SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

[Monstrous Mike]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

It needs 5.1

Along with upper octave harmonic integrity and very low level resolution.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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]

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.

i look forward to further enlightenment when more issues are in need of clarification.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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]

Along with upper octave harmonic integrity and very low level resolution.

rw

Is that more of your speculations?

[E-Stat]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[mtrycraft]

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]

Here we go, you bring all this FACT stuff to the table. Perceiving is believing

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?