Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
Hi Edmund,
Oppo is the easy choice, but not necessarily the BDP-083 ($599, or 83SE for an even more substantial $899) unless the cosmetics and perhaps features worth the extra bucks. Their BDP-80 ($289) is the best value in a true universal player that is very well built. You can buy these directly from Oppo on their website, but you might save on shipping if you buy via Amazon. Happy listening! -Don "Edmund" wrote in message ... Is there something like that that is affordable and with real DVDA and SACD specs? Edmund |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
"DJ" wrote in message
... Hi Edmund, Oppo is the easy choice, but not necessarily the BDP-083 ($599, or 83SE for an even more substantial $899) unless the cosmetics and perhaps features worth the extra bucks. Their BDP-80 ($289) is the best value in a true universal player that is very well built. You can buy these directly from Oppo on their website, but you might save on shipping if you buy via Amazon. Happy listening! -Don The OPPO's or the other players mentioned here do NOT have full SACD specs. Even the 83SE is castrated and has a steep filter at 50 kHz. I do not want to start a "yes we can / no we can not" hear that discussion here. I just want to make very sure my new player have the full capabilities. My subjective experience is that there are differences between SACD players and even differences between SACD players within one brand. Edmund |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
Edmund wrote:
"DJ" wrote in message ... Hi Edmund, Oppo is the easy choice, but not necessarily the BDP-083 ($599, or 83SE for an even more substantial $899) unless the cosmetics and perhaps features worth the extra bucks. Their BDP-80 ($289) is the best value in a true universal player that is very well built. You can buy these directly from Oppo on their website, but you might save on shipping if you buy via Amazon. Happy listening! -Don The OPPO's or the other players mentioned here do NOT have full SACD specs. Even the 83SE is castrated and has a steep filter at 50 kHz. Most SACD players have either a 50kHz or 100kHz lowpass output filter. That *is* an SACD 'spec' (Scarlet Book) recommendation. I do not want to start a "yes we can / no we can not" hear that discussion here. I just want to make very sure my new player have the full capabilities. You'd better make sure your downstream gear has the 'full capability' to not distort when presented with full-bandwidth DSD, then. That's the reason Scarlet Book spec recommends that lowpass output filter. My subjective experience is that there are differences between SACD players and even differences between SACD players within one brand. Well, that's not unusual, but it's not dispositive either. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
On Tue, 4 May 2010 11:06:36 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): Edmund wrote: "DJ" wrote in message ... Hi Edmund, Oppo is the easy choice, but not necessarily the BDP-083 ($599, or 83SE for an even more substantial $899) unless the cosmetics and perhaps features worth the extra bucks. Their BDP-80 ($289) is the best value in a true universal player that is very well built. You can buy these directly from Oppo on their website, but you might save on shipping if you buy via Amazon. Happy listening! -Don The OPPO's or the other players mentioned here do NOT have full SACD specs. Even the 83SE is castrated and has a steep filter at 50 kHz. Most SACD players have either a 50kHz or 100kHz lowpass output filter. That *is* an SACD 'spec' (Scarlet Book) recommendation. I do not want to start a "yes we can / no we can not" hear that discussion here. I just want to make very sure my new player have the full capabilities. You'd better make sure your downstream gear has the 'full capability' to not distort when presented with full-bandwidth DSD, then. That's the reason Scarlet Book spec recommends that lowpass output filter. My subjective experience is that there are differences between SACD players and even differences between SACD players within one brand. Well, that's not unusual, but it's not dispositive either. One of the techs at Oppo told me once (this was several years ago) that the Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM. But that they will pass SACD through the HDMI output undiluted so, if you have a receiver or outboard DSD decoder with an HDMI input (never even heard of such a puppy), you can get full SACD from an Oppo. I don't know if this is true of their current Blu-Ray players or not. I do know that the Denon DVD-758 (bought mine on E-bay about two months ago, refurbished by Denon, complete with all accessories for $55 + shipping) will play everything (except Blu-Ray) and does fully decode SACD as well as all versions of DVD-A including multi-channel stuff. If you want a Blu-Ray universal/everything player, there's always the Denon DBp-4010UDCI - if you don't mind spending two grand! Me? I chose the $55 universal player option. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
Audio Empire wrote:
Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM. Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless compressed' format. In fact, DSD was designed to be easily and 'transparently' converted to multiples of Redbook. DSD itself being a sample rate multiple of Redbook. But that they will pass SACD through the HDMI output undiluted so, if you have a receiver or outboard DSD decoder with an HDMI input (never even heard of such a puppy), you can get full SACD from an Oppo. I don't know if this is true of their current Blu-Ray players or not. It's true of some Oppo players and not others. My old 970HD can't pass native DSD digitally by any means. It always converts to 88.2/24 bit PCM for digital connections, if the source is DSD. But it does 'true' DSD playback to the analog outputs. (Unless the user activates DSP.) Am I concerned at all about this? No. 88.2/24 is already well beyond the limit of what I can hear. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Audio Empire wrote: Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM. Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless compressed' format. SACD performs data rate reduction in the approximate 20 KHz to 100 KHz band by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear because of the ear's relatively poor perception in that frequency band given the intensity of masking sounds in the adjacent band. MP3 encoding performs data rate reduction in a larger number of narrower bands by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear because of the ear's relatively poor perception in each frequency band given the intensity of masking sounds in adjacent bands. In my book they are both examples of perceptually-based lossy compression. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:49:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Audio Empire wrote: Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM. Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless compressed' format. SACD performs data rate reduction in the approximate 20 KHz to 100 KHz band by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear because of the ear's relatively poor perception in that frequency band given the intensity of masking sounds in the adjacent band. MP3 encoding performs data rate reduction in a larger number of narrower bands by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear because of the ear's relatively poor perception in each frequency band given the intensity of masking sounds in adjacent bands. In my book they are both examples of perceptually-based lossy compression. Hmm. I was unaware that DSD did any compression, lossy or otherwise. On the other hand, The idea that MP3 is acceptable to the ear, is suspect in my view. It might be "acceptable" with certain types of music (and to certain listeners) such as rock-and-roll and other pop where their isn't much dynamic range, but it is certainly not acceptable to these ears with classical music, most jazz and even pop where there is a significant difference between the loudest and softest passages and where those transitions occur fairly often. Especially on headphones, I can hear MP3 "pump" via the noise modulation and I find it annoying (even at higher data rates, although, it gets less annoying at 192 bps and higher). |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:07:47 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM. Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless compressed' format. SACD is data compressed? This is the first I've heard of it. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:49:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): SACD performs data rate reduction in the approximate 20 KHz to 100 KHz band by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear because of the ear's relatively poor perception in that frequency band given the intensity of masking sounds in the adjacent band. MP3 encoding performs data rate reduction in a larger number of narrower bands by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear because of the ear's relatively poor perception in each frequency band given the intensity of masking sounds in adjacent bands. In my book they are both examples of perceptually-based lossy compression. Hmm. I was unaware that DSD did any compression, lossy or otherwise. They throw away considerable additional dynamic range 20 KHz. Of course that's not really a problem because the sensitivity of the ear is relatively poor 20 KHz to say the least. On the other hand, The idea that MP3 is acceptable to the ear, is suspect in my view. The fallacy here is that all MP3 files or encoders have similar levels of accuracy, sonic or technical. A 128 Kb MP3 is a very different animal from a 320 Kb MP3. The performance of MP3 encoders has improved dramatically over the years at *all* bitrates. The performance of various modern encoders varies. It might be "acceptable" with certain types of music (and to certain listeners) such as rock-and-roll and other pop where their isn't much dynamic range, The fallacies here are that the MP3 format is taxed by music with more dynamic range, or that all music of a given genre make similar demands on the dynamic range of the recorded format. but it is certainly not acceptable to these ears with classical music, The fallacy here is that people who prefer classical music are somehow more discriminating. This is generally presented in a very self-serving way. most jazz and even pop where there is a significant difference between the loudest and softest passages and where those transitions occur fairly often. The fallacy here is that you can characterize the dynamic range of music by looking only at the genre. Especially on headphones, I can hear MP3 "pump" via the noise modulation and I find it annoying (even at higher data rates, although, it gets less annoying at 192 bps and higher). Finally, some truth! Listening over good headphones is generally be more critical of sonic artifacts than listening via speakers. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:07:47 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM. Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless compressed' format. SACD is data compressed? This is the first I've heard of it. Losslessly. Similary, DVD-A has a lossless compression scheme,Meridien Lossless Packaging. As with SACD, it's not necessary for two-channel material, since that takes up less space. // http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD wikipedia: DST To reduce the space and bandwidth requirements of Direct Stream Digital (DSD), a lossless data compression method called Direct Stream Transfer (DST) is used. DST compression is compulsory for multi-channel regions and optional for stereo regions. This typically compresses by a factor of between two and three, allowing a disc to contain 80 minutes of both 2-channel and 5.1-channel sound.[45] // SACD of course also copy protection that must be 'decoded' too: SACD has several copy protection features at the physical level which, for the moment, appear to make SACD discs impossible to copy without resorting to the analog hole, or ripping of the conventional 700MB layer on hybrid discs. These include physical pit modulation and 80-bit encryption of the audio data, with a key encoded on a special area of the disk that is only readable by a licensed SACD device. The HD layer of an SACD disc cannot be played back on computer CD/DVD drives, nor can SACDs be created except by the licensed disc replication facilities in Shizuoka and Salzburg.[55] -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:24:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:49:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): SACD performs data rate reduction in the approximate 20 KHz to 100 KHz band by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear because of the ear's relatively poor perception in that frequency band given the intensity of masking sounds in the adjacent band. MP3 encoding performs data rate reduction in a larger number of narrower bands by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear because of the ear's relatively poor perception in each frequency band given the intensity of masking sounds in adjacent bands. In my book they are both examples of perceptually-based lossy compression. Hmm. I was unaware that DSD did any compression, lossy or otherwise. They throw away considerable additional dynamic range 20 KHz. Of course that's not really a problem because the sensitivity of the ear is relatively poor 20 KHz to say the least. Oh, I'm not implying that it's a bad thing, I'm just saying that I didn't know that they did that with SACD. I have a friend who is a fairly well known recording engineer. He maintains that 24-bit/192KHz PCM sounds much better than DSD. Frankly, I haven't noticed any differences of that nature - yet. On the other hand, The idea that MP3 is acceptable to the ear, is suspect in my view. The fallacy here is that all MP3 files or encoders have similar levels of accuracy, sonic or technical. A 128 Kb MP3 is a very different animal from a 320 Kb MP3. The performance of MP3 encoders has improved dramatically over the years at *all* bitrates. The performance of various modern encoders varies. Yes, I'm aware of that - read on... It might be "acceptable" with certain types of music (and to certain listeners) such as rock-and-roll and other pop where their isn't much dynamic range, The fallacies here are that the MP3 format is taxed by music with more dynamic range, or that all music of a given genre make similar demands on the dynamic range of the recorded format. No, not "taxed" , merely that the compression artifacts are most noticeable and annoying during transitions from loud to soft and vice versa. but it is certainly not acceptable to these ears with classical music, The fallacy here is that people who prefer classical music are somehow more discriminating. This is generally presented