening test for you. If you think I am wrong, the only way to prove I am right is for you to listen for yourself. Otherwise you will never know. In this case you cannot read the proof, you have to listen to it. Can you process this? What are you afraid of, that you actually learning something first hand, and it will leave you powerless to argue a point.


But in the absence of not really listening to anything, you really do not have much to argue about.


Wrong, as above.

Classic Mtry. You have nothing to argue, you have no first hand experience, no first hand information, nothing, absolutely nothing but what you read which you don't know is even correct.


I have said this to you before, there is nothing like first hand experience.


Yes, I need to kick a few more concrete footballs, be abducted by aliens, sit down with John Edwards and have a reading, etc.

Wow, we are now making some progress. At least you are doing something!!! Unfortunately being abducted by aliens isn't very beneficial for you, you already know about that.


Sitting behind your computer and arguing theory about a media that requires that you listen is silly and stupid.


Theory is just that. Listeing is something else again, isn't it? Besides, I think you were the one making the testable claims that I questioned, right?

You however were the one challenging them, right? So when you are dealing with a media that requires that you listen, you are suppose to listen, not talk or shove second hand information at someone. You have absolutely no idea of the validity of anything you read and don't test it for yourself. That is why when engineers report in mags that 24/96khz sounds better than 16/44.1khz, my next notion is to listen for myself, with my ears.



I am somewhat surprised that you cannot see this.


I am not that you don't.

Is english your first language?



Purchasing AES papers, searching online can only provide you a narrow window of information. Music REQUIRES that you listen, and compare.


Maybe and no. I don't really need to comapre anything. Remember who made what claims?

Are you afraid of what you might learn? Are you afraid that you long held and precious beliefs would be dispelled?


Most of what you spout off is off the backs of others.


Yes, that is how the world goes forward, not reinventiong everything by everyone. You'd never get anywhere.

This comment clearly demonstrates how lazy and inconsistant you really are. You believe what you read and do not challenge it. You come to this forum and challenge everything anyone says, and require evidence to support it. How do you know that DBT is all that reliable if you have never tried it. How do you know it truely erases all bias? Do you know if the process can be contaminated?

The world could not go forward if everyone only read things and did nothing. This world was not built by people who did nothing. The world you would create would be full of lazy shiftless people arguing about everything, but doing or trying nothing. That's not a world I would want to live in.


Second hand information.


Yep. Doesn't mean that your first hand information is reliable, right?

It's probably more reliable than your second hand information. At least I have tested the theory, you have only read about it.

Mtry, your game is inconsistant, old, tired, safe, but stupid at the same time. If you do nothing, reveal nothing, share nothing, you do not have to be responsible for anything, or held accoutantable for anything. This is cowardly, and means you cannot be taken seriously.(but then I have known this for years)

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-08-2004, 03:18 PM
I'll admit I not 100% up on audio recording processes and techniques but I have a few points.

I think it is reasonable to assume that the first time recorded analog sound is converted to digital, a high sample rate and high word length would be wise to capture as much information as possible. Then working with this high resolution data would minimize losses when the final stage is downconverting it to redbook CD.

Bingo!!!


So in my mind, the real question is that when you have your 24/192 master digital CD, is there an audible sonic difference/degradation if you downconvert it to 16/44.1 (i.e. a redbook CD format)?

first lets tackle the which sampling rates to use for which format. For redbook CD I would use the sample rate of 176.4khz because it is infinately easier to downconvert to 16/44.1khz. For DVD-A I would use 96khz, because it would allow me to do multichannel. I cannot think of any reason to use 192khz sample rate. You can only record stereo, and it is not an audible improvement over 96khz to these ears.

Yes there is some sonic degradation when downsampling from 176.4khz to 44.1khz. You are throwing away samples during downconversion, so some losses are expected.


I have read lots of stories about SACD and how they sound better than the redbook CD format. But the whole story isn't being told. How do we know what source the engineer used to produce the SACD?

It is not standard practice to use more than one master for either format. While backup systems are often used(I use it frequently), it is recording the same sound from the same microphones, going through the same mixing desk. If the CD version is pop or R&B, it will probably have more signal processing on it than the SACD version. If it is Jazz or classical, then most likely no other signal processing was used. I know of no instance where two seperate master tapes are needed, unless the backup is used because of damage, or dropouts.



Perhaps the redbook master was not done as well as possible but the SACD was better produced. In other words, the SACD may sound better but not for the reason that it is a higher digital resolution.

What interest does a engineer have in sabotaging a particular format. Do you think the record company or artist would allow that? The CD is what is heard on the radio, and television. If it doesn't sound good, then what motivation will people have to purchase it. Sony however just MAY have an interest. They are pushing this format. But what is in it for the engineer that doesn't work for Sony? Not a dang thing.


I think this is highlighted when an existing CD is remastered and remixed and sounds better than the original CD. Anyways, being an engineer, I am always skeptical and investigate when I hear people claiming "more is better" like more bandwidth, higher data rates, greater word lengths, more jitter reduction, etc. Sometimes "more" doesn't do a damn thing for you other than waste money.

There are MANY reasons why a remastering job will sound better than the original. A better mastering engineer, better mastering equipment, more time, and bigger budget. There are examples of having more bits makes a difference. When movie soundtrack is initally encoded into 16/48khz at 754kbps, and then is remastered at a bit rate of 1.5mbps(Dts stream) There is a subtle, but very noticeable smoothness, and cohesiveness to the soundfield. When you are talking about spending money on upgrading your studio, more is not what you want unless it is actually an improvement.


And in audio land, the need for "more" is very pervasive and may cloud peoples' judgement.

If you have a audio product to sell, I can see your point. But if you are mixing and mastering more is not necessarily what you desire unless it is more money and more time.

mtrycraft
07-08-2004, 07:57 PM
No, I am not changing position. I am a big believer in DBT and do it frequently.

You could have fooled me and everyone else.




So tell me something I didn't know, this is old information.

Ah, old info for you? Then your comment about bias was silly.




If you think I am wrong, the only way to prove I am right is for you to listen for yourself.

Wrong. You havent demonstrated that you are right.

In this case you cannot read the proof, you have to listen to it.

Really?




You have nothing to argue, you have no first hand experience, no first hand information, nothing, absolutely nothing but what you read which you don't know is even correct.

And your first hand information is so valid? Really?


You however were the one challenging them, right?

Actually, I was challenging your claims.


You come to this forum and challenge everything anyone says, and require evidence to support it.

Actually, I don't. Only the ones without evidence, real ones.

How do you know that DBT is all that reliable if you have never tried it.

Ah, that is your byline, you must experience everything first hand, right?

That's not a world I would want to live in.

No, you want to reinvent everything, first hand.

hifitommy
07-09-2004, 05:29 AM
mtry,

No, I am not changing position. I am a big believer in DBT and do it frequently.

You could have fooled me and everyone else.
.................................................. .................
no, youre the fool and dont realize that youre NOT fooling everyone.

the rest of your post sounds out like a kid yelling LALALALALALALALA! so you cant hear him (TT, the pro, whom you denounce even though you always point to professionals with glowing pride).

the only point you ever seem to make is opposition and then from shifting positions.

Monstrous Mike
07-09-2004, 09:46 AM
Yes there is some sonic degradation when downsampling from 176.4khz to 44.1khz. You are throwing away samples during downconversion, so some losses are expected.
Yes, but are there any losses in the 20Hz-20kHz frequency range and if so, are they audible?

DMK
07-09-2004, 07:51 PM
[b]
No, you want to reinvent everything, first hand.

I agree that the reinvention of the wheel makes no sense when the wheel cannot be improved upon. But as far as wheels go, redbook CD is in dire need of reinvention or, at the least, one hell of a lot of grease! ;)

mtrycraft
07-09-2004, 08:15 PM
I agree that the reinvention of the wheel makes no sense when the wheel cannot be improved upon. But as far as wheels go, redbook CD is in dire need of reinvention or, at the least, one hell of a lot of grease! ;)

It needs 5.1 :)

E-Stat
07-10-2004, 04:44 AM
It needs 5.1 :)
Along with upper octave harmonic integrity and very low level resolution.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-10-2004, 08:53 AM
No, I am not changing position. I am a big believer in DBT and do it frequently.

You could have fooled me and everyone else.




So tell me something I didn't know, this is old information.

Ah, old info for you? Then your comment about bias was silly.




If you think I am wrong, the only way to prove I am right is for you to listen for yourself.

Wrong. You havent demonstrated that you are right.

In this case you cannot read the proof, you have to listen to it.

Really?




You have nothing to argue, you have no first hand experience, no first hand information, nothing, absolutely nothing but what you read which you don't know is even correct.

And your first hand information is so valid? Really?


You however were the one challenging them, right?

Actually, I was challenging your claims.


You come to this forum and challenge everything anyone says, and require evidence to support it.

Actually, I don't. Only the ones without evidence, real ones.

How do you know that DBT is all that reliable if you have never tried it.

Ah, that is your byline, you must experience everything first hand, right?

That's not a world I would want to live in.

No, you want to reinvent everything, first hand.

Okay, I can see at this point all you want to do is playing little word games. This is a waste of my time, and I would rather spend my time actually informing and helping rather than playing silly little immature games with you. You continue to pick and choose the information you deem credible, and I wish you much luck getting whatever truth you are looking for.

hifitommy
07-10-2004, 09:05 AM
the posts you issued this time were exceedingly clear and informative. by trying to be reasonable and giving calm and detailed answers, you have informed those who are usually frustrated by the usual emptycraft obfuscations here. <O:p</O:p

i look forward to further enlightenment when more issues are in need of clarification.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-10-2004, 09:12 AM
Yes, but are there any losses in the 20Hz-20kHz frequency range and if so, are they audible?

In my experience, yes there have been some audible losses. Cymbals and muted brass sounds very different at 88.2khz than at 44.1khz. After downsampling image shifting often occurs, as does the loss of punch and transient attack of percussion instruments. This has been my experience, and why I do not much care for redbook CD format. You can mix to counter some of these losses, but why compromise the front end just to accomadate what comes out of the back end. I would rather have a format that could pass what I recorded and mixed with low to no losses.

mtrycraft
07-10-2004, 02:19 PM
Along with upper octave harmonic integrity and very low level resolution.

rw


Is that more of your speculations?

E-Stat
07-10-2004, 02:32 PM
Is that more of your speculations?
Other than listening to music, where else do you spend your time with non-experience? Surely a complex individual like yourself has varied interests. How about sports? Do you enjoy immersing yourself in not playing golf? Or perhaps not playing tennis? My wife and I are both figure skaters. Do you enjoy just reading about camel-sit spins or axel jumps?

Sometimes I wonder which other activities in your life you savor the non-experience.

rw

mtrycraft
07-10-2004, 02:34 PM
Other than listening to music, where else do you spend your time with non-experience? Surely a complex individual like yourself has varied interests. How about sports? Do you enjoy immersing yourself in not playing golf? Or perhaps not playing tennis? My wife and I are both figure skaters. Do you enjoy just reading about camel-sit spins or axel jumps?

Sometimes I wonder which other activities there are in your life where you enjoy non-experience.

rw


Enjoy your hobbies. I certainly enjoy all of mine, thanks.

E-Stat
07-10-2004, 02:35 PM
Enjoy your hobbies. I certainly enjoy all of mine, thanks.
That wasn't really the question. Do you just talk about them like you do here with music listening?

rw

Thomas_A
07-11-2004, 10:49 AM
In my experience, yes there have been some audible losses. Cymbals and muted brass sounds very different at 88.2khz than at 44.1khz. After downsampling image shifting often occurs, as does the loss of punch and transient attack of percussion instruments. This has been my experience, and why I do not much care for redbook CD format. You can mix to counter some of these losses, but why compromise the front end just to accomadate what comes out of the back end. I would rather have a format that could pass what I recorded and mixed with low to no losses.

