SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

[Thomas_A]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...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]

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]

Deleted.

[DMK]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[b]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?




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]

try LISTENING.

[E-Stat]

try LISTENING.

But then that would be against his "experience free" philosophy.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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]

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]

[b] 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.

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]

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]

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]

Not going to hold my breath, predictions are unreliable.

Oh, Really? Is that my predictions or in general? Be very careful.