Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Topic: Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions (Read 38772 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

2004-10-30 10:02:37

hi peeps....i was wondering if some1 could verify that original SACDs have way better sound than wav files converted from [16bit 44khz] to [24bit 96khz]

........from what i can hear the converted files sound better , but dont know if its equal to an original SACD sound.

any help appreciated

s8n

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #1 – 2004-10-30 11:08:44

Quote

hi peeps....i was wondering if some1 could verify that original SACDs have way better sound than wav files converted from [16bit 44khz] to [24bit 96khz] ........from what i can hear the converted files sound better , but dont know if its equal to an original SACD sound.

any help appreciated

s8n
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=250987"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

First of all: converting 44/16 wave files to 96/24 doesn't improve anything. Think of an image you store as JPEG with a very low quality setting.. reopening it and store it as JPG with a high quality setting... Does it look any better ? No

second: the quality level of CDs (at least the potentional quality 44/16 offers) is already pretty high. Many ppl (including me) think that one cannot distiguish 44/16 against any higher quality setting (at least when considering high quality DACs).

third: Make yourself familar with ABX tests. The reason why you think the upsampled version sounds better is because you think it should be the case. This effect is called "placebo effect". ABX tests eliminate this unwanted effect.

HTH,
SebastianG

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #2 – 2004-10-30 11:32:44

Just to clarify, 96KHz/24 bits PCM is not SACD. It is maximum resolution per channel in DVD-Video specs, and also maximum resolution per channel in 5.1 DVD-Audio.

SACD bitstream (a.k.a. DSD) is a different technology, hence it should (IMO does) sound differently. Instead of representing air pressure level by a 16 bit number 44100 times per second (CD PDM), DSD uses 1 bit to tell if air pressure goes up or down 2822400 times per second.

IMO (yes I am a hi-rez fan) these are the main issues to listen out for in a blind test against CD:

96/24 LPCM: More details in complex music.

DSD: More natural sound, less harsh and "digital".

Cheers
FA

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #3 – 2004-10-30 12:59:53

Quote

hi peeps....i was wondering if some1 could verify that original SACDs have way better sound than wav files converted from [16bit 44khz] to [24bit 96khz] ........from what i can hear the converted files sound better , but dont know if its equal to an original SACD sound.

any help appreciated

s8n
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=250987"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I other view it's worth considering that today's CD-DA are badly mastered contrary to the SACD's, this could be another point... Don't you think so?

Edit: To make it clear - the problem is not in the quality of technology (CD-DA vs. SACD) but in quality of mastering the signal for CD-DA and for SACD...

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #4 – 2004-10-30 13:02:05

Quote

SACD bitstream (a.k.a. DSD) is a different technology, hence it should (IMO does) sound differently.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=250991"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is a non-convincing implication of yours.

Quote

96/24 LPCM: More details in complex music.
DSD: More natural sound, less harsh and "digital".
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=250991"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What do you think is the dual of these informal statements in a more mathmatical language ?
For exampe: Translate "details", "harsh", "natural".

SebastianG

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #5 – 2004-10-30 13:20:37

so which is better ?.........96/24 PCM or DSD ?

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #6 – 2004-10-30 13:34:55

Quote

so which is better ?.........96/24 PCM or DSD ?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=251000"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It doesn't matter, your ears matter!
AFAIK CD should be sufficent for almost every listener.

Taken from the myths section of r3mix site:

CD doesn't have a low enough signal to noise ratio. The new DVD super audio (SACD) is a huge improvement.

