Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default interesting discussion of SACD vs. CD

the usual stuff for the first page or so, but then Nika Aldrich
chimes in and it gets interesting.

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...6&page=4&pp=30

Therer's also a link to *another* student's CD vs DVD-A vs SACD
study

http://gearslutz.com/board/attachmen...achmentid=6491




--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow
  #2   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default interesting discussion of SACD vs. CD

Steven Sullivan wrote:
the usual stuff for the first page or so, but then Nika Aldrich
chimes in and it gets interesting.

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...6&page=4&pp=30

Therer's also a link to *another* student's CD vs DVD-A vs SACD
study

http://gearslutz.com/board/attachmen...achmentid=6491





Thanks for the link; it is very interesting.

I especially find it illuminating when someone brought out some
marketing promo that touted the impulse response of DSD and how that
looked "better" than CD and other PCM systems (post #282). As Nika said,
that is doctored data and completely bogus. He gave a good explanation
of it he

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...&page=10&pp=30

See posts #289 and #290. In particular, this is germane:

"The (DSS) system can be said to have EITHER 120dB of dynamic range OR
it can be said to have a high frequency response and great impulse
response, but not both. If we only look at the region up to 20kHz,
filtering off all of the HF noise above 20kHz then the impulse response
of DSD will look just like the impulse response of 44.1kS/s in your plot
above, and the dynamic range is about the same. If, however, we want to
give DSD credit for having a very high frequency response and therefore
a very steep transient response then we also have to factor in all of
that excess noise that accumulates up in that range.

"The graphic you provided is an attempt to say that DSD is the best of
all worlds - it has huge dynamic range and great transient response
(frequency response). You know this not to be the case. If the graph
truly showed the unfiltered transient response the graph would have a
lot of noise in it as I stated above. This graph attempts to say, "look,
if we filtered out all of that noise (can't we just forget about the
noise?), but managed somehow not to filter out the signal, then it would
have a transient response like this." Unfortunately this is completely
bogus."

This should be required reading for those who use impulse response of
DSD as the technical reason why it sounds "better". BTW, vinyl has a
terrible impulse response. The "Analog" impulse response on some of
those diagrams is *NOT* the response from vinyl or tape, but rather some
theoretical, computer generated, model.
  #3   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default interesting discussion of SACD vs. CD

"chung" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:
the usual stuff for the first page or so, but then Nika Aldrich chimes in
and it gets interesting.

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...6&page=4&pp=30

Therer's also a link to *another* student's CD vs DVD-A vs SACD study

http://gearslutz.com/board/attachmen...achmentid=6491





Thanks for the link; it is very interesting.

I especially find it illuminating when someone brought out some marketing
promo that touted the impulse response of DSD and how that looked "better"
than CD and other PCM systems (post #282). As Nika said, that is doctored
data and completely bogus. He gave a good explanation of it he

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...&page=10&pp=30

See posts #289 and #290. In particular, this is germane:

"The (DSS) system can be said to have EITHER 120dB of dynamic range OR it
can be said to have a high frequency response and great impulse response,
but not both. If we only look at the region up to 20kHz, filtering off all
of the HF noise above 20kHz then the impulse response of DSD will look
just like the impulse response of 44.1kS/s in your plot above, and the
dynamic range is about the same. If, however, we want to give DSD credit
for having a very high frequency response and therefore a very steep
transient response then we also have to factor in all of that excess noise
that accumulates up in that range.

"The graphic you provided is an attempt to say that DSD is the best of all
worlds - it has huge dynamic range and great transient response (frequency
response). You know this not to be the case. If the graph truly showed the
unfiltered transient response the graph would have a lot of noise in it as
I stated above. This graph attempts to say, "look, if we filtered out all
of that noise (can't we just forget about the noise?), but managed somehow
not to filter out the signal, then it would have a transient response like
this." Unfortunately this is completely bogus."

This should be required reading for those who use impulse response of DSD
as the technical reason why it sounds "better". BTW, vinyl has a terrible
impulse response. The "Analog" impulse response on some of those diagrams
is *NOT* the response from vinyl or tape, but rather some theoretical,
computer generated, model.



Your prejudice is showing.