in a very self-serving way. Again, it has little to do with classical music per se, and everything to do with the fact that classical music contains more transitions from loud to soft and soft to loud than jazz or pop or rock are likely to have. Also, artifacts are audible during relatively quiet passages which classical music is more likely to exhibit than other types of music. If you want to hear MP3 at it's very worst, find an MP3 of Igor Kipnis playing a clavichord - at any bit rate! most jazz and even pop where there is a significant difference between the loudest and softest passages and where those transitions occur fairly often. The fallacy here is that you can characterize the dynamic range of music by looking only at the genre. Well, in a general sense you can. Rock is unlikely to have these transitions (or very many of them, if any) and so is jazz most pop. Of course there are exceptions, as there are to everything. Especially on headphones, I can hear MP3 "pump" via the noise modulation and I find it annoying (even at higher data rates, although, it gets less annoying at 192 bps and higher). Finally, some truth! Listening over good headphones is generally be more critical of sonic artifacts than listening via speakers. MP3 is mostly used for portable music devices which get listened too mostly via headphones. If MP3 exhibited the same types of artifacts to the same degree in the types of music most often listened to by the "iPod generation", they wouldn't have adopted it either. But the truth is that loud music masks the artifacts, and softly-played music and music with complex dynamics such as classical cause them to stick out like a sore thumb. Maybe I'm just less tolerant of these artifacts than most people. I also notice (and am annoyed by) the motion artifacts on HDTV too. I think most TV stations use an unacceptable amount of compression. But nobody else seem s to notice it or mention it. Yes, I have an iPod, and I use it for classical music, but you can rest assured that none of it is MP3. I use lossless compression schemes such as ALC. I have yet to hear any artifacts with that. I also listen to internet radio on my main stereo system - but only as background music. Most Internet radio is streamed at 64K or 96K or 128K (with a few at 192K) and there the artifacts are very apparent on speakers. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
On Thu, 6 May 2010 15:21:04 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:07:47 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM. Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless compressed' format. SACD is data compressed? This is the first I've heard of it. Losslessly. Similary, DVD-A has a lossless compression scheme,Meridien Lossless Packaging. As with SACD, it's not necessary for two-channel material, since that takes up less space. // http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD wikipedia: DST To reduce the space and bandwidth requirements of Direct Stream Digital (DSD), a lossless data compression method called Direct Stream Transfer (DST) is used. DST compression is compulsory for multi-channel regions and optional for stereo regions. This typically compresses by a factor of between two and three, allowing a disc to contain 80 minutes of both 2-channel and 5.1-channel sound.[45] // SACD of course also copy protection that must be 'decoded' too: SACD has several copy protection features at the physical level which, for the moment, appear to make SACD discs impossible to copy without resorting to the analog hole, or ripping of the conventional 700MB layer on hybrid discs. These include physical pit modulation and 80-bit encryption of the audio data, with a key encoded on a special area of the disk that is only readable by a licensed SACD device. The HD layer of an SACD disc cannot be played back on computer CD/DVD drives, nor can SACDs be created except by the licensed disc replication facilities in Shizuoka and Salzburg.[55] Thanks for the info, Steve. That is very interesting. So, let me make sure that I have this straight: SACD compression is used ultrasonically and only for multi-channel and not for two-channel stereo. Do I have that right? |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:07:47 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM. Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless compressed' format. SACD is data compressed? This is the first I've heard of it. Losslessly. Actually, lossy means are used as well. Dynamic range 20 KHz is intentionally reduced. Similary, DVD-A has a lossless compression scheme,Meridien Lossless Packaging. As with SACD, it's not necessary for two-channel material, since that takes up less space. Agreed. DVD-A is technically speaking the more "perfectionist" medium. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... Thanks for the info, Steve. That is very interesting. So, let me make sure that I have this straight: SACD compression is used ultrasonically Lossy compression of sorts is used 20 KHz. and only for multi-channel No, that part of the comments related to the use of MLP with DVD-A (PCM) and not for two-channel stereo. The purpose of MLP is to reduce the data rate down to something that the DVD format can handle. It is one of many lossless data compression techniques that are in common use. FLAC is another lossless compression method for PCM that is in common use. MLP is a licensed product whose fees are signficiant while FLAC does not require the payment of fees. Lossless compression of PCM information usually gives a bit more than 50% data reduction. The uncompressed data rate of DVD-A @ 24/192 is not an issue for the DVD format for 2 channels, but it is an issue for the DVD format for 6 channels and up. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:07:47 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM. Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless compressed' format. SACD is data compressed? This is the first I've heard of it. Losslessly. Actually, lossy means are used as well. Dynamic range 20 KHz is intentionally reduced. Similary, DVD-A has a lossless compression scheme,Meridien Lossless Packaging. As with SACD, it's not necessary for two-channel material, since that takes up less space. Agreed. DVD-A is technically speaking the more "perfectionist" medium. Except for the "pre-echo" so readily apparent with CD reproduction, which also exists (although to a much smaller extent) for DVD-A and is absent from SACD. