SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

[Thomas_A]

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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]

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]

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]

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 ±1 dB 20 Hz to 20 khz at listening position (extending up to 40 kHz ± 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?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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 ±1 dB 20 Hz to 20 khz at listening position (extending up to 40 kHz ± 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.

[DMK]

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!

[Thomas_A]

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

[DMK]

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.