By no stretch of the imagination is this the same graph. Just examine them
carefully....no analog, different order. It is only the writers opinion
(not stated) that this is the same graph doctored Photoshop. All one can
say for sure is that both are a picture of an impulse response. I have seen
similar charts reproduced elsewhere...for example in the student paper
recently cited here that are yet different measurements but show much the
same thing.

Moreover, to the graph "with noise".....which is worse (aurally)..... a near
perfect impulse response with some low level noise, or an impulse response
that doesn't appear in nature, and which falls short of accurately capturing
the dynamics of the wavefront. Noise is natural...pre-echo and truncated
dynamics are not.

Finally, to say that if you filter out the noise you get the same impulse
response as 44.1/16 or 48/24 is totally misleading...of course a 20k cutoff
is a 20k cutoff. Fortunately for us, SACD machines do reproduce frequencies
above 20k. CD machines do not. Simple as that. So the better transient
response *is* a factor in SACD reproduction. And IMO it is audible and
probably along with a lower noise floor in the critical upper bass and
midrange is the main reason people's reaction tends to be "it sounds natural
and unstrained".

  #4   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default interesting discussion of SACD vs. CD

Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message
...

Steven Sullivan wrote:

the usual stuff for the first page or so, but then Nika Aldrich chimes in
and it gets interesting.

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...6&page=4&pp=30

Therer's also a link to *another* student's CD vs DVD-A vs SACD study

http://gearslutz.com/board/attachmen...achmentid=6491





Thanks for the link; it is very interesting.

I especially find it illuminating when someone brought out some marketing
promo that touted the impulse response of DSD and how that looked "better"
than CD and other PCM systems (post #282). As Nika said, that is doctored
data and completely bogus. He gave a good explanation of it he

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...&page=10&pp=30

See posts #289 and #290. In particular, this is germane:

"The (DSS) system can be said to have EITHER 120dB of dynamic range OR it
can be said to have a high frequency response and great impulse response,
but not both. If we only look at the region up to 20kHz, filtering off all
of the HF noise above 20kHz then the impulse response of DSD will look
just like the impulse response of 44.1kS/s in your plot above, and the
dynamic range is about the same. If, however, we want to give DSD credit
for having a very high frequency response and therefore a very steep
transient response then we also have to factor in all of that excess noise
that accumulates up in that range.

"The graphic you provided is an attempt to say that DSD is the best of all
worlds - it has huge dynamic range and great transient response (frequency
response). You know this not to be the case. If the graph truly showed the
unfiltered transient response the graph would have a lot of noise in it as
I stated above. This graph attempts to say, "look, if we filtered out all
of that noise (can't we just forget about the noise?), but managed somehow
not to filter out the signal, then it would have a transient response like
this." Unfortunately this is completely bogus."

This should be required reading for those who use impulse response of DSD
as the technical reason why it sounds "better". BTW, vinyl has a terrible
impulse response. The "Analog" impulse response on some of those diagrams
is *NOT* the response from vinyl or tape, but rather some theoretical,
computer generated, model.




Your prejudice is showing.

By no stretch of the imagination is this the same graph.


Wonder whose prejudice is showing? I did not even referred to any
specific graph you might have seen. I was letting you, and others
interested in SACD's, know of the weakness in the argument that SACD
sounds better because of a "better" impulse response.


Just examine them
carefully....no analog, different order. It is only the writers opinion
(not stated) that this is the same graph doctored Photoshop.


More irrelevant stuff, as the writer was commenting on one graph that
another poster brought out, not commenting on *your* "same" graph.

All one can
say for sure is that both are a picture of an impulse response. I have seen
similar charts reproduced elsewhere...for example in the student paper
recently cited here that are yet different measurements but show much the
same thing.

Moreover, to the graph "with noise".....which is worse (aurally)..... a near
perfect impulse response with some low level noise, or an impulse response
that doesn't appear in nature,


Impulses like the ones shown on the graph don't occur in nature, Harry.

and which falls short of accurately capturing
the dynamics of the wavefront.


Dynamics of the "wavefront"? What are you talking about?

Noise is natural...pre-echo and truncated
dynamics are not.


Of cousre, you totally missed the point about the pre-echo and
"truncated dynamics", whatever that means, not being audible.