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:24:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:49:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): SACD performs data rate reduction in the approximate 20 KHz to 100 KHz band by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear because of the ear's relatively poor perception in that frequency band given the intensity of masking sounds in the adjacent band. MP3 encoding performs data rate reduction in a larger number of narrower bands by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear because of the ear's relatively poor perception in each frequency band given the intensity of masking sounds in adjacent bands. In my book they are both examples of perceptually-based lossy compression. Hmm. I was unaware that DSD did any compression, lossy or otherwise. They throw away considerable additional dynamic range 20 KHz. Of course that's not really a problem because the sensitivity of the ear is relatively poor 20 KHz to say the least. Oh, I'm not implying that it's a bad thing, I'm just saying that I didn't know that they did that with SACD. I have a friend who is a fairly well known recording engineer. He maintains that 24-bit/192KHz PCM sounds much better than DSD. Frankly, I haven't noticed any differences of that nature - yet. This anecdote shows that being a well-known recordist does not confer a perfect knowlege of audio. The correct technical approach is to ignore the means by which audio equipment works (DSD versus PCM) and focus on what it actually does. Sony's DSD implementation is a system with ca. 100 KHz bandpass, ca 120 dB dynamic range up to about 20 KHz, and reduced dynamic range above 20 KHz. A naive implementation 24/192 PCM provides 144 dB dynamic range at all frequencies up to approximately 96 KHz. If one uses noise shaping, then there are any number of trade-offs that are possible. Practically, this is all moot because 44.1 KHz sampling and 16 bit samples is exceedingly sufficient if carefully deployed. On the other hand, The idea that MP3 is acceptable to the ear, is suspect in my view. The fallacy here is that all MP3 files or encoders have similar levels of accuracy, sonic or technical. A 128 Kb MP3 is a very different animal from a 320 Kb MP3. The performance of MP3 encoders has improved dramatically over the years at *all* bitrates. The performance of various modern encoders varies. Yes, I'm aware of that - read on... It might be "acceptable" with certain types of music (and to certain listeners) such as rock-and-roll and other pop where their isn't much dynamic range, The fallacies here are that the MP3 format is taxed by music with more dynamic range, or that all music of a given genre make similar demands on the dynamic range of the recorded format. No, not "taxed" , merely that the compression artifacts are most noticeable and annoying during transitions from loud to soft and vice versa. I'm very familiar with MP3 artifacts, and frankly I've never head or hear of problems like that with reasonable use of fairly recent, good encoders. but it is certainly not acceptable to these ears with classical music, The fallacy here is that people who prefer classical music are somehow more discriminating. This is generally presented in a very self-serving way. Again, it has little to do with classical music per se, Intresting that this discredits your former statement. and everything to do with the fact that classical music contains more transitions from loud to soft and soft to loud than jazz or pop or rock are likely to have. The magic word is "likely". This is about someone's personal beliefs and experiences, not what actually happens in the real world. Jazz, pop, and rock can be as dynamic as the musicans and arranger want to make them be. Judging genre's by hit records is not the best idea. Also, artifacts are audible during relatively quiet passages which classical music is more likely to exhibit than other types of music. I'm very familiar with MP3 artifacts, and frankly I've never head or heard of problems like that with reasonable use of fairly recent, good encoders. If you want to hear MP3 at it's very worst, find an MP3 of Igor Kipnis playing a clavichord - at any bit rate! Unfounded assertion with zero actual reliable evidence supporting it noted. I have no doubt that someone somewhere abused the technology and made some bad recordings. But then that would be about someone's mistakes, not about how the MP3 technology works. Absence of real-world examples and proper bias-controlled listening tests noted. most jazz and even pop where there is a significant difference between the loudest and softest passages and where those transitions occur fairly often. The fallacy here is that you can characterize the dynamic range of music by looking only at the genre. Well, in a general sense you can. "All generalities are false including this one." Rock is unlikely to have these transitions (or very many of them, if any) and so is jazz most pop. Again, I see great confusion between the properties of a genre and popular implementations of it. Just because a lot of rock is hyper-compressed to suit the perceived needs of its marketplace says zero about the actual musical nature of the genre. If there were hit records of classical music, they would probably receive a similar kind of ugly treatment. That wouldn't make classical music inherently ugly, it would just be a comment on the process of popularizing music. Of course there are exceptions, as there are to everything. Now the argument is about whether the exceptions actuall suggest a different rule. The different rule I see is that popularizing music seems to encourage certain kinds of technical changes to the music during production, regardless of genre. Especially on headphones, I can hear MP3 "pump" via the noise modulation and I find it annoying (even at higher data rates, although, it gets less annoying at 192 bps and higher). Finally, some truth! Listening over good headphones is generally be more critical of sonic artifacts than listening via speakers. MP3 is mostly used for portable music devices which get listened too mostly via headphones. That would be yet another assertion based on limited evidence. MP3 is endemic. It shows up in all sorts of places where it may not be expected, for example in video soundtracks. MP3 is not the only form of lossy compression that is in widespread use. Downloaded music is not hardly used only in portable applications. There are a tremendous number of music servers that used in stationary applications, whether homes, businesses, or venues. If MP3 exhibited the same types of artifacts to the same degree in the types of music most often listened to by the "iPod generation", they wouldn't have adopted it either. Yet another baseless assertion. MP3 need not corrupt music. Dynamics are not difficult for higher-birate MP3 encoders to handle with good accuracy. Jazz pop, and rock need not be free of dynamics or take a back seat to classical music as regards to dynamics. But the truth is that loud music masks the artifacts, But rock doesn't have to be loud. Are you familiar with the concept of the "rock ballad"? and softly-played music and music with complex dynamics such as classical cause them to stick out like a sore thumb. It seems like people need more experience running DBTs on music before and after processing at appropriate bitrates and using quality MP3 encoders. I see a litany of tightly-held prejudices in these comments. Maybe I'm just less tolerant of these artifacts than most people. Or, perhaps maybe just a wee bit biased? I also notice (and am annoyed by) the motion artifacts on HDTV too. I think most TV stations use an unacceptable amount of compression. But nobody else seem s to notice it or mention it. Nobody? I just don't talk about it much on audio forums. I see it clearly, and hate it. It is espically bad during sports, especially hocky and auto racing. The cable companies often compound this by comressing channels up to 2:1 over the best possible with broadcast. It is video, right? Yes, I have an iPod, and I use it for classical music, but you can rest assured that none of it is MP3. I use lossless compression schemes such as ALC. I have yet to hear any artifacts with that. Is that because of problems you've had with sourcing quality MP3s, or the residual of years of bad experiences, or tightly-held opiions? I also listen to internet radio on my main stereo system - but only as background music. Most Internet radio is streamed at 64K or 96K or 128K (with a few at 192K) and there the artifacts are very apparent on speakers. That there are often audible artifacts with relatively low bitrates like this is well known. That does not reflect badly on the best current MP3 technology, it reflects on the trade-offs between data rates and what modern allegedly high speed internet connections can provide trouble-free support of. