SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"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]

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]

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.

[skeptic]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[N. Abstentia]

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.