Finally, to say that if you filter out the noise you get the same impulse
response as 44.1/16 or 48/24 is totally misleading...of course a 20k cutoff
is a 20k cutoff. Fortunately for us, SACD machines do reproduce frequencies
above 20k. CD machines do not. Simple as that. So the better transient
response *is* a factor in SACD reproduction. And IMO it is audible and
probably along with a lower noise floor in the critical upper bass and
midrange is the main reason people's reaction tends to be "it sounds natural
and unstrained".


If you believe that your ears can "hear" the effect of the impulse
response differences, then you have to also believe that they can also
hear the (sometimes much) higher supersonic noise of the DSD systems.
And of course, how does the limited FR and the much worse impulse
response of vinyl somehow conspire to sound "natural and unrestrained"
such that you conclude that SACD is close to vinyl?

Harry, you complain that people "weave" technical arguments to show that
you are wrong, but every time you try to sound technically savvy, you
run into problems. We're just trying to help .
  #5   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default interesting discussion of SACD vs. CD

chung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
the usual stuff for the first page or so, but then Nika Aldrich
chimes in and it gets interesting.

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...6&page=4&pp=30

Therer's also a link to *another* student's CD vs DVD-A vs SACD
study

http://gearslutz.com/board/attachmen...achmentid=6491





Thanks for the link; it is very interesting.


I especially find it illuminating when someone brought out some
marketing promo that touted the impulse response of DSD and how that
looked "better" than CD and other PCM systems (post #282). As Nika said,
that is doctored data and completely bogus. He gave a good explanation
of it he


http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...&page=10&pp=30


See posts #289 and #290. In particular, this is germane:


"The (DSS) system can be said to have EITHER 120dB of dynamic range OR
it can be said to have a high frequency response and great impulse
response, but not both. If we only look at the region up to 20kHz,
filtering off all of the HF noise above 20kHz then the impulse response
of DSD will look just like the impulse response of 44.1kS/s in your plot
above, and the dynamic range is about the same. If, however, we want to
give DSD credit for having a very high frequency response and therefore
a very steep transient response then we also have to factor in all of
that excess noise that accumulates up in that range.


"The graphic you provided is an attempt to say that DSD is the best of
all worlds - it has huge dynamic range and great transient response
(frequency response). You know this not to be the case. If the graph
truly showed the unfiltered transient response the graph would have a
lot of noise in it as I stated above. This graph attempts to say, "look,
if we filtered out all of that noise (can't we just forget about the
noise?), but managed somehow not to filter out the signal, then it would
have a transient response like this." Unfortunately this is completely
bogus."


This should be required reading for those who use impulse response of
DSD as the technical reason why it sounds "better". BTW, vinyl has a
terrible impulse response. The "Analog" impulse response on some of
those diagrams is *NOT* the response from vinyl or tape, but rather some
theoretical, computer generated, model.


I also foudn it interesting that Michael Bishop of Telarc was
vigorously touting
the superior sound of 'hi-rez', meanwhile he's also been found to
have applied dynamic range compression to the CD layer of
a Telarc SACD --

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...#entry235 661



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow


  #6   Report Post  
Vincent Jaubert
 
Posts: n/a
Default interesting discussion of SACD vs. CD

"Harry Lavo" wrote in
:


Fortunately for us, SACD machines do
reproduce frequencies above 20k. CD machines do not. Simple as that.
So the better transient response *is* a factor in SACD reproduction.
And IMO it is audible and probably along with a lower noise floor in
the critical upper bass and midrange is the main reason people's
reaction tends to be "it sounds natural and unstrained".


Assuming these people all have amps and speakers able to reproduce
frequencies above 20k, and assuming the sacd tested were all recorded with
mics with the same unusual abilities.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SACD vs. CD - an illustration of differences Harry Lavo High End Audio 68 September 25th 05 09:35 PM
Interesting Journal Article on filtering/differences between SACD and DVD-A Harry Lavo High End Audio 11 July 13th 04 05:24 PM
SACD spec seems like overkill Carl Audio Opinions 54 June 25th 04 01:23 AM
SACD stero & multi report. Penury High End Audio 2 September 19th 03 07:51 PM
No surround channels playing Dark Side of Moon SACD Harry Lavo High End Audio 19 July 16th 03 03:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:20 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"