|   Non-cable DBT question for naysayers | pctower
Jul 9, 2002 2:28 PM | | Do you believe that, when taken from the same master, there is an audible difference between redbook CD and SACD?
Sony is touting SACD as superior to CDs. Are you as angry about the fact that they offer no independent DBTs to substantiate their claims of superiority as you are about the cable companies?
As far as I know, the normal electrical measurements we talk about here such as frequency response and distortion, when applied to Compact Disc playback, are well below the threshold of audibility that you say applies to cables. Therefore, I would assume that you believe that there are no sonic advantages to SACD. |
| re: Non-cable DBT question for naysayers | mtrycrafts
Jul 9, 2002 4:53 PM | | Since I have not seen credible evidence for the SACD to be audibly different, without monkey business as Sony tried to do in a demo and was caught,
"Super Audio, Evolutionary or Revolutionary?" Edward J. Foster, Audio, Nov 1999, page 40-47.
I doubt it, although J Stewart, Meridian Audio has data in his paper that some can hear 18 bits.
And, when some make claimes here, they are taken to task. Sony has an unsupported advertising claim, it seems, or they would have supporting evidence.
Another issue is how one compares two unknow quantity discs even if on the same disc without careful analizing of the recorded data. |
| Yes and no. | A
Jul 9, 2002 4:55 PM | | The fact that SACDs can be multichannel can make them very obviously audibly different from stereo CDs. But I am certainly not happy with Sony, as they were caught a while back using different masters for a CD and a stereo SACD to 'prove' that SACD was superior (I guess <i><b>they</b></i> didn't really think that there is much, if any, real audible difference between the formats, or they would not need to resort to such tactics). I personally would like to see some properly conducted double blind tests done with discs made from the same stereo mix/master.
As for sonic advantages, there is, of course, the issue of a greater possible dynamic range for SACD, and that could make an audible difference in certain circumstances, though most recordings do not make use of the capabilities of the CD, so something better would be irrelevant in those cases. |
| I'd also like some DBTs for DVD-Audio... | A
Jul 9, 2002 5:13 PM | | ...compared with CDs and SACDs. But, if they are not audibly different (in stereo) from each other, there will probably not ever be any tests done if the sellers of DVD-Audio and SACD have anything to do with it; after all, if it were proven that they were audibly no different from CDs, it would hurt sales. Right now, they can claim whatever BS they want, and sell to people without properly demonstrating that they do anything at all (other than add more possible channels). If, on the other hand, they really did sound better, proving it would be a selling point. Since lack of proof is good for sales if they sound no better, and having a proof is good for sales if they do sound better, then I think that the longer there is no proof, the more this suggests that they are not audibly better than CDs (other than with added channels). They have already had enough time if they really wanted to prove something, but I will wait a while before concluding that their lack of proof is an intentional tactic to sell more players and more expensive discs. |
| re: Non-cable DBT question for naysayers | FLZapped
Jul 9, 2002 7:19 PM | | I must confess that I'm not sure. Technically, you'd think that the answer is an easy yes, just based on the number of samples available through 20kHz compared to the standard CD format. But the more I have looked at how our hearing appears to work, I must say I don't know for sure. The one big advantage is the surround sound capability. Maybe that makes it worthwhile.
Regardless, Sony and Phillips have a TON of money investing in SACD, so I wouldn't put it past them to say absolutely ANYTHING to promote the product and it appears to be working as there are several labels promoting music on that format. But at prices around $20 per copy, you can keep it.
-Bruce |
| To somebody, maybe. Not to me | Norm Strong
Jul 9, 2002 9:57 PM | | I've never actually heard an SACD, much less on a good system, but I'm nevertheless certain I couldn't tell the difference.
I can't tell the difference between a live mike feed and the 16/44.1 recording of that same mike feed. Since SACD can't possibly be better than the mike feed, I won't be able to hear that difference either. |
| Here's a non DBT answer. | markw
Jul 10, 2002 3:13 AM | | Since, when a SACD is issued from an existing master, they generally remix/re-equalize the signal, I would have to ASSUME the difference would be audiable.
But, if you simply take the same unmodified signal, I'll have to beg out of a definitive answer. A lot would depend on the analog portons of the playback units themselves.
I dunno about the "great strides" made by SACD, but I've heard some pretty durn good redbook stuff from Reference Recordings, Mapleshade, etc... so I WILL say a lot more seems to hinge on the quality of the source recording itself than the media.
I'm still not jumping on the SACD bandwagon quite yet. |
| Here's a non DBT answer. | sam9
Jul 10, 2002 2:03 PM | | "I dunno about the "great strides" made by SACD, but I've heard some pretty durn good redbook stuff from Reference Recordings, Mapleshade, etc... so I WILL say a lot more seems to hinge on the quality of the source recording itself than the media."