Sir,

since you apparently are not against DBTs, can you share whether your experience was founded on any kind of DBT and if so, the number of correct guesses between 88.2 and 44.1, or give som other information about the test that would validate this observation? Any reference person/test leader that participated that I can e-mail in this matter? Has the equipment for decoding and encoding been tested to be transparent? If so, what was the methods involved?

As said above, "experience" has also been that downsampling from higher orders have not caused any audible impact with carefully tested equipment.

mtrycraft
07-11-2004, 03:28 PM
Sir,

since you apparently are not against DBTs, can you share whether your experience was founded on any kind of DBT and if so, the number of correct guesses between 88.2 and 44.1, or give som other information about the test that would validate this observation? Any reference person/test leader that participated that I can e-mail in this matter? Has the equipment for decoding and encoding been tested to be transparent? If so, what was the methods involved?

As said above, "experience" has also been that downsampling from higher orders have not caused any audible impact with carefully tested equipment.


Here we go, you bring all this FACT stuff to the table. Perceiving is believing :D

mtrycraft
07-11-2004, 06:23 PM
That wasn't really the question. Do you just talk about them like you do here with music listening?

rw


Does it matter what I do with my hobbies? Not to me. Why does it bother you then?

Thomas_A
07-12-2004, 01:33 AM
Here we go, you bring all this FACT stuff to the table. Perceiving is believing :D

:D :rolleyes:

I am also curious of how SirT can explain how mixing should counter some of the effects caused by downsampling when the critical point, as he claims, is recreation of the waveform and not the high-frequency content (and when reducing the HF content to 18 kHz i.e. inaudible, the waveform suffers, how can THAT be possible???). What kind of mixing is that? Can he show e.g. the result from such type of mixing e.g. what it does to a waveform? Is something understood in this process? IF and I say IF there was an audible difference how does SirT know that this was not caused by any flaws during conversion, e.g. decreased level of high-frequency content up to 22,050 kHz? How does he know that the previous high-frequency content >22,050 kHz did NOT cause any peculiar distorsion in e.g. the speakers that was audible?



Thomas

E-Stat
07-12-2004, 05:04 AM
Does it matter what I do with my hobbies? Not to me. Why does it bother you then?
No bother, just curiosity. Never met someone who expends the amount of energy you do into an interest without ever experiencing it.

rw

hifitommy
07-12-2004, 05:31 AM
:D :rolleyes:

I am also curious of how SirT can explain how mixing should counter some of the effects caused by downsampling

Thomas
if you have been reading all along, you will know thqat he is a professiional recordist and has 'been there, done that' and knows these things by experience and has had to deal with the consequences. he is paid to do his job correctly, he aparently EARNS the money by doing so.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-12-2004, 08:39 AM
Sir,

since you apparently are not against DBTs, can you share whether your experience was founded on any kind of DBT and if so, the number of correct guesses between 88.2 and 44.1, or give som other information about the test that would validate this observation? Any reference person/test leader that participated that I can e-mail in this matter? Has the equipment for decoding and encoding been tested to be transparent? If so, what was the methods involved?

As said above, "experience" has also been that downsampling from higher orders have not caused any audible impact with carefully tested equipment.

Apparently you do not read very well(not trying to be mean or anything) But I already said I was not going down this road. My testing and working experience was not designed for peer review, but followed the protocol set up by AES. End of post.

Also you already admitted that you are a layman, did you personally participate in this listening test? Have you ever PERSONALLY heard audio downsampled from a higher resolution source? If not, this is second hand information as far as I am concerned.

Thomas_A
07-12-2004, 09:54 AM
Apparently you do not read very well(not trying to be mean or anything) But I already said I was not going down this road. My testing and working experience was not designed for peer review, but followed the protocol set up by AES. End of post.

Also you already admitted that you are a layman, did you personally participate in this listening test? Have you ever PERSONALLY heard audio downsampled from a higher resolution source? If not, this is second hand information as far as I am concerned.

No,

I did not participate in this particular test, but I've attended other listening tests blindly and double-blind in the studio. So I am very familiar what kind of methods they use during testing and what listeners that usually can reveal differences. And I say that most the times, differences they or I hear or feel between different kinds of equipment are VERY subtle.

After all the many tests with 16/44.1, they have concluded that the format as such is better, yea, much better than what most people BELIEVE, when the most transparent equipment for encoding and decoding are used.

T

Thomas_A
07-12-2004, 10:04 AM
if you have been reading all along, you will know thqat he is a professiional recordist and has 'been there, done that' and knows these things by experience and has had to deal with the consequences. he is paid to do his job correctly, he aparently EARNS the money by doing so.

Well this has not slipped my mind...But professional or not, it's not the point here if you read my questions. If e.g. an analogue signal becomes audibly different when passing an 16/44.1 A/D followed by an D/A converter used in the studio, then something in the A/D and/or D/A is not making it right. So is that what the mixing corrects?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-12-2004, 01:34 PM
:D :rolleyes:

I am also curious of how SirT can explain how mixing should counter some of the effects caused by downsampling when the critical point, as he claims, is recreation of the waveform and not the high-frequency content (and when reducing the HF content to 18 kHz i.e. inaudible, the waveform suffers, how can THAT be possible???).

I am afraid the question you are asking is not well formed. You can counter the loss of percussion transients partially through eq (note I said partially) You can pan some instruments further out into the soundfield to counter image shifting towards the middle. All of this is far from perfect, but (in some cases) can partially deal with some of the effects of downsampling. I never mentioned reducing anything to 18khz, and the waveform suffers because it is not complete, it has been altered through the downconversion process (i.e cymbals, and percussion which have significant high frequency content sounds audibly blunted)


What kind of mixing is that? Can he show e.g. the result from such type of mixing e.g. what it does to a waveform?

Your apparent lack of experience betrays you. We don't mix waveforms, we mix music.



Is something understood in this process? IF and I say IF there was an audible difference how does SirT know that this was not caused by any flaws during conversion, e.g. decreased level of high-frequency content up to 22,050 kHz?

Well, I think it is obvious that any information over 22khz is gone, any flaws during conversion, well I use Lavry digital products, and they are considered amoung the best and most transparent in the world.


How does he know that the previous high-frequency content >22,050 kHz did NOT cause any peculiar distorsion in e.g. the speakers that was audible?

The tweeter in the speaker is flat to 50khz, it will not distort, and distortion stays well below audiblity as long as we don't exceed more than 100db's. This is not really relevant since I do not hear much above 18khz anyway. What we heard wasn't any distortion artifiact anyway. What we heard was a shifting of instruments in the soundfield, a digital glaze that covered the mix, percussion losing its punch and timbre, and the total inability for the downsampled audio to accurately play back a muted trumpet(it sounded nothing like the master tape).

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-12-2004, 02:41 PM
No,

I did not participate in this particular test, but I've attended other listening tests blindly and double-blind in the studio. So I am very familiar what kind of methods they use during testing and what listeners that usually can reveal differences. And I say that most the times, differences they or I hear or feel between different kinds of equipment are VERY subtle.

After all the many tests with 16/44.1, they have concluded that the format as such is better, yea, much better than what most people BELIEVE, when the most transparent equipment for encoding and decoding are used.

T

Unfortunate Thomas, the most transparent equipment for downconverting audio is VERY expensive and out of the reach of most DIY mixers, and a great many studios. It is also unrealistic to think that all equipment and processes are completely transparent, and without problems. This why I do not like the downconversion process.

I would also like to offer to you that most people who do most of their mixing and mastering at 44.1khz will not even know what to listen for when listening to a downconverted digital file. If the test included well recorded cymbals crashes, high hat claps, or muted trumpets and you still considered it transparent, then I would call you a liar to you face. These are tortute tests for redbook CD, I have yet to hear in over 20 years experience these cleanly and accurately reproduced at 44.1khz.

Something strikes me funny here. In your previous postings you never made mention to the fact that you participated in "all of these" listening test. You just mentioned you were a layman. When did it occur to you that you had went from layman, to experienced listener?

You did your test, I did mine. We both came to different conclusions. You don't work in audio and admit you are a layman, I work in audio, mostly in with DD, Dts, CD, DVD-A and SACD. I have learned and trained my ear over the years on what to listen for with high to low downconversion. If you have not trained your ear on what to listen for, then I'll bet good money you won't hear any difference. If you think that you can walk in off the street and be able to indentify any audible differences, then you are totally fooling yourself.

Did "they" meaning the other people make this opinion. Or did you with your laymans experience make an opinion of their own? Which is it?

E-Stat
07-12-2004, 03:08 PM
If the test included well recorded cymbals crashes, high hat claps, or muted trumpets and you still considered it transparent, then I would call you a liar to you face. These are tortute tests for redbook CD, I have yet to hear in over 20 years experience these cleanly and accurately reproduced at 44.1khz.
Not to mention attempting to "float" a triangle over a symphony as one hears in the live event. Redbook at its best is very good. Perfect reproduction or "transparent" as Thomas would say is naive.

rw

Thomas_A
07-12-2004, 03:12 PM
Unfortunate Thomas, the most transparent equipment for downconverting audio is VERY expensive and out of the reach of most DIY mixers, and a great many studios. It is also unrealistic to think that all equipment and processes are completely transparent, and without problems. This why I do not like the downconversion process.

I would also like to offer to you that most people who do most of their mixing and mastering at 44.1khz will not even know what to listen for when listening to a downconverted digital file. If the test included well recorded cymbals crashes, high hat claps, or muted trumpets and you still considered it transparent, then I would call you a liar to you face. These are tortute tests for redbook CD, I have yet to hear in over 20 years experience these cleanly and accurately reproduced at 44.1khz.

You did your test, I did mine. We both came to different conclusions. You don't work in audio and admit you are a layman, I work in audio, mostly in with DD, Dts, CD, DVD-A and SACD. I have learned and trained my ear over the years on what to listen for with high to low downconversion. If you have not trained your ear on what to listen for, then I'll bet good money you won't hear any difference. If you think that you can walk in off the street and be able to indentify any audible differences, then you are totally fooling yourself.

Did "they" meaning the other people make this opinion. Or did you with your laymans experience make an opinion of their own? Which is it?

They made the conclusion, not me. Now to a small experiment. If you take a 16/44.1 recording which naturally do not contain high frequency content, convert it to higher sample rate and down-convert back, there should be no audible difference between the original and the processed one if the converter is of good quality. Have you done this experiment with the equipment at hand? Just asking, because if there is a difference, how do you know that the reason for the "audible difference" is caused by reducing high-frequency content and waveform accuracy during down-conversion of signals with wider bandwidth?

E-Stat
07-12-2004, 03:34 PM
Have you done this experiment with the equipment at hand? Just asking, because if there is a difference, how do you know that the reason for the "audible difference" is caused by reducing high-frequency content and waveform accuracy during down-conversion of signals with wider bandwidth?
Not only that, what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-12-2004, 03:38 PM
They made the conclusion, not me. Now to a small experiment. If you take a 16/44.1 recording which naturally do not contain high frequency content, convert it to higher sample rate and down-convert back, there should be no audible difference between the original and the processed one if the converter is of good quality. Have you done this experiment with the equipment at hand? Just asking, because if there is a difference, how do you know that the reason for the "audible difference" is caused by reducing high-frequency content and waveform accuracy during down-conversion of signals with wider bandwidth?

My mother always told me this. Since you mentioned it, you can do it. I am passing this on to you. If you take ANY signal, and subject it to that kind of processing expecting a transparent result, then I have a island in San Francisco bay for sale. Since no one does this in real life, this test is unrepresentative of any real life situation and means nothing..