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... Agreed. DVD-A is technically speaking the more "perfectionist" medium. Except for the "pre-echo" so readily apparent with CD reproduction, which also exists (although to a much smaller extent) for DVD-A and is absent from SACD. Nothing is perfect. In the case of SACD there is basically poorer dynamic range below 20 KHz, and far, far poorer dynamic range above 20 KHz. Comparing the pre/post ringing situation for DVD-A to that for CD-A ignores two highly relevant facts: (1) There are no known scientific listening tests showing that the pre-ringing in CD-A is audible. After all, it happens at a frequency that is normally considered to be ultrasonic which is to say inaudible. (2) Raising the sampling rate by a factor of 4.4 makes the pre-ringing in 24/192 DVD-A 4.4 times less significant than that for CD-A. There are some other interesting factoids about SACD. Since native DSD ADCs have problems with idle cycles and such (per Vanderkooy and Lip****z AES papers), the best quality DSD recordings are produced by first doing a quasi-PCM conversion from analog, and then converting the results to a DSD bitstream. Secondly, most modern multi-format DSD/PCM conversions to analog are performed by chips that are primarily PCM DAC chips with a DSD conversion facility sorta tacked on. Long story short, SACD is quickly becoming a sort of stepchild format. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
On Fri, 7 May 2010 06:34:40 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:07:47 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM. Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless compressed' format. SACD is data compressed? This is the first I've heard of it. Losslessly. Actually, lossy means are used as well. Dynamic range 20 KHz is intentionally reduced. Similary, DVD-A has a lossless compression scheme,Meridien Lossless Packaging. As with SACD, it's not necessary for two-channel material, since that takes up less space. Agreed. DVD-A is technically speaking the more "perfectionist" medium. That's what a pro recording engineer friend of mine says as well. He finds that DVD-A sounds better than DSD. Here's a question. If SACD info is compressed to make it fit on a DVD, how about the DSD master? Is it likewise compressed? IOW, is the compression part of the DSD format standard or merely applied during the SACD disc mastering phase? |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
On Fri, 7 May 2010 15:45:12 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:24:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:49:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): SACD performs data rate reduction in the approximate 20 KHz to 100 KHz band by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear because of the ear's relatively poor perception in that frequency band given the intensity of masking sounds in the adjacent band. MP3 encoding performs data rate reduction in a larger number of narrower bands by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear because of the ear's relatively poor perception in each frequency band given the intensity of masking sounds in adjacent bands. In my book they are both examples of perceptually-based lossy compression. Hmm. I was unaware that DSD did any compression, lossy or otherwise. They throw away considerable additional dynamic range 20 KHz. Of course that's not really a problem because the sensitivity of the ear is relatively poor 20 KHz to say the least. Oh, I'm not implying that it's a bad thing, I'm just saying that I didn't know that they did that with SACD. I have a friend who is a fairly well known recording engineer. He maintains that 24-bit/192KHz PCM sounds much better than DSD. Frankly, I haven't noticed any differences of that nature - yet. This anecdote shows that being a well-known recordist does not confer a perfect knowlege of audio. Nor was it meant to. I was merely commenting that not all pros who record in DSD think it's the best format for high-res. The correct technical approach is to ignore the means by which audio equipment works (DSD versus PCM) and focus on what it actually does. I agree. Sony's DSD implementation is a system with ca. 100 KHz bandpass, ca 120 dB dynamic range up to about 20 KHz, and reduced dynamic range above 20 KHz. A naive implementation 24/192 PCM provides 144 dB dynamic range at all frequencies up to approximately 96 KHz. If one uses noise shaping, then there are any number of trade-offs that are possible. Practically, this is all moot because 44.1 KHz sampling and 16 bit samples is exceedingly sufficient if carefully deployed. As it is rarely, in my estimation. But your are right. It can be very good. On the other hand, The idea that MP3 is acceptable to the ear, is suspect in my view. The fallacy here is that all MP3 files or encoders have similar levels of accuracy, sonic or technical. A 128 Kb MP3 is a very different animal from a 320 Kb MP3. The performance of MP3 encoders has improved dramatically over the years at *all* bitrates. The performance of various modern encoders varies. Yes, I'm aware of that - read on... It might be "acceptable" with certain types of music (and to certain listeners) such as rock-and-roll and other pop where their isn't much dynamic range, The fallacies here are that the MP3 format is taxed by music with more dynamic range, or that all music of a given genre make similar demands on the dynamic range of the recorded format. No, not "taxed" , merely that the compression artifacts are most noticeable and annoying during transitions from loud to soft and vice versa. I'm very familiar with MP3 artifacts, and frankly I've never head or hear of problems like that with reasonable use of fairly recent, good encoders. Then nobody does, because I've never heard am MP3 of music with wide dynamic range that DOESN'T exhibit those characteristics. but it is certainly not acceptable to these ears with classical music, The fallacy here is that people who prefer classical music are somehow more discriminating. This is generally presented in a very self-serving way. Again, it has little to do with classical music per se, Intresting that this discredits your former statement. Not in context it doesn't. and everything to do with the fact that classical music contains more transitions from loud to soft and soft to loud than jazz or pop or rock are likely to have. The magic word is "likely". This is about someone's personal beliefs and experiences, not what actually happens in the real world. Sure it's something that actually happens in the real world. Jazz, pop, and rock can be as dynamic as the musicans and arranger want to make them be. Judging genre's by hit records is not the best idea. Well of course, but I'm generalizing here. There are exceptions to everything. Also, artifacts are audible during relatively quiet passages which classical music is more likely to exhibit than other types of music. I'm very familiar with MP3 artifacts, and frankly I've never head or heard of problems like that with reasonable use of fairly recent, good encoders. I can't help that. If you want to hear MP3 at it's very worst, find an MP3 of Igor Kipnis playing