I totally agree and think that even Redbook is so close to an exact reproduction of the input signal that there is little room for improvement in ternsa of noise, distortion and dynamic range. There are other elements of how the recording is made that make a bigger difference. Multi-channel is another story. |
| re: Non-cable DBT question for naysayers | MonstrousMike
Jul 10, 2002 5:32 AM | | <<<< Do you believe that, when taken from the same master, there is an audible difference between redbook CD and SACD? >>>>
I haven't consumed enough information on the subject to decide.
<<<< Sony is touting SACD as superior to CDs. Are you as angry about the fact that they offer no independent DBTs to substantiate their claims of superiority as you are about the cable companies? >>>>
As many here have said before about cables and such, if you don't perfom a DBT, your aural assessment will contain biases. So in general, to say a product is sonically superior because it has more bits of resolution or a higher sampling frequency is what I would call an unsubstantiated claim. However, this is sufficient for many audiophiles.
<<<< As far as I know, the normal electrical measurements we talk about here such as frequency response and distortion, when applied to Compact Disc playback, are well below the threshold of audibility that you say applies to cables. Therefore, I would assume that you believe that there are no sonic advantages to SACD. >>>>
Unless you are being facetious, I would say you are getting the gist of what naysayers are trying get across to people.
Like the gentlemen at CRC do in the course of their research, the first step is to analyze all of the relevent parameters and specifications and compare them to know audible thresholds of human hearing. The next step is perform a subjective evaluation that is free of individual human biases which would either verify or contradict the electrical analysis, or perhaps even result in an inconclusive outcome.
P.S. Facetious is the only word in the English language the contains all of the vowels only once, and in order. |
| I'm not being what you said (nt). | pctower
Jul 10, 2002 12:20 PM | | NT |
| re: Non-cable DBT question for naysayers | Norm Strong
Jul 10, 2002 2:15 PM | | Yes, but "sequoia' is the shortest word in the English language that contains all the vowels.
For those looking for the absolute shortest such word, you have to go to French: oiseau |
| You're on a roll...Quiz time... | MonstrousMike
Jul 10, 2002 2:44 PM | | Name the following (english):
1. The longest word in with only one vowel?
2. The only word with three double letters in a row (it has other letters as well)? |
| You're on a roll...Quiz time... | Norm Strong
Jul 14, 2002 10:14 AM | | 1. Strength
2. bookkeeper
How am I doing? |
| Nicely done... | MonstrousMike
Jul 14, 2002 3:33 PM | | See, there's nothing wrong with people who took the short bus to school |
| "Beliefs" are for golden ears - naysayers use controlled tests | Richard Greene
Jul 10, 2002 7:14 AM | | If one person can hear an audible difference under
double-blind volume-matched conditions, then there is an audible difference.
We naysayers don't waste our time with speculation and beliefs. Those are for the golden-ear wackos who feel free to criticize the sound of a component without even listening to it (because it is 'too cheap' or is made by a 'mid-fi' company').
Audiophile companies such as Mapleshade have shown that
the ordinary redbook compact disc is capable of much higher quality sound than we actually get on 99.9% of the CDs made.
Do you really think SACD or DVD-Audio is capable of making grossly overprocessed pop music sound "natural". |
| "Beliefs" are for golden ears - naysayers use controlled tests | pctower
Jul 10, 2002 12:28 PM | | Just for the record, I've only heard DVD-Audio once and SACD once. Didn't come to any conclusions.
I've got a Sony CE775 on hold for me at Best Buy for $180, but haven't decided if I'll spring for it. The only thing I would use it for is to play SACD discs, as I'm sure its redbook performance is not close to my CD front-end.
I happen to believe that CDs released within the past 5 years played on newer equipment can be quite incredible, even surpassing my vinyl front end, which I believe is extremely good.
Also, to everyone who has posted, thanks for your interesting comments. |
| So Phil.... | FLZapped
Jul 11, 2002 6:20 AM | | Why haven't you become ensnared in that constitutional debate in the General Forum????
-Bruce |
| So Phil.... | pctower
Jul 11, 2002 6:59 AM | | Oh man, don't get me started. If I want to have fun, I'll stay here and argue about cables. If I want to discuss something serious, it certainly isn't going to be the pledge of allegiance.
BTW, I usually don't go over to the General forum, but your post caused me to take a look. What's this about the Chapter 11? While some people gripe about it, our little cable forum here, in my opinion, is one of the few civilized places available on the net to discuss audio topics in an intelligent fashion.