Reality check: CD was invented to be perfect sound without waste. The 90db signal to noise and dynamic range provides a noise floor that is lower than you can get from any analog source in the recording studio today. The air current in the room of the recording studio is louder than the noise floor on CD. When you use ANY microphone, you will pick up the room air noise. This means that CD already does a better job than we need it to. I already run into problems where CDs can record sounds too loud for analog equipment to safely amplify. If DVD audio is to be believed, then you could record a dynamic range wide enough to capture a jet engine's loudness. This is not possible to reproduce on current analog equipment without distortion and serious damage to your hearing. Again, CD is perfect. Current recordings on CD barely use any dynamic range. Most modern music has a "compressed" dynamic range. Constantly loud and rarely uses a sound below -15db on the level meter. This is a mastering problem. The mastering engineers master modern music for radio play to get their song louder than their competitors so people will pay attention when their song comes on. Take any 1980's or early 1990's CD and put it in your CD player, then listen to the volume. Now take a modern rock or pop music CD and play it. The volume of the modern music is always near or at the MAXIMUM peak level possible. The dynamic range squeezed out. Now, simply put in the older 1980's or early 1990's CD and turn up the volume on your stereo. You'll notice how much BETTER the older recordings sound. There is IMPACT in the drums. Details in the sound. It's more realisitic sounding overall. The older (but still modern) recordings are easier on your ears at louder volume and seem more natural. This is how the CD medium sounds at its best. Do not listen this way on PC or boombox speakers. You need a decent stereo or good headphones to hear the difference.

Is it clear?

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #7 – 2004-10-30 14:18:08

Quote

so which is better ?.........96/24 PCM or DSD ?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Please do a search on this forum. This has been discussed to death.
For all the SACD/DSD lovers I suggest reading [a href="http://www.minnetonkaaudio.com/pdfs/1-Bit%20SD%20is%20Unsuitable%20paper.pdf]this[/url].

SebastianG

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #8 – 2004-10-30 18:12:55

Quote

IMO (yes I am a hi-rez fan) these are the main issues to listen out for in a blind test against CD:

96/24 LPCM: More details in complex music.

DSD: More natural sound, less harsh and "digital".
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Welcome to Hydrogenaudio.org,
could you please supply ABX results in support of your claim in respect of [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974]TOS#8[/url]?

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #9 – 2004-10-31 09:40:41

Marking IMO (In My Opinion) and stating preferences is a clear indication that we are at hypothesis level, no?

TOS#8 contains common principles in the scientific world for establishing theory. That is, verifying that a hypothesis is "true".

My post aimed at clarify formats and give a hint regarding method, nothing else.

I appreciate very much the serious approach in this forum, but please try to bear in mind the basic concepts of science.

Cheers
FA

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #10 – 2004-10-31 12:21:46

Quote

Marking IMO (In My Opinion) and stating preferences is a clear indication that we are at hypothesis level, no?

My post aimed at clarify formats and give a hint regarding method, nothing else.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=251138"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Fine. The problem is: You said this here:

Quote

96/24 LPCM: More details in complex music.
DSD: More natural sound, less harsh and "digital".
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=250991"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Unfortuantely these statements are of no value for me. You're appearently implying:
"The SACDs / DVD-As I listened to sounded differently" => "more details in 96/24 LPCM / more natuaral and less harsch sound because of DSD"

Besides from being pretty 'vague' (What do you mean by "details", "natural", ...

) there are two other problems with this implication:
- you've probably been fooled by the placebo effect
- a different sound may also be an effect of a different mastering and not only depends on the medium's recording format. (important!)

Quote

I appreciate very much the serious approach in this forum, but please try to bear in mind the basic concepts of science.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=251138"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

SebastianG

edit: grammar

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #11 – 2004-10-31 22:41:54

With all due respect to the other posters, you guys have come down a bit hard on Fallen Angel. He did not make unsported claims in his quoted post, but merely pointed out attributes a listener might listen for in conducting the blind test. All conclusions were implicitly left to the results of a blind test. Very much within the spirit of the forum, and certainly not in violation of TOS#8, IMHO.