a clavichord - at any bit rate! Unfounded assertion with zero actual reliable evidence supporting it noted. I have no doubt that someone somewhere abused the technology and made some bad recordings. But then that would be about someone's mistakes, not about how the MP3 technology works. Absence of real-world examples and proper bias-controlled listening tests noted. I've made no assertion, merely a suggestion. most jazz and even pop where there is a significant difference between the loudest and softest passages and where those transitions occur fairly often. The fallacy here is that you can characterize the dynamic range of music by looking only at the genre. Well, in a general sense you can. "All generalities are false including this one." Rock is unlikely to have these transitions (or very many of them, if any) and so is jazz most pop. Again, I see great confusion between the properties of a genre and popular implementations of it. Just because a lot of rock is hyper-compressed to suit the perceived needs of its marketplace says zero about the actual musical nature of the genre. If there were hit records of classical music, they would probably receive a similar kind of ugly treatment. That wouldn't make classical music inherently ugly, it would just be a comment on the process of popularizing music. Of course there are exceptions, as there are to everything. Now the argument is about whether the exceptions actuall suggest a different rule. The different rule I see is that popularizing music seems to encourage certain kinds of technical changes to the music during production, regardless of genre. The discussion hasn't changed, you are just showing that you are more interested in "winning" some imagined argument than you are in discussing the issues. Especially on headphones, I can hear MP3 "pump" via the noise modulation and I find it annoying (even at higher data rates, although, it gets less annoying at 192 bps and higher). Finally, some truth! Listening over good headphones is generally be more critical of sonic artifacts than listening via speakers. MP3 is mostly used for portable music devices which get listened too mostly via headphones. That would be yet another assertion based on limited evidence. MP3 is endemic. It shows up in all sorts of places where it may not be expected, for example in video soundtracks. MP3 is not the only form of lossy compression that is in widespread use. Downloaded music is not hardly used only in portable applications. There are a tremendous number of music servers that used in stationary applications, whether homes, businesses, or venues. Literalization noted. If MP3 exhibited the same types of artifacts to the same degree in the types of music most often listened to by the "iPod generation", they wouldn't have adopted it either. Yet another baseless assertion. MP3 need not corrupt music. Dynamics are not difficult for higher-birate MP3 encoders to handle with good accuracy. Jazz pop, and rock need not be free of dynamics or take a back seat to classical music as regards to dynamics. But the truth is that loud music masks the artifacts, But rock doesn't have to be loud. Are you familiar with the concept of the "rock ballad"? and softly-played music and music with complex dynamics such as classical cause them to stick out like a sore thumb. It seems like people need more experience running DBTs on music before and after processing at appropriate bitrates and using quality MP3 encoders. I see a litany of tightly-held prejudices in these comments. Maybe I'm just less tolerant of these artifacts than most people. Or, perhaps maybe just a wee bit biased? Arny, that's rich coming from you! I also notice (and am annoyed by) the motion artifacts on HDTV too. I think most TV stations use an unacceptable amount of compression. But nobody else seem s to notice it or mention it. Nobody? I just don't talk about it much on audio forums. I see it clearly, and hate it. It is espically bad during sports, especially hocky and auto racing. The cable companies often compound this by comressing channels up to 2:1 over the best possible with broadcast. It is video, right? Yes, I have an iPod, and I use it for classical music, but you can rest assured that none of it is MP3. I use lossless compression schemes such as ALC. I have yet to hear any artifacts with that. Is that because of problems you've had with sourcing quality MP3s, or the residual of years of bad experiences, or tightly-held opiions? I also listen to internet radio on my main stereo system - but only as background music. Most Internet radio is streamed at 64K or 96K or 128K (with a few at 192K) and there the artifacts are very apparent on speakers. That there are often audible artifacts with relatively low bitrates like this is well known. That does not reflect badly on the best current MP3 technology, it reflects on the trade-offs between data rates and what modern allegedly high speed internet connections can provide trouble-free support of. There is so much "bad" MP3 out there, that I would just as soon avoid the whole thing. Maybe you see that as throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but it's such a crap-shoot that it's simply not worth picking and choosing to separate the wheat from the chaff. Have you ever downloaded MP3s from the iTunes store? They sound bloody awful. I remember once about 5 years ago downloading a film soundtrack from iTunes and being unable to listen to it, it was so distorted. So I borrowed the CD from a friend who owned a copy and ripped it myself using ALC. It sounded fine then. I haven't downloaded from the iTunes store SINCE. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... Except for the "pre-echo" so readily apparent with CD reproduction, which also exists (although to a much smaller extent) for DVD-A and is absent from SACD. This should of course read "pre-ringing". My bad - I was rushed and sloppy. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... Agreed. DVD-A is technically speaking the more "perfectionist" medium. Except for the "pre-echo" so readily apparent with CD reproduction, which also exists (although to a much smaller extent) for DVD-A and is absent from SACD. Nothing is perfect. In the case of SACD there is basically poorer dynamic range below 20 KHz, and far, far poorer dynamic range above 20 KHz. Comparing the pre/post ringing situation for DVD-A to that for CD-A ignores two highly relevant facts: (1) There are no known scientific listening tests showing that the pre-ringing in CD-A is audible. After all, it happens at a frequency that is normally considered to be ultrasonic which is to say inaudible. (2) Raising the sampling rate by a factor of 4.4 makes the pre-ringing in 24/192 DVD-A 4.4 times less significant than that for CD-A. There are some other interesting factoids about SACD. Since native DSD ADCs have problems with idle cycles and such (per Vanderkooy and Lip****z AES papers), the best quality DSD recordings are produced by first doing a quasi-PCM conversion from analog, and then converting the results to a DSD bitstream. Secondly, most modern multi-format DSD/PCM conversions to analog are performed by chips that are primarily PCM DAC chips with a DSD conversion facility sorta tacked on. Long story short, SACD is quickly becoming a sort of stepchild format. The fact is, the pre-ringing is a phenomenon totally unknown in nature, and is neither proven nor disproven to be audible....at any frequency. It is interesting that Meriden, a firm you normally give very high grades to for being "scientific," is winning kudos from audio buffs and audio pros alike for their new flagship model whose new filters claim to be the first to eradicate this pre-ringing. I will grant you that both observationally and aurally the extended frequency response and more gradual/higher frequency filters of DVD-A make it a moot problem for this format. But since you and Dick are being so critical of rather insignificant aspects of SACD regarding Audio Empire's test, you fail to mention pre-ringing as the 800 lb gorilla in the room regarding CD. Many people, myself included, believe that pre-ringing may explain why cymbals and other high frequencies on CD often sound raw and splashy, and very, very un-natural. And why the absence of such may be the reason SACD (and DVD-A as well) is often judged as sounding more natural and life-like. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