Just as an example, there was a near meltdown last week over at AA over issues surrounding the moderator. I have no idea what the issue was, and could care less, but that kind of stuff gets old real fast. For all our warts, this forum has really grown on me and I'd hate to see it vanish. |
| So Phil.... | FLZapped
Jul 11, 2002 9:23 AM | | Yeah, I guess Consumer Review is trying to reorganize, but they posted something that seemed to indicate that the online forum(for now, anyway) is going to be unaffected. It's down in that thread somewhere linked inside a posting.
Yes, I've been over at AA alot recently, mainly because a certain moderator over at AA made mention of me in a thread and what he claimed was totally fabricated. So I had to get out the double barrel shotgun after him.
They've been in meltdown anyway because Steve Eddy has been ripping the hell out of someone's pet theories. Or at least exposing their weaknesses.
This is indeed a pretty good place, even if we get a little ruckus at times.
And I tend to agree about the pledge, there are far more serious issues at hand: we have a big one here with the State of Florida and their Canker Crusade trying to totally ignore, or otherwise circumvent the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.
I did post some over there, but am finished because there is no real productivity, it's more of a Bitch deJour and is driven by emotion than fact. You have done well to avoid it, actually. I probably should have. But then, our hindsight is always 20/20 since you never see people with glasses on their asses....
Regards,
Bruce |
| So Phil.... | mtrycrafts
Jul 11, 2002 11:04 PM | | b Steve Eddy has been ripping the hell out of someone's pet theories.
Ok, I will spill the beans:)- Jon :)
b , mainly because a certain moderator over at AA made mention of me in a thread and what he claimed was totally fabricated. So I had to get out the double barrel shotgun after him.
Jon again?
b since you never see people with glasses on their asses....
That gives me an idea for the new swim suits :) |
| So Phil.... | FLZapped
Jul 12, 2002 4:40 AM | | OK, so you win the fur lined, uhm, I better not go there.....
Swimsuits, huh?
How will they sound? Can we do a double-UNblind test?
-Bruce |
| re: Non-cable DBT question for naysayers | Billiam
Jul 10, 2002 11:10 AM | | Very Interesting. I have also wondered about the HDCD format. I thought that I heard a difference but now I am second guessing myself. Why don't we push for an international testing board that will test the claims of a company's marketers before they are actually allowed to advertise and possibly mis-lead some poor sap:-) |
| re: Non-cable DBT question for naysayers | mtrycrafts
Jul 10, 2002 11:29 PM | | We are out numbered by the folks at AA as they will oppose such a requirement :) |
| If there is it ain't much ! | sam9
Jul 10, 2002 12:30 PM | | In the absence of a valid DBT, I doubt SACD or DVD-A offers much advantage if any over redbook. A valid DBT would have to ensure that not only is the same master used bu that nothing is done between the master and the digital encoding AND the playback levels are within +/- 0.5db or less. A test calibration tone would be recorded to each source.
An even better test might be to skip the master and just a pink noise signal in parallel through the encoding hard/software. You could then invert one of the signals and add it to the other and measure the difference. There is information on the web at the Elliot Sound website that gives enough info on how to compare two signals in this manner that someone who had access to DSD and rebook encoding hardware could most likely construct such a test.
My personal subjective impression is that it is very hard to do better than Redbook. I suspect that if there is an advantage it is in dynamic range not sampling rate (aka to some as "resolution").
There are some comparisons (such as a 30 year old 45 rpm single covered with fingerprints and grit vs. a brand new CD) where the differences are so gross DBTs and relkated debates are not necessary. However, when you get into SACD vs. CD I don't think anything but a DBT will really answer the question. At the same time if it takes a DBT for me to relably detect a difference, I don't thenk the difference is (for me) worth getting excited about. |
| If there is it ain't much ! | mtrycrafts
Jul 10, 2002 11:31 PM | | b In the absence of a valid DBT, I doubt SACD or DVD-A offers much advantage if any over redbook.
Multi channel performance. :) Not enough DD music. |
| If there is it ain't much ! | mtrycrafts
Jul 10, 2002 11:33 PM | | b There are some comparisons (such as a 30 year old 45 rpm single covered with fingerprints and grit vs. a brand new CD) where the differences are so gross
Yuck, that is not even worthy of a comparison :) |
| Does it matter? | skippy
Jul 12, 2002 3:37 PM | | The fact of the matter is the only way to get the good mix is to buy the SACD (or DVD-A). Does it matter that they would sound the same if the mix was the same? No, it's a moot point because the mix is not the same.
Norm, I'm with you. I can't tell the difference between live mike feeds and 16/44.1. |
| Does it matter? | mtrycrafts
Jul 12, 2002 9:32 PM | | Of course the multi channel will be better:)Now the disc prices need to tumble too, and the library needs to grow :) |
| |