- Jeff

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #12 – 2004-11-01 02:53:39

yes i agree.....i appreciate all replies , every reply has helped me get a better understanding of ....PCM 96/24 and DSD

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #13 – 2004-11-01 08:23:12

Two comments :

1. The interface of all players, be it SACD , DVD-A or CD player to the amp is still a simple chinch connector, with 750 mV eff. as 0 dB, means a current. I dont know how SONY is marketing the SACD's 'superiority' to other concepts by explaining things with how many time the air pressure is modulated by their player's output, but if they do thats simply crap.

2. The real superiority of SACD and DVD-A is in fact because the studio's mastering them can expect a high-quality playback chain behind them, and can/will use a higher dynamic range in their mixes.

About the other advantages like improved hi-frequency reponse or bigger dynamic range, yes, i do believe they are there, but i have given up on finding a way how to prove this in a scientific test.

Christian

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #14 – 2004-11-01 11:21:22

Hi,

To start with this:

Quote

[16bit 44khz] to [24bit 96khz] ........from what i can hear the converted files sound better

Mathematically speaking this is impossible if the signals are load enough, i.e. well above -55 dBFS or something different. (Depends on the listener who is judging) I am referring to the precision of the samples but believe me, 16 bits is already good enough for most listeners. The funny part is that most listeners do hear difference but that has nothing to de with the digital things, but more with the analog implementation of the system. Less filtering required and stuph. So mathematically there is no difference but in practise there is (not always, depends on the equipment).

Regards,
Jacco

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #15 – 2004-11-01 21:51:03

Quote

2. The real superiority of SACD and DVD-A is in fact because the studio's mastering them can expect a high-quality playback chain behind them, and can/will use a higher dynamic range in their mixes.

About the other advantages like improved hi-frequency reponse or bigger dynamic range, yes, i do believe they are there, but i have given up on finding a way how to prove this in a scientific test.

Christian
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=251323"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've seen on one Czech web comparison between SACD and CD version of one title, the problem with the sound quality was mastering. There was another attempt... SACD was ripped by analog and burned on a CD and then tested as a blind test to determine what's SACD and CD... What do you think was the conclusion?

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #16 – 2004-11-02 04:14:02

Jeff, s8n, thanks for the support. You've got it right. Here's something else to listen out for: Lack of detail on high frequencies (for example cymbals). This has been put forward as a flaw for SACD.

Sebastian, you quote my statements removing the "IMO" tag so that you can label them subjective. That is, discarding hypothesises without presenting proof. Not very constructive, is it?

Anyway, I agree on that audio format evaluation is a true challenge. It's reasonable to suspect influence from Recording technique, mixing preferences, intermediate format conversion and playback facilities. And even more when these parameters are unknown bias.

Cheers
AL

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #17 – 2004-11-02 08:25:12

Quote

Sebastian, you quote my statements removing the "IMO" tag so that you can label them subjective. That is, discarding hypothesises without presenting proof. Not very constructive, is it?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=251493"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You expressed an opinion regarding sound quality. If you express an opinion regarding sound quality then you have to back it up with ABX. Sebastian was correct to call you up on this.

If we could all write IMO before every quality claim on this board and get away with it we would be in a sorry mess.

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #18 – 2004-11-02 10:08:37

Quote

Sebastian, you quote my statements removing the "IMO" tag so that you can label them subjective. That is, discarding hypothesises without presenting proof. Not very constructive, is it?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=251493"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I just pointed out why I think your opinion regarding DSD / LPCM might be based on false assumptions. Of course, I still don't know how you came to these conclusions. You could enlighten us.

Yes, I consider this constructive.

Quote

Anyway, I agree on that audio format evaluation is a true challenge. It's reasonable to suspect influence from Recording technique, mixing preferences, intermediate format conversion and playback facilities. And even more when these parameters are unknown bias.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=251493"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I suspect that these influences you mentioned are the only ones that effect the perceived sound and are independet of the used format (DSD/LPCM). (Apart from DSD's non-linearity issue which may result in audible "birdies" in some cases - This is mentioned in the paper I linked to above).