This test does not prove converter transparency at all, do you have anything else in your laymans handbook that does apply?

Thomas_A
07-12-2004, 03:40 PM
And...SirT you mix music which do not consists of waveforms? Is it lack of experience to think that music does not consist of waveforms?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-12-2004, 03:47 PM
And...SirT you mix music which do not consists of waveforms? Is it lack of experience to think that music does not consist of waveforms?

Just like I thought, you spin your point when you cannot come up with answers. Music does consist of MANY waveforms. However do you see engineers staring at scopes, or level indicators? Gone to majoring in minors huh?

Thomas_A
07-12-2004, 04:03 PM
My mother always told me this. Since you mentioned it, you can do it. I am passing this on to you. If you take ANY signal, and subject it to that kind of processing expecting a transparent result, then I have a island in San Francisco bay for sale. Since no one does this in real life, this test is unrepresentative of any real life situation and means nothing..

Why should I be surprised...you claim working professionally with audio, and you don't know that testing the equipment needs to be done also in real life?

Thomas_A
07-12-2004, 04:12 PM
Just like I thought, you spin your point when you cannot come up with answers. Music does consist of MANY waveforms. However do you see engineers staring at scopes, or level indicators? Gone to majoring in minors huh?

Waveform does not mean solely pure sinewave. A waveform may consist of any combination of waves, in music hamonically related, changing over time to create melody.

Thomas_A
07-12-2004, 04:16 PM
Not only that, what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

rw

African or European?

E-Stat
07-12-2004, 04:34 PM
African or European?
Both for you.

Ni !

rw

Thomas_A
07-12-2004, 04:42 PM
"Something strikes me funny here. In your previous postings you never made mention to the fact that you participated in "all of these" listening test. You just mentioned you were a layman. When did it occur to you that you had went from layman, to experienced listener?"

Why should I mention everything I've done during 25 years of music/audio hobby? I've been involved in listening test, e.g. one which we performed years ago and where we had invited one person from AudioReview to listen for CD players differences. The link has been posted several times on audioreview. I participate in listening tests and sometimes write articles in Swedish Audio Technical Society's journal. Last, I joined a test with 30 different headphones.

But what has this to do with the central question of this thread, i.e. whether 16/44.1 is audibly flawed or not? The claims of difference comes from you and not me.

hifitommy
07-12-2004, 04:44 PM
if he desires to answer tohse questions, he will. i take him at his word that it was necessary, and that there was a bandaid approach he used that he didnt feel should be necessary. that is why he prefers the higher res formats.

i suppose if ansel adams were alive, he would have experimented with digital cameras and then return to film just as film buffs prefer film over the newer digital media.

mtrycraft
07-12-2004, 08:24 PM
No bother, just curiosity. Never met someone who expends the amount of energy you do into an interest without ever experiencing it.

rw

Now you have met someone. First time for everything.
Curiosity is good.

mtrycraft
07-12-2004, 08:38 PM
if you have been reading all along, you will know thqat he is a professiional recordist and has 'been there, done that' and knows these things by experience and has had to deal with the consequences. he is paid to do his job correctly, he aparently EARNS the money by doing so.


Oh, yes, the almighty 'professional' label take care of it. Immunity and expertise unlimited, right? I have exchanged with so called 'professionals.' Refund anyone?
Now you are hanging your hat on authority. Never question it. Maybe enogh for you. Not for others.

hifitommy
07-13-2004, 05:28 AM
i know thats a word youre unfamiliar with. get a dictionary, and then try getting some.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-13-2004, 11:58 AM
"Something strikes me funny here. In your previous postings you never made mention to the fact that you participated in "all of these" listening test. You just mentioned you were a layman. When did it occur to you that you had went from layman, to experienced listener?"

Why should I mention everything I've done during 25 years of music/audio hobby? I've been involved in listening test, e.g. one which we performed years ago and where we had invited one person from AudioReview to listen for CD players differences. The link has been posted several times on audioreview. I participate in listening tests and sometimes write articles in Swedish Audio Technical Society's journal. Last, I joined a test with 30 different headphones.

But what has this to do with the central question of this thread, i.e. whether 16/44.1 is audibly flawed or not? The claims of difference comes from you and not me.

I personally don't think we are going to settle this question on this board. And it seems that we have been reduced to discussing small irrelevant issues. You and Mtry seem to think that 16/44.1khz is just fine, me and many in my line of work don't. I am not here to prove anything to anyone, so I think this discussion has run its course. If you believe that redbook CD is fine, keep using your CD player. For those of us that love hi rez multichannel DVD-A and SACD, we'll keep using our DVD players. Your happy, I am happy.

mtrycraft
07-13-2004, 07:29 PM
I personally don't think we are going to settle this question on this board.

That is correct. But, even if we did, would the rest of the audio world listen? Of course not.


And it seems that we have been reduced to discussing small irrelevant issues. You and Mtry seem to think that 16/44.1khz is just fine, me and many in my line of work don't.

Yes, at the consumer end, not mastering, it is fine until there is evidence, credible evidence, for audible differences solly due to the sampling and bit differences, not some other factor introduced in the chain by someone.
Oh, we are not alone by a long shot, here, maybe.

I am not here to prove anything to anyone, so I think this discussion has run its course.

But, being in the inductry I would think you of all people would have the necessary credible evidence to support what you have been claiming.

If you believe that redbook CD is fine, keep using your CD player.

Unfortunately I prefer multi channel, even for music.

Your happy, I am happy.

How can anyone argue this? :)

Smokey
07-13-2004, 09:34 PM
I can't belive this. After 218 responses and 3,487 views, we are still back in square one as far as CD vs higher resolution format such as DVD-A or SACD :D

How about this argument.

Even if we agree that higher sampling rate probably don't improve sound quality due to Nyquist Criterion, then what about improved ratio of noise and dynamic improvements for DVD-A/SACD?

Brick wall noise filtering of CD at 22 kHz is most definitely audible on some recordings, and moving of noise filtering to 44 kHz for DVD-A definitely improve the harsh product of brick filtering. Not to mention improved Dynamic headroom :)

Thomas_A
07-14-2004, 01:30 AM
In studio apps yes, higher sampling and bits make sense due to easier work.

I don't agree that SACD always have higher dynamics than standard CD. Looking at the highest octace 10-20 kHz noise starts to increase in SACD, at least in all measurements of players I've looked at on Stereophile's homepage. Also I have hard time of how transients can be accurately be reproduced by SACD since the HF content will be buried in noise. Technically, DVD-A would be superior. Also 1-bit systems will have problem to accurately reproduce (sinx)/x pulses.

Picture taken from Stereophile's homepage showing difference in DSD vs 24-bit PCM.

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/TRIFIG04.jpg

T

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-14-2004, 09:24 AM
In studio apps yes, higher sampling and bits make sense due to easier work.

I don't agree that SACD always have higher dynamics than standard CD. Looking at the highest octace 10-20 kHz noise starts to increase in SACD, at least in all measurements of players I've looked at on Stereophile's homepage. Also I have hard time of how transients can be accurately be reproduced by SACD since the HF content will be buried in noise. Technically, DVD-A would be superior. Also 1-bit systems will have problem to accurately reproduce (sinx)/x pulses.

Picture taken from Stereophile's homepage showing difference in DSD vs 24-bit PCM.

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/TRIFIG04.jpg

T

24bit PCM is not the redbook CD standard. Try 16bit PCM. We are not argueing DVD-A here, we are talking about redbook CD's transparency. You are getting off of the issue once again. What you should be comparing in terms of noise is 16 bit vs 24bit.

Using this graphic as a way to discredit SACD is a very misleading thing. If you look very carefully the noise is mostly above 20khz. What is not shown is the masking effect of actually program material(music+harmonics). The noise at 20khz is well below the threshold of hearing, and will most likely be masked by the level of the program material. What would have made this graphic more true to life, is to compare that noise with the level of the music. That would have allowed one to determine its audiblity in relationship to the program material itself. A filter inserted at 50khz(which can be inserted from the encoding end) would bring all of these noise levels much down in level, and still capture all of the high frequency energy in muted brass, cymbals, triangles, glocks, and other instruments rich in high frequency energy. The transient response of percussion(a problem with redbook) would be preserved.

This graph looks like the 50khz filter was not engaged during encoding.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-14-2004, 10:11 AM
I personally don't think we are going to settle this question on this board.

[quote]That is correct. But, even if we did, would the rest of the audio world listen? Of course not.

I do not think you are qualified to make a decision in advance for a whole industry. You have no idea whatsoever if they would listen of not. Now that is fact!


And it seems that we have been reduced to discussing small irrelevant issues. You and Mtry seem to think that 16/44.1khz is just fine, me and many in my line of work don't.


Yes, at the consumer end, not mastering, it is fine until there is evidence, credible evidence, for audible differences solly due to the sampling and bit differences, not some other factor introduced in the chain by someone.
Oh, we are not alone by a long shot, here, maybe.

Well since we know(at least some know) that downconverting from 96khz sampling to 44.1khz is problematic, and even doing simple downcoversion from 88.2khz to 44.1khz produces some degredation, that in and of itself would make redbook inadequate if a higher sampling rate was used for recording and post production. So there is no benefit of mastering at a higher level if redbook is the final destination.

I am not here to prove anything to anyone, so I think this discussion has run its course.


But, being in the inductry I would think you of all people would have the necessary credible evidence to support what you have been claiming.

Listening is my credible evidence. Since you refuse to do so, and think a white paper can tell someone what they hear, then there is nothing further to add to this, right?

Since you pick and choose what you deem is credible, then whether I am in the industry or not is irrelevant in term of coming up with credible evidence. You think every supporter of higher sampling rates are hearing things, prone to bias, and various other bull, yet you listen to the music they mix. Interesting.....

Thomas_A
07-14-2004, 12:17 PM
24bit PCM is not the redbook CD standard. Try 16bit PCM. We are not argueing DVD-A here, we are talking about redbook CD's transparency. You are getting off of the issue once again. What you should be comparing in terms of noise is 16 bit vs 24bit.

Using this graphic as a way to discredit SACD is a very misleading thing. If you look very carefully the noise is mostly above 20khz. What is not shown is the masking effect of actually program material(music+harmonics). The noise at 20khz is well below the threshold of hearing, and will most likely be masked by the level of the program material. What would have made this graphic more true to life, is to compare that noise with the level of the music. That would have allowed one to determine its audiblity in relationship to the program material itself. A filter inserted at 50khz(which can be inserted from the encoding end) would bring all of these noise levels much down in level, and still capture all of the high frequency energy in muted brass, cymbals, triangles, glocks, and other instruments rich in high frequency energy. The transient response of percussion(a problem with redbook) would be preserved.

This graph looks like the 50khz filter was not engaged during encoding.

Well if you look at the previous poster, it was more dealing with DSD vs. PCM in studio applications. And if you truly want to capture the nature of the music such a closed-miced trumpet (or symbals) which may have HF content up to 100 kHz and where the 30-50 kHz energy is 50-60 dB below the highest level harmonics of the trumpet signal, SACD will have problems. If the highest harmonic of a trumpet signal would be at -10 dB in a song, the HF harmonics between 30-50 kHz would be at at -60 to -70 dB, close to the noise of SACD. This will also go for transient information. Applying filters is not nessecary if you have PCM 24/192 - it will capture all of it.

Looking at the region 10-20 kHz, SACD is no better than standard redbook, only below 10 kHz.

As you said before, the issue about audibility is not going to be solved here, so why should I continue to talk about redbook CD vs. higher resolution media? You have not and don't want to provide any other data than your own experience, and there is not much backing up your claims. Thats fine, but what is there to discuss? Do you want to continue or not?