To answer the question which of these formats (DSD/LPCM) is 'better', one has to define 'better' first. If 'better' means a higher quality-per-bit-ratio, then the answer is LPCM (according to the paper I linked to above)

Since the only available SACD mastering tool supports LPCM sources only* as input which are converted to DSD, there cannot be a real advantage of the DSD format quality-wise (at least for now).

(* I'm not sure of the information's source - it guess was mentioned here on HA)

SebastianG

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #19 – 2004-11-02 10:22:15

Quote

... I am referring to the precision of the samples but believe me, 16 bits is already good enough for most listeners. The funny part is that most listeners do hear difference but that has nothing to de with the digital things, but more with the analog implementation of the system. Less filtering required and stuph. So mathematically there is no difference but in practise there is (not always, depends on the equipment).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=251351"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

good point !
(I didn't think of this)

SebastianG

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #20 – 2004-11-02 10:27:07

Quote

SACD was ripped by analog and burned on a CD and then tested as a blind test to determine what's SACD and CD... What do you think was the conclusion?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=251422"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Perhaps this was a rhetorical question but I'll give it a shot: The SACD analog to CD still sounded different because of different mastering .

BTW: to compare this correctly also the CD source should be played analog and captured with the same recording device and burned, just like the SACD.

edit: Oops sorry, I misunderstood what was compared with what at the time I wrote this

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #21 – 2004-11-02 11:10:10

Quote

Since the only available SACD mastering tool supports LPCM sources only* as input which are converted to DSD, there cannot be a real advantage of the DSD format quality-wise (at least for now).

(* I'm not sure of the information's source - it guess was mentioned here on HA)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=251541"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can confirm that all the person I know who has worked with DSD, started with PCM sources. So, I don't see any advantage of DSD based on PCM. I don't know a studio fully equipped with DSD.
Now, 24 bits (often) and 96 khz or 192 khz (sometimes) are used. In that case, I don't see any benefits for DSD. DVD-A should be at least equal or better than DSD. Anyway, DSD seems to outperform DVD-A in terms of market share. It's probably a question of marketing.
IMO 5.1 mix is superior to stereo, but who needs DVD-A or SACD for that? DTS is good enough and is compatible with a lot of player... (a DTS version is often added to DVD-A).
Moreover, SACD and DVD-A are polluted with watermarking, making their superiority questionable...

...So much mistakes in the name of piracy ... making the piracy more attractive...

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #22 – 2004-11-02 14:14:37

Quote

Quote
SACD was ripped by analog and burned on a CD and then tested as a blind test to determine what's SACD and CD... What do you think was the conclusion?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=251422"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Perhaps this was a rhetorical question but I'll give it a shot: The SACD analog to CD still sounded different because of different mastering .
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=251547"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well to be true, this was not a rhetorical question because the conclusion was: We can not distinguish which sound comes from CD and which from SACD (both on a Hi-Fi equipment)...
I'm not familiar with these problems because I don't have a Hi-Fi equipment but for me (in a theoretical point of view) it IMHO means that the quality increase of SACD / DVD-A is negligible...
"different mastering" - Don't know what you're writing about

Quote

BTW: to compare this correctly also the CD source should be played analog and captured with the same recording device and burned, just like the SACD.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=251547"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, the purpose for doing it the way they've done it is that analog conversion of SACD content is the only one possible way to burn it on CD-R...

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #23 – 2004-11-02 14:26:20

It seems that I explained the test wrong way (oh my English!)...
They were testing music played from a SACD player and the same by listening to CD-R made from analog capture of SACD signal... In a blind test, of course!

Sorry, I hope you'll understand what I mean by this jerky attempt to explain...

Super Audio CD aka SACD....questions

Reply #24 – 2004-11-02 15:40:05

Quote

IMO (yes I am a hi-rez fan) these are the main issues to listen out for in a blind test against CD:

96/24 LPCM: More details in complex music.

DSD: More natural sound, less harsh and "digital".
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=250991"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But can you hear these things on both formats?
Then they could be ABX'd by you.

Notice