Woochifer
07-14-2004, 01:21 PM
As you said before, the issue about audibility is not going to be solved here, so why should I continue to talk about redbook CD vs. higher resolution media? You have not and don't want to provide any other data than your own experience, and there is not much backing up your claims. Thats fine, but what is there to discuss? Do you want to continue or not?

Well, if this issue means that much to you, then why not setup your own test? I typically opt out of these discussions because they're meaningless unless you have access to a high res master tape for comparison. Discussing the merits and dismerits of a format based strictly on listening to commercially distributed CDs and other music discs yields no meaningful conclusions unless you have a master available for comparison, or you produce your own master and run it through the downsampling cycles. Asking for proof as if everybody who works with digital audio equipment for a living has the time and inclination to go write their own academic papers is an equally meaningless spin job.

I used to do my own blind tests for various cassette tapes so that I could adjust the tape bias level to best match the source material. This was for my own dubbing purposes, and not meant for publication or peer reviewed scrutiny. Setting up my deck for the most transparent sound to the source was my goal, not trying to satisfy the demands of naysayers.

Like I said, if getting to an actual answer, as opposed to raising doubts about someone else's conclusions, is your actual end goal, then why not setup your own test?. With a PC, a microphone, a soundcard, and piano or other instrument of your choosing, you can easily record your own high res digital master and then put it through the downsampling cycles. If you hear any difference in the downsampled playback, then you have your answer. If you can't detect any difference, then you have your answer. Sitting back and asking for proof is nothing more than giving the appearance of having an answer by spinning the same question over and over.

Thomas_A
07-14-2004, 02:03 PM
Well, if this issue means that much to you, then why not setup your own test? I typically opt out of these discussions because they're meaningless unless you have access to a high res master tape for comparison. Discussing the merits and dismerits of a format based strictly on listening to commercially distributed CDs and other music discs yields no meaningful conclusions unless you have a master available for comparison, or you produce your own master and run it through the downsampling cycles. Asking for proof as if everybody who works with digital audio equipment for a living has the time and inclination to go write their own academic papers is an equally meaningless spin job.

I used to do my own blind tests for various cassette tapes so that I could adjust the tape bias level to best match the source material. This was for my own dubbing purposes, and not meant for publication or peer reviewed scrutiny. Setting up my deck for the most transparent sound to the source was my goal, not trying to satisfy the demands of naysayers.

Like I said, if getting to an actual answer, as opposed to raising doubts about someone else's conclusions, is your actual end goal, then why not setup your own test?. With a PC, a microphone, a soundcard, and piano or other instrument of your choosing, you can easily record your own high res digital master and then put it through the downsampling cycles. If you hear any difference in the downsampled playback, then you have your answer. If you can't detect any difference, then you have your answer. Sitting back and asking for proof is nothing more than giving the appearance of having an answer by spinning the same question over and over.

But as I said before, tests have been done many times in the high-end studio mentioned above. They have not reported any audible difference during the many 16/44.1 tests that have been made and I am very familiar with the testing procedure. Reporting a null result is not much worth is it? A positive result would give much more, and since people claim that it is audible, there should be some supportive evidence somewhere. But so far, there is none. See also:

http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt

Smokey
07-14-2004, 02:09 PM
As you said before, the issue about audibility is not going to be solved here, so why should I continue to talk about redbook CD vs. higher resolution media?

Thomas, issue here might not be the audibility of signal, but rather the integrity of it. As Sir TT mentioned, by filtering at 22 kHz, transient harmonics and sub-harmonics of signal might be effected and filtered out which are above 22 kHz.

Instead of providing complicated graphs of noise, dynamic or resolution figures, how about going back to basics of filtering on this issue which will shed some light on it. Here is an example:

Suppose we have a 20 kHz low pass filter and we run a 10 kHz square wave thru this filter. Common sense dictate that we will get a 10 kHz square wave out this filter since the cut off frequency is at 20 kHz. But that is not true. What we will get out this low pass filter is not a square wave, but a 10 kHz pure sine wave instead of square wave.

Since 10 kHz square wave is a combination of pure 10khs sine wave and infinite number of odd harmonics that are way beyond 20 kHz, then by filtering the harmonics that are above 20 kHz, we altering the integrity of signal.

The same argument can be applied to complex audio signals that contain many harmonics that are beyond 20 kHz. By filtering the signal around 22 kHz which CD red book does, we might be filtering out transient harmonics and sub-harmonics (which define its character), thus making the recording sound "cold" and too sanitized.

By moving the filtering to 44 kHz or 100 kHz for DVD-A or SACD, the integrity of signal is preserved, giving the sound quality a full, warm, sweet sound we are used to hearing in a live situation.

Thomas_A
07-14-2004, 02:56 PM
Thomas, issue here might not be the audibility of signal, but rather the integrity of it. As Sir TT mentioned, by filtering at 22 kHz, transient harmonics and sub-harmonics of signal might be effected and filtered out which are above 22 kHz.

Instead of providing complicated graphs of noise, dynamic or resolution figures, how about going back to basics of filtering on this issue which will shed some light on it. Here is an example:

Suppose we have a 20 kHz low pass filter and we run a 10 kHz square wave thru this filter. Common sense dictate that we will get a 10 kHz square wave out this filter since the cut off frequency is at 20 kHz. But that is not true. What we will get out this low pass filter is not a square wave, but a 10 kHz pure sine wave instead of square wave.

Since 10 kHz square wave is a combination of pure 10khs sine wave and infinite number of odd harmonics that are way beyond 20 kHz, then by filtering the harmonics that are above 20 kHz, we altering the integrity of signal.

The same argument can be applied to complex audio signals that contain many harmonics that are beyond 20 kHz. By filtering the signal around 22 kHz which CD red book does, we might be filtering out transient harmonics and sub-harmonics (which define its character), thus making the recording sound "cold" and too sanitized.

By moving the filtering to 44 kHz or 100 kHz for DVD-A or SACD, the integrity of signal is preserved, giving the sound quality a full, warm, sweet sound we are used to hearing in a live situation.

But all this means that e.g. there should be an audible difference of 10 kHz squarewave and a 10kHz sinewave, right? There is no evidence of humans hearing above the 22 kHz, regardless whether it is harmonics in music or signals. There is one reference by Oohashi in J. Neurophysiology, but it contains many questionmarks around the method used. The ppt. file above have some more info.

The possibility remains that high frequency content mixes with with each other creating tartini tones of lower frequency, but I've done the tests and it very high levels even to be faintly audible when testing a tone of e.g. 20 kHz (inaudible for me) and 19.5 kHz (which should give difference tone 500 Hz in the ear). It is unlikely that anyone would ever hear difference tone distorsion (as created in the ear) if high frequency content above 20 kHz for music.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-14-2004, 02:56 PM
Well if you look at the previous poster, it was more dealing with DSD vs. PCM in studio applications. And if you truly want to capture the nature of the music such a closed-miced trumpet (or symbals) which may have HF content up to 100 kHz and where the 30-50 kHz energy is 50-60 dB below the highest level harmonics of the trumpet signal, SACD will have problems. If the highest harmonic of a trumpet signal would be at -10 dB in a song, the HF harmonics between 30-50 kHz would be at at -60 to -70 dB, close to the noise of SACD. This will also go for transient information. Applying filters is not nessecary if you have PCM 24/192 - it will capture all of it.

24/192khz does not sound any better than 24/96khz to these ears. You can only record in stereo(which makes it only worthy of an alternate track status) and there are notable bass issues with 192khz. On some material encoded at 192khz, the bass seemed thinned and out of phase slightly. This has been noted by Chuck Ainly and Eliott Schneider on several of their mixes, but mentioned more widely at surround 2004..

While there are tweeters that extend to 50khz, I know of no tweeters that extends to 100khz, so that is a moot point. 24/192khz is not a prominent release format, and should not be compared to SACD which is. A better comparison would be with 24/96khz, but it also uses filters at 48khz, which is lower in frequency to SACD optional filter setting of 50khz. Most amplifiers either roll off signals above 50khz, or just don't produce them at all. While many consumer products(except speakers) are compatible with SACD and DVD-A at 24/96khz, I know of no consumer products optimized for 24/192khz. As far as the noise level, -60 to -70 is below the threshold of what most of us can hear even in a quiet room, but the ambient background level of most homes lies between 45 and 60db, so anything even near -60 or -70 is totally lost anyway. Trying to make a point with this data is focusing on irrelevant manutia with current consumer electronic equipment.


Looking at the region 10-20 kHz, SACD is no better than standard redbook, only below 10 kHz.

This data draws no such conclusions, and sounds like the rhetoric one hears from detractors of SACD. Your graph shows 24bit performance, not 16 bit. You have not taken phase or distortion measurments from each of these formats, so to say that SACD is no better than redbook in this context is a ball face lie.


As you said before, the issue about audibility is not going to be solved here, so why should I continue to talk about redbook CD vs. higher resolution media? You have not and don't want to provide any other data than your own experience, and there is not much backing up your claims. Thats fine, but what is there to discuss? Do you want to continue or not?

You are sounding exactly like Mtry, so what are you the echo?
As far as providing other data, I could give you thread after thread, url after url from audio engineers who sing the praises of the higher sampling rate. But you would just discount it because it doesn't square with what you think the facts are. IMO, I have done enough homework as a audio engineer to support whatever I claim. Because it is not evidence that YOU deem is worthy, you can easily discount it. But you were quick to mention a musician that call a particular studio "the best in the world" and you took that as fact, and presented it. This picking and choosing of valid facts is inconsistant, and does nothing to foster an intelligent debate. The people who work with the technology everyday opinions don't count, because there is no white paper to support what they hear. So in your opinion, only scientist who publish can be deemed credible. I think this is absurd, and insulting to anyone who is a very skilled and experienced audio engineer.

So based on all of this, I see no need in continuing. It is pointless because you cannot change what I hear, and I cannot change you mind on what you haven't heard.

Woochifer
07-14-2004, 03:08 PM
But as I said before, tests have been done many times in the high-end studio mentioned above. They have not reported any audible difference during the many 16/44.1 tests that have been made and I am very familiar with the testing procedure. Reporting a null result is not much worth is it? A positive result would give much more, and since people claim that it is audible, there should be some supportive evidence somewhere. But so far, there is none. See also:

http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt

That link provides a lot of technical exposition, but little that supports the fundamental objection that you've put forth. Nowhere in that presentation does it specify that 44.1/16 is transparent to a higher resolution source. The tests were done using either commercially available sources, sources with filtering applied to the high end, or test tones of unknown origin. Hardly the same thing as comparing a master source with a downsampled copy.

And what is the nature of these "high end studio" tests that you mention? Are they actually doing level matched downsamples from an original high res source, and using the playback of that source as one of the comparisons? Nowhere in your original post on that Swedish high end studio do you mention the resolution of the original master that you claim supports the null result at 44.1/16 resolution.

Like I said, the professionals that I've met over the years don't have time to devote their energies and billables to writing theoretical white papers or rounding up test subjects for DBT sessions. They spend their time producing playback material that meets their clients' specifications and their own standard for sound quality. If it's an answer that you truly want to get at for your own etification, you don't need to wait for them to do the testing for you and spoon feed their results, when it's something that you can setup for yourself. If you come up with a null result, then that's the answer that you'll have for yourself.

For my own purposes, the high res discs that I've heard so far routinely outclass the CD versions. Whether that's due to parlor tricks with the mastering or if it's format-based, I don't have the means to arrive at my own answer, and frankly, I don't care. To me, it's about results and for my listening, the high res formats give me clear cut improvements in the sound quality for music that I enjoy, and isn't that the end goal in the first place? Whatever reasons exist for that improvement, I leave to people who actually want to find an answer rather than spin the same questions over and over.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-14-2004, 03:14 PM
But as I said before, tests have been done many times in the high-end studio mentioned above. They have not reported any audible difference during the many 16/44.1 tests that have been made and I am very familiar with the testing procedure. Reporting a null result is not much worth is it? A positive result would give much more, and since people claim that it is audible, there should be some supportive evidence somewhere. But so far, there is none. See also:

http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt

I have read this report, nothing new here. Did these numerous tests at this high end studio include listening to signals downconverted from higher sampled sources. Or did the test just transfer a analog signal to 16/44.1khz and compared from there? You make mention of these test, but you don't even follow your own example. Do you have a link that outlines how the test was implemented? Was this published? Do you have a link to the white paper?

DMK
07-14-2004, 06:32 PM
Like I said, the professionals that I've met over the years don't have time to devote their energies and billables to writing theoretical white papers or rounding up test subjects for DBT sessions. They spend their time producing playback material that meets their clients' specifications and their own standard for sound quality. If it's an answer that you truly want to get at for your own etification, you don't need to wait for them to do the testing for you and spoon feed their results, when it's something that you can setup for yourself. If you come up with a null result, then that's the answer that you'll have for yourself.

For my own purposes, the high res discs that I've heard so far routinely outclass the CD versions. Whether that's due to parlor tricks with the mastering or if it's format-based, I don't have the means to arrive at my own answer, and frankly, I don't care. To me, it's about results and for my listening, the high res formats give me clear cut improvements in the sound quality for music that I enjoy, and isn't that the end goal in the first place? Whatever reasons exist for that improvement, I leave to people who actually want to find an answer rather than spin the same questions over and over.

For the first quoted paragraph, let's take our good friend Bigfoot since belief in him is seen as the same as belief in audible differences in, say, solid state preamps (or high rez digital vs redbook) with the same measurements. Let's say that I claimed I had seen Bigfoot and you asked for proof. I replied that Bigfoot would absolutely and unequivocally appear again at a certain place and time. Would you demand that I supply proof or would you go see for yourself? I don't know that answer but I would suggest you go see for yourself since I don't need proof and I don't feel the need to prove anything. After all, I'm satisfied he exists, right? All I've ever suggested (which is what you seem to be suggesting as well) is that you try it for yourself. Solid state preamps or digital systems are, of course, much more innocuous than perhaps Bigfoot is. What's the big deal? Why demand proof from me when you can easily get your own and then you don't have to take my word for it. Should I really be expected to go through another set of blind tests on preamps or digital when I've already done so, just to satisfy you???? I should waste more of MY time in order to make YOU happy??? What's in it for me? BTW, by "you" in the above, I'm not referring to Woochifer. The people I'm referring to know who they are. :D

For your second quoted paragraph, all I can say is "Bingo". Results count and the rest of the world can theorize and measure to their hearts content.

You nailed it, Wooch - top to bottom.

Woochifer
07-14-2004, 07:41 PM
For the first quoted paragraph, let's take our good friend Bigfoot since belief in him is seen as the same as belief in audible differences in, say, solid state preamps (or high rez digital vs redbook) with the same measurements. Let's say that I claimed I had seen Bigfoot and you asked for proof. I replied that Bigfoot would absolutely and unequivocally appear again at a certain place and time. Would you demand that I supply proof or would you go see for yourself? I don't know that answer but I would suggest you go see for yourself since I don't need proof and I don't feel the need to prove anything. After all, I'm satisfied he exists, right? All I've ever suggested (which is what you seem to be suggesting as well) is that you try it for yourself. Solid state preamps or digital systems are, of course, much more innocuous than perhaps Bigfoot is. What's the big deal? Why demand proof from me when you can easily get your own and then you don't have to take my word for it. Should I really be expected to go through another set of blind tests on preamps or digital when I've already done so, just to satisfy you???? I should waste more of MY time in order to make YOU happy??? What's in it for me? BTW, by "you" in the above, I'm not referring to Woochifer. The people I'm referring to know who they are. :D

For your second quoted paragraph, all I can say is "Bingo". Results count and the rest of the world can theorize and measure to their hearts content.

You nailed it, Wooch - top to bottom.

Well, I guess my thing is that all these format debates are done in a vacuum since few people on this board have access to original masters by which to compare the LPs, CDs, DVD-As, and SACDs that are often cited as examples. Absent that kind of access, I can only go by what's available to me, and that's the discs themselves. My experience with high res digital has been very positive so far. If I find that those discs improve upon my listening experience, I keep buying them. If they offer no improvement over CDs, then I won't buy them. I could care less about proof as to why. If it's due to better mastering, it means better sound quality. If it's due to higher resolution, it means better sound quality. Same result with either conclusion, therefore I don't care about the reason behind it.

I mean, if I farted in the middle of a forest, what "proof" would I have that it occurred? By the time I tell everyone that I bellowed some flammables out my back side, the stench would have dissipated. I guess to make the naysayers happy, I'd have to have an immediate medical examination with probabilistic models setup to make a determination on the likelihood that I passed gas at the exact time interval that I claimed that I did. And even if that "proves" that my claim was likely, I'm sure the bias and self-delusion arguments will come up, and I'd have to write a white paper citing how I know for sure that my perception of flatulence was real and not imaginary.

On the other hand, I could just "force one out". :) You want proof, put your nose down to this and take a hit! Ah, thank you, you want another one sir? And if a naysayer claims that something reeks (well, provided that they can make a claim in the first place), I can either demand proof and ask them to replicate the phenomena or just tell that it's the top of their lip.

mtrycraft
07-14-2004, 09:42 PM
Absent that kind of access, I can only go by what's available to me, and that's the discs themselves.


Or, you can research what has been experimented with and published by others.

These discs available will not tell you anything except that they may be different for who know what hundreds of reasons.

My experience with high res digital has been very positive so far.

As wxman posted the differences in dynamic compression would be one reason.

I could care less about proof as to why.

Ah, you are not the inquisitive type then. Maybe you are being fooled? Your perception is really unreliable? Who knows? Anything and everything could be it.

If it's due to better mastering, it means better sound quality. If it's due to higher resolution, it means better sound quality. Same result with either conclusion, therefore I don't care about the reason behind it.

Yet, another real possibility: just trickery by poorly doing the CD so the hi rez sounds superior. You don't want to know if you are fooled so easy?

I mean, if I farted in the middle of a forest, what "proof" would I have that it occurred?

None, unless you recorded it and soemone witnessed that recording.

By the time I tell everyone that I bellowed some flammables out my back side, the stench would have dissipated.

Next time, you could have vitnesses :) or you could repeat it on request.

I guess to make the naysayers happy, I'd have to have an immediate medical examination with probabilistic models setup to make a determination on the likelihood that I passed gas at the exact time interval that I claimed that I did.

No, you are making it too difficult.

And even if that "proves" that my claim was likely, I'm sure the bias and self-delusion arguments will come up, and I'd have to write a white paper citing how I know for sure that my perception of flatulence was real and not imaginary.

Or, it could be real with better evidence:)

Thomas_A
07-14-2004, 10:58 PM
24/192khz does not sound any better than 24/96khz to these ears. You can only record in stereo(which makes it only worthy of an alternate track status) and there are notable bass issues with 192khz. On some material encoded at 192khz, the bass seemed thinned and out of phase slightly. This has been noted by Chuck Ainly and Eliott Schneider on several of their mixes, but mentioned more widely at surround 2004..

While there are tweeters that extend to 50khz, I know of no tweeters that extends to 100khz, so that is a moot point. 24/192khz is not a prominent release format, and should not be compared to SACD which is. A better comparison would be with 24/96khz, but it also uses filters at 48khz, which is lower in frequency to SACD optional filter setting of 50khz. Most amplifiers either roll off signals above 50khz, or just don't produce them at all. While many consumer products(except speakers) are compatible with SACD and DVD-A at 24/96khz, I know of no consumer products optimized for 24/192khz. As far as the noise level, -60 to -70 is below the threshold of what most of us can hear even in a quiet room, but the ambient background level of most homes lies between 45 and 60db, so anything even near -60 or -70 is totally lost anyway. Trying to make a point with this data is focusing on irrelevant manutia with current consumer electronic equipment.



This data draws no such conclusions, and sounds like the rhetoric one hears from detractors of SACD. Your graph shows 24bit performance, not 16 bit. You have not taken phase or distortion measurments from each of these formats, so to say that SACD is no better than redbook in this context is a ball face lie.



You are sounding exactly like Mtry, so what are you the echo?
As far as providing other data, I could give you thread after thread, url after url from audio engineers who sing the praises of the higher sampling rate. But you would just discount it because it doesn't square with what you think the facts are. IMO, I have done enough homework as a audio engineer to support whatever I claim. Because it is not evidence that YOU deem is worthy, you can easily discount it. But you were quick to mention a musician that call a particular studio "the best in the world" and you took that as fact, and presented it. This picking and choosing of valid facts is inconsistant, and does nothing to foster an intelligent debate. The people who work with the technology everyday opinions don't count, because there is no white paper to support what they hear. So in your opinion, only scientist who publish can be deemed credible. I think this is absurd, and insulting to anyone who is a very skilled and experienced audio engineer.

So based on all of this, I see no need in continuing. It is pointless because you cannot change what I hear, and I cannot change you mind on what you haven't heard.

Oh, so you now wish to continue to discuss? Changed your mind? If SACD cannot reproduce the information for normal music in 30-50 kHz how much better is it than redbook CD? And if you cannot hear above 18 kHz, how should you be able to hear the better resolution of DVD-A and SACD? Your attempts to make an explanation to this has not been successful at all.

The graph is a citation from Stereophile, so it's not my graph. It is easy to look at their homepage and look at 16 bit data and it shows that SACD is no better in the highest octave 10-20 kHz. Have you not seen this before at all? Or must I present all the data for you?

Votes from the masses are nothing that impresses me. And scientists are no guarantee, but they have a high control of methods and there are references and referees. You have only experience.

Thomas_A
07-15-2004, 01:40 AM
I have read this report, nothing new here. Did these numerous tests at this high end studio include listening to signals downconverted from higher sampled sources. Or did the test just transfer a analog signal to 16/44.1khz and compared from there? You make mention of these test, but you don't even follow your own example. Do you have a link that outlines how the test was implemented? Was this published? Do you have a link to the white paper?

Most of the tests are published in the Journal from the Swedish Audio-Technical Society, but in Swedish. They are not peer reviewed. As I said before I have participated in other tests, and they always contain blind tests with statistics of the number of correct choices. That the journal exist can be seen from small number of translated articles, although only of general interest subjects, here:

http://www.sonicdesign.se/amptest.htm
http://www.sonicdesign.se/tooleinw.htm
http://www.sonicdesign.se/optimum.html
http://www.sonicdesign.se/subplace.html

A PDF-link to a test between media:

http://www.lts.a.se/artiklar/SACD-praktik.pdf

It's one of the tests published in "Musik & Ljudteknik" no 1/2002. It's in Swedish.

The test included a high-quality analog musik signal with a bandwith of 46 kHz recorded with high-speed DAC (fs=96 kHz) with two Earthworks microphones. This was the original signal. Signal 2 was the same but filtered analog with 3rd order butterworth at 25 kHz. Signal three, the original was converted to normal DAT standard (48 kHz).

Two different tweeters were used, both which were Ī0.5 dB up to 20 kHz Ī30į. The first falls soft above 26-28 kHz, the second continue 20-80 kHz Ī9dB. If the peak at 28 kHz is exlcuded it was within Ī4 dB.

There were no signifcant audible differences between the three program material used with any of the tweeters.

I won't go through the program material 4 & 5, since I have no time for translation of the whole text.


When it comes to 16/44.1, other persons at the Studio have made conversions and listening tests and also made recording in directly in different formats. Their conclusion was that 16/44.1 is sufficient as long as you don't play as loud that you hear the dither noise.Thus when listening to music at realistic levels, there was no audible difference. I gave a link to the discussion between CD, SACD and DVD-A and it is mentioned that the CD standard is much more transparent than people believe. It is of course based on the various tests made. Here they are again:

http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm
http://www.fivechannels.com/artiklar/CDvsSACDvsDVD-A-followup.htm

You will probably now say say that these are irrelevant, but then you have probably not read all of it.

And as you claim above, the HF content does not matter. It is i) not heard because our ≈18 kHz limits, ii) it will be masked by music and noise. That means I can do the tests at home right? No need of supertweeters. And there should be an clear audible improvement of the sound if I sample at 24/96 than at 16/44.1?

And again, can you or cannot you provide any data from your listening tests. ABX, blind, double-blind, who was the test leader and how many correct choices? Since you claim to have positive results according to AES standards it should be data, right? Negative results will be series like 5/10, 6/10 4/10 etc. Positive will be 9/10, 10/10 9/10 etc.

Thomas_A
07-15-2004, 02:37 AM
That link provides a lot of technical exposition, but little that supports the fundamental objection that you've put forth. Nowhere in that presentation does it specify that 44.1/16 is transparent to a higher resolution source. The tests were done using either commercially available sources, sources with filtering applied to the high end, or test tones of unknown origin. Hardly the same thing as comparing a master source with a downsampled copy.

And what is the nature of these "high end studio" tests that you mention? Are they actually doing level matched downsamples from an original high res source, and using the playback of that source as one of the comparisons? Nowhere in your original post on that Swedish high end studio do you mention the resolution of the original master that you claim supports the null result at 44.1/16 resolution.

Like I said, the professionals that I've met over the years don't have time to devote their energies and billables to writing theoretical white papers or rounding up test subjects for DBT sessions. They spend their time producing playback material that meets their clients' specifications and their own standard for sound quality. If it's an answer that you truly want to get at for your own etification, you don't need to wait for them to do the testing for you and spoon feed their results, when it's something that you can setup for yourself. If you come up with a null result, then that's the answer that you'll have for yourself.

For my own purposes, the high res discs that I've heard so far routinely outclass the CD versions. Whether that's due to parlor tricks with the mastering or if it's format-based, I don't have the means to arrive at my own answer, and frankly, I don't care. To me, it's about results and for my listening, the high res formats give me clear cut improvements in the sound quality for music that I enjoy, and isn't that the end goal in the first place? Whatever reasons exist for that improvement, I leave to people who actually want to find an answer rather than spin the same questions over and over.


See the post above, you have information of the source and test material in one of the tests made. I don't want to write once again but if there is a null result, there is no meaning of publishing the scores of the blind tests. Ususally, when tests are made and there is no one that can make out the difference in an open test, there is no blinding made. Only when some test subjects think there is a difference, they continue with blind tests to confirm the observation.

Since SirTT claims that virtually every studio engineer claims that higher res is audible different than CD standard, and that tests he have been done are according to "AES standard". Does this not include test protocols, randomization, ABX, blinding, scores, statistiscs? Or what does this mean? The tests are of course not for me but to validate what is audible or not in a scientific way. Then there must be documentation of the above mentioned items. But so far, there has been none of this presented here or elsewhere to my knowlegde.

Besides, the tests might be for me - if it can be proven that higher res is audibly more accurate (not just different) I would start to buy high-res records and update the equipment that are required. So it is a question of whether I should spend money on something which is audible or to be fooled by claims that have no proper grounds. Cf. with the cable debate.

Woochifer
07-15-2004, 10:57 AM
Absent that kind of access, I can only go by what's available to me, and that's the discs themselves.


Or, you can research what has been experimented with and published by others.

These discs available will not tell you anything except that they may be different for who know what hundreds of reasons.

Right on cue, why the hell would I need to research when all I'm interested in is whether a high res disc that I buy sounds better than a CD version? There may be hundreds of reasons, but that still doesn't change the results that I've experienced thus far.


I could care less about proof as to why.

Ah, you are not the inquisitive type then. Maybe you are being fooled? Your perception is really unreliable? Who knows? Anything and everything could be it.

Or maybe you are the uninquisitive type since you'd rather read about theory, bench tests, and white papers than actually compare different disc versions. If the mastering and the EQ settings are the biggest determinent, doesn't matter to me since preference is subjective. Thus far I've yet to encounter a high res disc version that did not present at least a subtle improvement in the sound quality over the CD version. If I'm being fooled, then please share a definitive reason why this is so rather than speculating about what I'm perceiving.


If it's due to better mastering, it means better sound quality. If it's due to higher resolution, it means better sound quality. Same result with either conclusion, therefore I don't care about the reason behind it.

Yet, another real possibility: just trickery by poorly doing the CD so the hi rez sounds superior. You don't want to know if you are fooled so easy?

Another strawman argument, since if a CD was mastered poorly to begin with, of course I would want to replace it with something that has better audio quality, irregardless of format. In many cases over the years, I have replaced first generation CDs with remastered versions that clearly improved upon the audio quality. And more recently, I have replaced some of them with high res versions. No trickery there, just a bad transfer getting replaced by a better one.


I mean, if I farted in the middle of a forest, what "proof" would I have that it occurred?

None, unless you recorded it and soemone witnessed that recording.

Now we're getting somewhere! So basically you're saying that anything that anyone experiences that was not recorded or witnessed is imaginary and delusional without proof? I guess if someone tells you that they're having a good day, your first response is "Prove it". If if they tell you that they feel good, you won't believe them until they write a white paper with unbiased measures as to why, eh? And if you ever get around to stating something definitive about something that you personally experienced, rather than just spinning questions and trying to conjure up doubt about what others experience for themselves, then I'm sure that will all be documented, recorded, and proven to scientific standards. No wonder why you never share anything about what you listen to.


By the time I tell everyone that I bellowed some flammables out my back side, the stench would have dissipated.

Next time, you could have vitnesses :) or you could repeat it on request.

Or I can just empty out my stomach and intestinal contents and let you do stool studies to calculate a probability for flatulence since proof is what you live for.


I guess to make the naysayers happy, I'd have to have an immediate medical examination with probabilistic models setup to make a determination on the likelihood that I passed gas at the exact time interval that I claimed that I did.

No, you are making it too difficult.

Oh, but no standard is too difficult if PROOF is what you desire. If I tell you that I farted in the forest, what would make a naysayer believe me? I thought so...


And even if that "proves" that my claim was likely, I'm sure the bias and self-delusion arguments will come up, and I'd have to write a white paper citing how I know for sure that my perception of flatulence was real and not imaginary.

Or, it could be real with better evidence:)

Yes, but if I unload one close to your nose, how would you be able to prove to yourself that it occurred since all you're relying on is your sensory perceptions. And we all know how unreliable, delusional, and imaginary those are, right? Like I said, what proof would you have that some foul stench originated externally or just something off the top of your lip?

Woochifer
07-15-2004, 11:14 AM
See the post above, you have information of the source and test material in one of the tests made. I don't want to write once again but if there is a null result, there is no meaning of publishing the scores of the blind tests. Ususally, when tests are made and there is no one that can make out the difference in an open test, there is no blinding made. Only when some test subjects think there is a difference, they continue with blind tests to confirm the observation.

Why not publish the null results? Since for a positive finding you're demanding "proof" via peer reviewed papers, documented sessions, blind testing techniques, etc. Wouldn't a null finding with the same level of scrutiny add to your contention of transparency between the various sources and sampling rates? Those links that you point to are basically anti-SACD articles that got passed around these boards a couple of years ago by the pro-DVD-A camp. Again, they say NOTHING about the transparency of the 44.1/16 format to a high res original source. That studio test that you cite does absolutely nothing to support your contention. Your contention is only supported by anecdotes, so I hardly regard that as the gold standard of proof that you demand from others.


Since SirTT claims that virtually every studio engineer claims that higher res is audible different than CD standard, and that tests he have been done are according to "AES standard". Does this not include test protocols, randomization, ABX, blinding, scores, statistiscs? Or what does this mean? The tests are of course not for me but to validate what is audible or not in a scientific way. Then there must be documentation of the above mentioned items. But so far, there has been none of this presented here or elsewhere to my knowlegde.

Again, most of the sound engineers that I've met over the years don't have the time or inclination to do scientific publications. If that's all that you're interested in, then by all means indulge yourself! We would LOVE to hear about what you find out under the conditions that you prescribe. Basically, if you want proof, put up or shut up.

Woochifer
07-15-2004, 11:24 AM
Votes from the masses are nothing that impresses me. And scientists are no guarantee, but they have a high control of methods and there are references and referees. You have only experience.

These "votes from the masses" if we accept T's informal polling, are sound engineers who work with the equipment everyday and have access to both board feeds and master sources, things that the buying "masses" do not have access to. So, I don't think that their opinions can just be thrown into the pile with everybody else. Scientists may know how to bench test different wave phenomena, but that doesn't mean that they know squat about how to properly record live instruments or mix multitracks together to create a spatial image, or know anything about the techniques that have to be deployed to tailor a final mix to the playback format. T "only" has experience, but that still seems to be a lot more than you (or I or most others on this board) have.

Thomas_A
07-15-2004, 11:31 AM
Why not publish the null results? Since for a positive finding you're demanding "proof" via peer reviewed papers, documented sessions, blind testing techniques, etc. Wouldn't a null finding with the same level of scrutiny add to your contention of transparency between the various sources and sampling rates? Those links that you point to are basically anti-SACD articles that got passed around these boards a couple of years ago by the pro-DVD-A camp. Again, they say NOTHING about the transparency of the 44.1/16 format to a high res original source. That studio test that you cite does absolutely nothing to support your contention. Your contention is only supported by anecdotes, so I hardly regard that as the gold standard of proof that you demand from others.



Again, most of the sound engineers that I've met over the years don't have the time or inclination to do scientific publications. If that's all that you're interested in, then by all means indulge yourself! We would LOVE to hear about what you find out under the conditions that you prescribe. Basically, if you want proof, put up or shut up.

Oh..proof of a negative? How is that possible? If there is proof of a positive, that's the way. I provided one link in Swedish and a short explanation of the test and results. No difference was heard between samples 1-3 in that test and in no other test I've seen have been positive. I've never claimed proof that needs to be peer reviewed, although that would strengthen it. Only the details of the test and the test scores IF there was a difference. Since there apparently are tests being done according to "AES standards" then there should be some numbers. If not, there is no proof. Knowledge is worthless if it cannot be delivered to others.

Thomas_A
07-15-2004, 11:37 AM
These "votes from the masses" if we accept T's informal polling, are sound engineers who work with the equipment everyday and have access to both board feeds and master sources, things that the buying "masses" do not have access to. So, I don't think that their opinions can just be thrown into the pile with everybody else. Scientists may know how to bench test different wave phenomena, but that doesn't mean that they know squat about how to properly record live instruments or mix multitracks together to create a spatial image, or know anything about the techniques that have to be deployed to tailor a final mix to the playback format. T "only" has experience, but that still seems to be a lot more than you (or I or most others on this board) have.

No, I don't throw opinions away. If I did I would not be here. If there is knowledge that breaks new grounds, I'm happy to learn. But I'm not satisfied with just opinions. I may upgrade to high-res audio if that shows to be audible in some way. But until no evidence exist, I'll keep my equipment.

Woochifer
07-15-2004, 02:42 PM
Oh..proof of a negative? How is that possible? If there is proof of a positive, that's the way. I provided one link in Swedish and a short explanation of the test and results. No difference was heard between samples 1-3 in that test and in no other test I've seen have been positive. I've never claimed proof that needs to be peer reviewed, although that would strengthen it. Only the details of the test and the test scores IF there was a difference. Since there apparently are tests being done according to "AES standards" then there should be some numbers. If not, there is no proof. Knowledge is worthless if it cannot be delivered to others.

No, a null result is not proof of a negative, it's a nonconclusive finding. But, documenting those null results has value, especially since we're in the rhelm of comparing a 44.1/16 source against a high res master. Are you saying that something should be published ONLY if a positive result shows up? You're making a leap of logic to assume that all of these unpublished null results that you cite as proof of transparency between 44.1/16 and the master source are every bit as credible as the opinions of sound engineers who work with high res digital equipment on a daily basis.

To you the knowledge is worthless if it cannot be delivered to others, yet these null results that help bolster your case aren't published -- does that not make your point worthless as well since it also exists strictly in the rhelm of opinion? Conversely, it's not a recording engineer's obligation to try and prove the worth of his/her procedures to a layperson. One of two of them out of thousands, it might be disputable, but considering how the entire industry has standardized around high resolution digital formats, either you got a case of mass delusion occurring or the merits of higher resolution than 44.1/16 are very clear to the people who have the best access to the source material that can help make that determination.


No, I don't throw opinions away. If I did I would not be here. If there is knowledge that breaks new grounds, I'm happy to learn. But I'm not satisfied with just opinions. I may upgrade to high-res audio if that shows to be audible in some way. But until no evidence exist, I'll keep my equipment.

You're assuming that the only difference between CDs and high res discs is the resolution, and you seem to have judged the merits of the formats based strictly on bench tests, which does not say anything about how actual CDs compare to their high res versions. Have you even bothered giving any of the high res formats a listen? I'm not basing my opinion of the high res formats on theoretical arguments, I'm basing it on what gets demonstrated to me by what's actually available to an end consumer. On that basis, I've yet to hear a high res disc that does not at least subtlely improve upon the CD version (in some cases, the improvement is huge). As I've stated many times, I don't care about the causal effects, I only care about the end results. Theoretical arguments I'll leave to the recording engineers who work with the technology, and anyone else who has the time and inclination to deal with those questions.

The simple fact is that there are plenty of CDs still on the market that were poorly transferred in the first place. The high res formats afford an opportunity to not only get the transfer done right, but also to create a multichannel mix as well as a remixed two-channel master (since creating a multichannel mix requires going back to the original multitrack master and do the mixdown without the degradation that you got with analog equipment) and benefit from the higher resolution, whether or not you believe that the resolution alone has any causal effect. That's a practical benefit that these theoretical spin jobs almost always ignore. If you'd rather live in theory and technical details and base your opinion of the high res formats' value strictly on that basis while ignoring the practical improvements that are easily demonstrated by the discs on the market, that's your choice

mtrycraft
07-15-2004, 03:36 PM
Right on cue, why the hell would I need to research when all I'm interested in is whether a high res disc that I buy sounds better than a CD version? There may be hundreds of reasons, but that still doesn't change the results that I've experienced thus far.

Yes, you don't need to do any further research unless you think it is because of the hi res format alone is the reason.



Or maybe you are the uninquisitive type since you'd rather read about theory, bench tests, and white papers than actually compare different disc versions. [b]

Not difficult to have twop pressings ythat sound different. What does that tell you about the cause? Nothing, certainly not if it is caused by the hi res process. That is the downfall of comparing two unknown disc processes. Not much can be found out if they are different and one prefers one over the other. Certainly not why.



[b] If the mastering and the EQ settings are the biggest determinent, doesn't matter to me since preference is subjective.

Yes, preference is subjective, end of story, nothing to discuss about a preference.

Thus far I've yet to encounter a high res disc version that did not present at least a subtle improvement in the sound quality over the CD version.


That is exactely what the original post started this whole thread.
You still have no idea if that difference is the cause of the recording process or the different technology. It may not matter at all in the end. It matters when one wants to know or claim that it is due because of the hi res format alone.

If I'm being fooled, then please share a definitive reason why this is so rather than speculating about what I'm perceiving.

Oh, you are most likely not fooled into perceiving differences, the original post stated why this is. You just have no idea if you are fooled into thinking because of the hi res format and not something else that could make the CD just as good.




And more recently, I have replaced some of them with high res versions. No trickery there, just a bad transfer getting replaced by a better one.

Yep, that is all that is happening a better transfer, not necessarily due to hi res process.



Now we're getting somewhere! So basically you're saying that anything that anyone experiences that was not recorded or witnessed is imaginary and delusional without proof?

one has no idea if it is something of importance that one makes claims about. In your example, it is a non event, couldn't care less what anyone claimed.

I guess if someone tells you that they're having a good day, your first response is "Prove it".

Why would I? Not really important to me. If it was, I asked what good happened. If they claimed extraordinary events, yes, I would ask for further substantiation, if it was important.


If if they tell you that they feel good, you won't believe them until they write a white paper with unbiased measures as to why, eh?

Same.

then I'm sure that will all be documented, recorded, and proven to scientific standards.

Yes, certainly, if it was important enough.

No wonder why you never share anything about what you listen to.

Oh, I have stated what music I listen to mostly. Everything else is rather irrelevant.


Or I can just empty out my stomach and intestinal contents and let you do stool studies to calculate a probability for flatulence since proof is what you live for.

If this mattered. It doesn't.



Oh, but no standard is too difficult if PROOF is what you desire. If I tell you that I farted in the forest, what would make a naysayer believe me? I thought so...

Unimportant. Nothing extraordinary there. An easy event to perform. Very probable so why would I bother with anything?




Yes, but if I unload one close to your nose, how would you be able to prove to yourself that it occurred since all you're relying on is your sensory perceptions. And we all know how unreliable, delusional, and imaginary those are, right? Like I said, what proof would you have that some foul stench originated externally or just something off the top of your lip?

Would need more subjects and testing for sure.

Woochifer
07-15-2004, 04:20 PM
Or maybe you are the uninquisitive type since you'd rather read about theory, bench tests, and white papers than actually compare different disc versions. [b]

Not difficult to have twop pressings ythat sound different. What does that tell you about the cause? Nothing, certainly not if it is caused by the hi res process. That is the downfall of comparing two unknown disc processes. Not much can be found out if they are different and one prefers one over the other. Certainly not why.

Doesn't tell me anything, and the resolution remains one of the variables. What else would you want to find out? I do my listening and comparing, and if one sounds better than the other, then that's the one that I listen to. Coincidental that the ones that I've preferred under those circumstances just happened to all be the high res versions.


[b] Thus far I've yet to encounter a high res disc version that did not present at least a subtle improvement in the sound quality over the CD version.


That is exactely what the original post started this whole thread.
You still have no idea if that difference is the cause of the recording process or the different technology. It may not matter at all in the end. It matters when one wants to know or claim that it is due because of the hi res format alone.

But, you're presuming that it matters to me whether the improvements that I perceive are due to the format alone. And it's not like I got the means to make a determination on the format as the sole causal effect anyway, so the issue's a nonstarter. All I got to go on is the discs themselves, and if they're merely mastered better, then I still benefit with improved sound quality and get a multichannel mix thrown in for good measure.


If I'm being fooled, then please share a definitive reason why this is so rather than speculating about what I'm perceiving.

Oh, you are most likely not fooled into perceiving differences, the original post stated why this is. You just have no idea if you are fooled into thinking because of the hi res format and not something else that could make the CD just as good.

Again, you're trying to manufacture an argument here. I never stated that the improvements that I perceived were solely due to the resolution. You're the one who's trying to steer the discussion in that direction, and to me that has no merit given that nobody else who's chimed in (except for maybe Terrence) has the means immediately at their disposal to do the necessary comparisons to confirm or rule the resolution out as a potential causal effect.


Yep, that is all that is happening a better transfer, not necessarily due to hi res process.

How do you know? Have you ever done a DBT between a master and downsampled copy? Unless you've heard the masters that created both versions of the discs that I've compared, you have no basis for assessing the importance of one factor over another.


Now we're getting somewhere! So basically you're saying that anything that anyone experiences that was not recorded or witnessed is imaginary and delusional without proof?

one has no idea if it is something of importance that one makes claims about. In your example, it is a non event, couldn't care less what anyone claimed.

Why would you not care? If someone tells you that they farted, wouldn't a naysayer's first instinct be to ask for proof? And in the absence of that proof, infer delusion, bias, and unreliability of sensory perceptions? After all, a person can only know of their flatulence through their senses, which of course are susceptible to all kinds of distortions.


I guess if someone tells you that they're having a good day, your first response is "Prove it".

Why would I? Not really important to me. If it was, I asked what good happened. If they claimed extraordinary events, yes, I would ask for further substantiation, if it was important.

What if they just told you that they feel good? They're providing you with no proof. Would you believe them just because they told you, or would you doubt their assessment since feelings and perception are so fraught with fallibility?


then I'm sure that will all be documented, recorded, and proven to scientific standards.

Yes, certainly, if it was important enough.

At least you're consistent.


No wonder why you never share anything about what you listen to.

Oh, I have stated what music I listen to mostly. Everything else is rather irrelevant.

Oh? I guess that's why you never make any assertions of your own, and just churn questions over and over.



Or I can just empty out my stomach and intestinal contents and let you do stool studies to calculate a probability for flatulence since proof is what you live for.

If this mattered. It doesn't.

Oh, but if you doubted my ability to make an assessment of an event based solely on my sensory perceptions, then it matters a lot. You want proof? There you'd have it. The means are at your disposal, it's only up to you whether or not you want to get at an answer or just try and make points by conjuring up doubts.


Oh, but no standard is too difficult if PROOF is what you desire. If I tell you that I farted in the forest, what would make a naysayer believe me? I thought so...

Unimportant. Nothing extraordinary there. An easy event to perform. Very probable so why would I bother with anything?

Easy event to perform, under the right circumstances, but those circumstances don't always exist. If I had told you that event occurred at a specific time, you would just have to take my word for it. And that's never the first instinct of a naysayer, now is it?


Yes, but if I unload one close to your nose, how would you be able to prove to yourself that it occurred since all you're relying on is your sensory perceptions. And we all know how unreliable, delusional, and imaginary those are, right? Like I said, what proof would you have that some foul stench originated externally or just something off the top of your lip?

Would need more subjects and testing for sure.

Let the Taco Bell party begin... :)

hifitommy
07-15-2004, 07:32 PM
this whole thing is beginning to seem like a mat groenig episode.

mtrycraft
07-15-2004, 10:19 PM
Doesn't tell me anything, and the resolution remains one of the variables. What else would you want to find out? I do my listening and comparing, and if one sounds better than the other, then that's the one that I listen to. Coincidental that the ones that I've preferred under those circumstances just happened to all be the high res versions.

Ah, you are jumping to a cause without knowing the effect. No, not all cause related to the effect. Hi res protocol must be the cause for your preference. You have zero idea of that cause and effect and not interested obviously.
As I indicated, easy to master two discs differently by mixing it differently. It so happens that the high res is mixed differently, period. This was well demontrated when Sony was caught with their pants down in just such a test that they tried to cheat on. Oh, yes, that is also published.



But, you're presuming that it matters to me whether the improvements that I perceive are due to the format alone.

Not at all. You express that very well on your own.

And it's not like I got the means to make a determination on the format as the sole causal effect anyway, so the issue's a nonstarter.

Doesn't seem like you are interested in knowing, just correlate the easyest cause and effect. Doesn't work so simply. You have not ruled out other causes in this case, mixes.

All I got to go on is the discs themselves, and if they're merely mastered better, then I still benefit with improved sound quality and get a multichannel mix thrown in for good measure. [b]

Yes, multi channel is the real benefit not available on CD. Since you only have the disc, you seem to rule out causes that doesn't fit for you?
Nothing wrong with remastering better. But that has nothing to do with a hi res capability.




[b]Again, you're trying to manufacture an argument here. I never stated that the improvements that I perceived were solely due to the resolution. You're the one who's trying to steer the discussion in that direction, and to me that has no merit given that nobody else who's chimed in (except for maybe Terrence) has the means immediately at their disposal to do the necessary comparisons to confirm or rule the resolution out as a potential causal effect.

That is fine. More reason not to jump to an unwarranted conclusion then why they sound different, right?



How do you know? Have you ever done a DBT between a master and downsampled copy? Unless you've heard the masters that created both versions of the discs that I've compared, you have no basis for assessing the importance of one factor over another.

Oh, easy. No evidence exist, actually the contrary, that it is not the hi res at work. That is the issue, isn't it? You and others certainly jump to that conclusion in a hurry.



Why would you not care? If someone tells you that they farted, wouldn't a naysayer's first instinct be to ask for proof?

Actually, now you atre the one that seem to be delusional about this issue.


What if they just told you that they feel good? They're providing you with no proof. Would you believe them just because they told you, or would you doubt their assessment since feelings and perception are so fraught with fallibility?

Really not important, it is a feeling, isn't it? Just as the above silly comparison you are trying to conjourne up.

Thomas_A
07-15-2004, 11:44 PM
No, a null result is not proof of a negative, it's a nonconclusive finding. But, documenting those null results has value, especially since we're in the rhelm of comparing a 44.1/16 source against a high res master. Are you saying that something should be published ONLY if a positive result shows up? You're making a leap of logic to assume that all of these unpublished null results that you cite as proof of transparency between 44.1/16 and the master source are every bit as credible as the opinions of sound engineers who work with high res digital equipment on a daily basis.

To you the knowledge is worthless if it cannot be delivered to others, yet these null results that help bolster your case aren't published -- does that not make your point worthless as well since it also exists strictly in the rhelm of opinion? Conversely, it's not a recording engineer's obligation to try and prove the worth of his/her procedures to a layperson. One of two of them out of thousands, it might be disputable, but considering how the entire industry has standardized around high resolution digital formats, either you got a case of mass delusion occurring or the merits of higher resolution than 44.1/16 are very clear to the people who have the best access to the source material that can help make that determination.

But how many times should I say it? It has been documented in a non-peer reviewed magazine. I publish (and review) other matters in peer-reviewed journals and null results are often difficult to publish since they are inconclusive. Journals have thousands of manuscript to choose from and null results are often rejected. IF not the null result is a result of a previous positive finding that is questionable. So since there is no positive finding of a difference that has been published with some scientific method involved, why should there be more publications of null results?

One more thing, the market will decide only if there is two or more formats present. And as I said if the recording engineers deliberately put poor quality on CD, then they are responsible for that. Not me.




You're assuming that the only difference between CDs and high res discs is the resolution, and you seem to have judged the merits of the formats based strictly on bench tests, which does not say anything about how actual CDs compare to their high res versions. Have you even bothered giving any of the high res formats a listen? I'm not basing my opinion of the high res formats on theoretical arguments, I'm basing it on what gets demonstrated to me by what's actually available to an end consumer. On that basis, I've yet to hear a high res disc that does not at least subtlely improve upon the CD version (in some cases, the improvement is huge). As I've stated many times, I don't care about the causal effects, I only care about the end results. Theoretical arguments I'll leave to the recording engineers who work with the technology, and anyone else who has the time and inclination to deal with those questions.

The simple fact is that there are plenty of CDs still on the market that were poorly transferred in the first place. The high res formats afford an opportunity to not only get the transfer done right, but also to create a multichannel mix as well as a remixed two-channel master (since creating a multichannel mix requires going back to the original multitrack master and do the mixdown without the degradation that you got with analog equipment) and benefit from the higher resolution, whether or not you believe that the resolution alone has any causal effect. That's a practical benefit that these theoretical spin jobs almost always ignore. If you'd rather live in theory and technical details and base your opinion of the high res formats' value strictly on that basis while ignoring the practical improvements that are easily demonstrated by the discs on the market, that's your choice

I am not assuming that the only difference is the resolution. The only TECHNICAL difference is the resolution and the storage amount. What the recording engineers put there is different, and if the continue to make bad recordings on CD when there is no reason for it, is it to push other formats becuase they think "CD is technically bad" or any other reasons ? Using 8-10 bits of resolution and compressed material on CD when there are 16, is a bad thing not good.

I have listened to so-called hybrid discs with SACD and CD. And you are sure that there are improvements or just different? There are excellent SACD pressings as there are CD ones, even though they get more rare - because of the above.

I only speak as a medium for two-channel music as previously said.

Woochifer
07-16-2004, 11:32 AM
Doesn't tell me anything, and the resolution remains one of the variables. What else would you want to find out? I do my listening and comparing, and if one sounds better than the other, then that's the one that I listen to. Coincidental that the ones that I've preferred under those circumstances just happened to all be the high res versions.

Ah, you are jumping to a cause without knowing the effect. No, not all cause related to the effect. Hi res protocol must be the cause for your preference. You have zero idea of that cause and effect and not interested obviously.
As I indicated, easy to master two discs differently by mixing it differently. It so happens that the high res is mixed differently, period. This was well demontrated when Sony was caught with their pants down in just such a test that they tried to cheat on. Oh, yes, that is also published.

Quite the contrary. I am only going by effect, not documenting the cause, since as I've stated many times, I lack the information draw any conclusions about the causes. You seem to be the one that gets hung up on cause without regard for the effect.

Of course, it's easy to master two discs differently, but with resolution as another variable, who am I to rule out one variable versus another? And supposing that 44.1/16 and the higher resolutions indeed are transparent to the source, why would they need to be mixed differently?


And it's not like I got the means to make a determination on the format as the sole causal effect anyway, so the issue's a nonstarter.

Doesn't seem like you are interested in knowing, just correlate the easyest cause and effect. Doesn't work so simply. You have not ruled out other causes in this case, mixes.

Why and how can I rule out anything if I don't have the tools and access to make my own determination?


All I got to go on is the discs themselves, and if they're merely mastered better, then I still benefit with improved sound quality and get a multichannel mix thrown in for good measure. [b]

Yes, multi channel is the real benefit not available on CD. Since you only have the disc, you seem to rule out causes that doesn't fit for you?
Nothing wrong with remastering better. But that has nothing to do with a hi res capability.

But, if the high resolution is one of the variables on those discs, then it's remains a potential causal effect if I don't know anything about any differences in the mastering processes used for the different versions. Did the mastering engineer use the original session notes to make sure that the CD and high res mastering settings were identical, or did they use a vinyl playback as a reference for a remaster of a vintage recording, or were they transferred from the same playback feed? Absent that information, I don't know the magnitude of one variable versus another, so why would I conceive a conclusion on the basis of incomplete information?


[b]Again, you're trying to manufacture an argument here. I never stated that the improvements that I perceived were solely due to the resolution. You're the one who's trying to steer the discussion in that direction, and to me that has no merit given that nobody else who's chimed in (except for maybe Terrence) has the means immediately at their disposal to do the necessary comparisons to confirm or rule the resolution out as a potential causal effect.

That is fine. More reason not to jump to an unwarranted conclusion then why they sound different, right?

More strawman churning. I'm not making any conclusions about why they sound different, so why would that be unwarranted? If you want to argue about whether or not I actually perceived a difference, that's fine. Do your own listenings and compare notes, but don't start nitpicking points that I'm not making.


How do you know? Have you ever done a DBT between a master and downsampled copy? Unless you've heard the masters that created both versions of the discs that I've compared, you have no basis for assessing the importance of one factor over another.

Oh, easy. No evidence exist, actually the contrary, that it is not the hi res at work. That is the issue, isn't it? You and others certainly jump to that conclusion in a hurry.

I thought you were the inquisitive one who's interested in determining causal effects, or are you just about raising doubt and proving nothing? I'm not making any conclusion, just not ruling any of causal effects out. You seem to be jumping the gun by automatically ruling out the resolution and focusing exclusively on the mixing and mastering process without knowing anything about any specific discs in question.


[Why would you not care? If someone tells you that they farted, wouldn't a naysayer's first instinct be to ask for proof?

Actually, now you atre the one that seem to be delusional about this issue.

Quite a statement considering that you're the one who has so little trust in people's ability to interpret sensory perceptions without external validation. Obviously, you can't even trust your own sensory perceptions, otherwise we would hear more about all the comparisons and listenings that I'm sure you do to experientially validate all the technical largess that you live for.


What if they just told you that they feel good? They're providing you with no proof. Would you believe them just because they told you, or would you doubt their assessment since feelings and perception are so fraught with fallibility?

Really not important, it is a feeling, isn't it? Just as the above silly comparison you are trying to conjourne up.

No sillier than presuming that people's sensory perceptions are automatically the product of delusion and readily dismissed unless they somehow recorded them or had witnesses.

Woochifer
07-16-2004, 12:00 PM
But how many times should I say it? It has been documented in a non-peer reviewed magazine. I publish (and review) other matters in peer-reviewed journals and null results are often difficult to publish since they are inconclusive. Journals have thousands of manuscript to choose from and null results are often rejected. IF not the null result is a result of a previous positive finding that is questionable. So since there is no positive finding of a difference that has been published with some scientific method involved, why should there be more publications of null results?

One more thing, the market will decide only if there is two or more formats present. And as I said if the recording engineers deliberately put poor quality on CD, then they are responsible for that. Not me.

But, if the null result is relevant to the argument that you put forth, then why would those not be published, yet you demand "proof" if someone states the opposite argument? If you do all this writing and reviewing, and this point is so important to you, then why not put the argument to the test directly? You obviously have the technical know-how and the inclination, so what's the hang up? You talk about the supposed transparency of 44.1/16 as if it is proven by the links that you posted, yet it's all a bunch of tangental material that doesn't touch upon that question directly.


I am not assuming that the only difference is the resolution. The only TECHNICAL difference is the resolution and the storage amount. What the recording engineers put there is different, and if the continue to make bad recordings on CD when there is no reason for it, is it to push other formats becuase they think "CD is technically bad" or any other reasons ? Using 8-10 bits of resolution and compressed material on CD when there are 16, is a bad thing not good.

I have listened to so-called hybrid discs with SACD and CD. And you are sure that there are improvements or just different? There are excellent SACD pressings as there are CD ones, even though they get more rare - because of the above.

I only speak as a medium for two-channel music as previously said.

Well, if you're assuming that CD audio quality is purposely doctored to sound inferior to SACD, then you'll just have to live with that compromised level of sound quality unless you upgrade to a high res player, right? Regardless of the reasons, I purchase high res discs because at a practical level, they represent an improvement in sound quality. As for whether the improvement is technically based or just due to better attention to detail, I could care less. It's the same reason why I bought half-speed mastered LPs 20 years ago. I didn't care if it was due to the half-speed cutting lathe, higher density vinyl, first generation source material, or just a better mastering engineer at work, bottomline was better audio quality and that's all that mattered. Any conclusions about causal effect would have been mindless speculation.

Am I sure these high res discs represent improvements? Yes, because whether something sounds better is a subjective assessment. For example, recording engineer Rudy Van Gelder remastered a series of his classic jazz sessions on CD, and in my assessment some of the remastered CDs sound worse than before.