Arny Krueger wrote:
There are some other interesting factoids about SACD. Since native DSD ADCs have problems with idle cycles and such (per Vanderkooy and Lip****z AES papers), the best quality DSD recordings are produced by first doing a quasi-PCM conversion from analog, and then converting the results to a DSD bitstream. I don't think that helps. The distortion, noise modulation, and limit cycles are caused by the fact that a 1-bit modulator cannot be properly dithered without overloading it, so it doesn't help to use a multibit converter between the analog domain and the 1-bit modulator. The proof in the appendix of http://sjeng.org/ftp/SACD.pdf makes it clear that it applies both to "A dithered 1st-order, 1-bit sigma-delta quantizer (or the equivalent 1st-order noise shaper)". Andrew. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... Agreed. DVD-A is technically speaking the more "perfectionist" medium. Except for the "pre-echo" so readily apparent with CD reproduction, which also exists (although to a much smaller extent) for DVD-A and is absent from SACD. Nothing is perfect. In the case of SACD there is basically poorer dynamic range below 20 KHz, and far, far poorer dynamic range above 20 KHz. Comparing the pre/post ringing situation for DVD-A to that for CD-A ignores two highly relevant facts: (1) There are no known scientific listening tests showing that the pre-ringing in CD-A is audible. After all, it happens at a frequency that is normally considered to be ultrasonic which is to say inaudible. (2) Raising the sampling rate by a factor of 4.4 makes the pre-ringing in 24/192 DVD-A 4.4 times less significant than that for CD-A. There are some other interesting factoids about SACD. Since native DSD ADCs have problems with idle cycles and such (per Vanderkooy and Lip****z AES papers), the best quality DSD recordings are produced by first doing a quasi-PCM conversion from analog, and then converting the results to a DSD bitstream. Secondly, most modern multi-format DSD/PCM conversions to analog are performed by chips that are primarily PCM DAC chips with a DSD conversion facility sorta tacked on. Long story short, SACD is quickly becoming a sort of stepchild format. The fact is, the pre-ringing is a phenomenon totally unknown in nature, Other than the many situations where ringing starts slowly, builds up, and then decays. and is neither proven nor disproven to be audible....at any frequency. Interesting idea - that an idea should or even would be disproven. The situation with the audibility of pre-ringing related to CDs is that there is an absence of proof or even proper experimental support. I It is interesting that Meriden, a firm you normally give very high grades to for being "scientific," is winning kudos from audio buffs and audio pros alike for their new flagship model whose new filters claim to be the first to eradicate this pre-ringing. Audio buffs excited about some new expensive technology with absolutely zero support from bias-controlled listening tests? Whoda thunk? ;-) There's nothing new about CD players with no pre-ringing - I have one right here that was sold in 1983. It is called a CDP 101! I will grant you that both observationally and aurally the extended frequency response and more gradual/higher frequency filters of DVD-A make it a moot problem for this format. Letsee: Moot with 44.1 KHz sampling, about 4.4 x moot at 192 KHz sampling. Works for me! But since you and Dick are being so critical of rather insignificant aspects of SACD regarding Audio Empire's test, you fail to mention pre-ringing as the 800 lb gorilla in the room regarding CD. As I have pointed out before, pre-ringing is not an inherent feature of the CD format. Many people, myself included, believe that pre-ringing may explain why cymbals and other high frequencies on CD often sound raw and splashy, and very, very un-natural. And the bias controlled, statistically signficant listening tests supporting this contention may be found exactly where? And why the absence of such may be the reason SACD (and DVD-A as well) is often judged as sounding more natural and life-like. And the bias controlled, statistically signficant listening tests supporting this contention may be found exactly where? One of many examples of counter-evidence might be found he Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback". E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran. JAES 55(9) September 2007. "Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz "bottleneck." The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
On Sat, 8 May 2010 10:30:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): snip And the bias controlled, statistically signficant listening tests supporting this contention may be found exactly where? One of many examples of counter-evidence might be found he Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback". E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran. JAES 55(9) September 2007. "Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz "bottleneck." The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels. I'm going to use the same rules of evidence for this paper as some have used to reject my double-blind test findings. Without a detailed description and analysis of the methodology used in Meyer and Moran's "series of double-blind tests", their so-called results are meaningless. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Sat, 8 May 2010 10:30:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): snip And the bias controlled, statistically signficant listening tests supporting this contention may be found exactly where? One of many examples of counter-evidence might be found he Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback". E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran. JAES 55(9) September 2007. "Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz "bottleneck." The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels. I'm going to use the same rules of evidence for this paper as some have used to reject my double-blind test findings. Without a detailed description and analysis of the methodology used in Meyer and Moran's "series of double-blind tests", their so-called results are meaningless. You have to do more than just read the abstract! |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 6 May 2010 15:21:04 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:07:47 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM. Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless compressed' format. SACD is data compressed? This is the first I've heard of it. Losslessly. Similary, DVD-A has a lossless compression scheme,Meridien Lossless Packaging. As with SACD, it's not necessary for two-channel material, since that takes up less space. // http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD wikipedia: DST To reduce the space and bandwidth requirements of Direct Stream Digital (DSD), a lossless data compression method called Direct Stream Transfer (DST) is used. DST compression is compulsory for multi-channel regions and optional for stereo regions. This typically compresses by a factor of between two and three, allowing a disc to contain 80 minutes of both 2-channel and 5.1-channel sound.[45] // SACD of course also copy protection that must be 'decoded' too: SACD has several copy protection features at the physical level which, for the moment, appear to make SACD discs impossible to copy without resorting to the analog hole, or ripping of the conventional 700MB layer on hybrid discs. These include physical pit modulation and 80-bit encryption of the audio data, with a key encoded on a special area of the disk that is only readable by a licensed SACD device. The HD layer of an SACD disc cannot be played back on computer CD/DVD drives, nor can SACDs be created except by the licensed disc replication facilities in Shizuoka and Salzburg.[55] Thanks for the info, Steve. That is very interesting. So, let me make sure that I have this straight: SACD compression is used ultrasonically and only for multi-channel and not for two-channel stereo. Do I have that right? No. Please reread the first wiki quote , on DST, again. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... snip for brevity The fact is, the pre-ringing is a phenomenon totally unknown in nature, Other than the many situations where ringing starts slowly, builds up, and then decays. You know darn well that I am speaking of transient behavior. and is neither proven nor disproven to be audible....at any frequency. Interesting idea - that an idea should or even would be disproven. The situation with the audibility of pre-ringing related to CDs is that there is an absence of proof or even proper experimental support. I And this changes what I said how? It is interesting that Meriden, a firm you normally give very high grades to for being "scientific," is winning kudos from audio buffs and audio pros alike for their new flagship model whose new filters claim to be the first to eradicate this pre-ringing. Audio buffs excited about some new expensive technology with absolutely zero support from bias-controlled listening tests? Whoda thunk? ;-) Oh, I see. They are "scientific" when you like what they do/say, and charlatans when they do not? There's nothing new about CD players with no pre-ringing - I have one right here that was sold in 1983. It is called a CDP 101! Bullroar! I will grant you that both observationally and aurally the extended frequency response and more gradual/higher frequency filters of DVD-A make it a moot problem for this format. Letsee: Moot with 44.1 KHz sampling, about 4.4 x moot at 192 KHz sampling. Works for me! A moot and trivial response as well. But since you and Dick are being so critical of rather insignificant aspects of SACD regarding Audio Empire's test, you fail to mention pre-ringing as the 800 lb gorilla in the room regarding CD. As I have pointed out before, pre-ringing is not an inherent feature of the CD format. This is a cop-out. Is a feature of virtually every filter used in a CD player since they were introduced. Some have tried filter designs that ameliorate it to some degree. But that certainly wasn't true of the CDP-101, among others. Many people, myself included, believe that pre-ringing may explain why cymbals and other high frequencies on CD often sound raw and splashy, and very, very un-natural. And the bias controlled, statistically signficant listening tests supporting this contention may be found exactly where? Would you define what "believe" means to you, in conjunction with "has not been proven nor disproven" And why the absence of such may be the reason SACD (and DVD-A as well) is often judged as sounding more natural and life-like. And the bias controlled, statistically signficant listening tests supporting this contention may be found exactly where? Once again, would you please define what "believe" means to you, in conjunction with "has not been proven nor disproven" One of many examples of counter-evidence might be found he Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback". E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran. JAES 55(9) September 2007. "Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz "bottleneck." The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels. They were listening for noise, using what protocols or source materials they or you do not say, and presumably using a symetrical A/D/A conversion which is not typical of the real world. What you listen "for" is what you "hear" in ABX type tests (assuming this is what they were using). Perhaps if the challenge was "which sounds more real" the response would have been different. Not enough info here to even decide if you have a case. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
On Mon, 10 May 2010 08:43:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... On Sat, 8 May 2010 10:30:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): snip And the bias controlled, statistically signficant listening tests supporting this contention may be found exactly where? One of many examples of counter-evidence might be found he Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback". E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran. JAES 55(9) September 2007. "Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz "bottleneck." The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels. I'm going to use the same rules of evidence for this paper as some have used to reject my double-blind test findings. Without a detailed description and analysis of the methodology used in Meyer and Moran's "series of double-blind tests", their so-called results are meaningless. You have to do more than just read the abstract! Well, I don't have access to more than the abstract, and only have that because you posted it. Last I checked, the AES wants quite a lot of money for their articles and I haven't been a member since the 1980's. So without more info, I'd say that your post fails the common rules of evidence. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
On Mon, 10 May 2010 08:51:24 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... snip for brevity The fact is, the pre-ringing is a phenomenon totally unknown in nature, Other than the many situations where ringing starts slowly, builds up, and then decays. You know darn well that I am speaking of transient behavior. and is neither proven nor disproven to be audible....at any frequency. Interesting idea - that an idea should or even would be disproven. The situation with the audibility of pre-ringing related to CDs is that there is an absence of proof or even proper experimental support. I And this changes what I said how? It is interesting that Meriden, a firm you normally give very high grades to for being "scientific," is winning kudos from audio buffs and audio pros alike for their new flagship model whose new filters claim to be the first to eradicate this pre-ringing. Audio buffs excited about some new expensive technology with absolutely zero support from bias-controlled listening tests? Whoda thunk? ;-) Oh, I see. They are "scientific" when you like what they do/say, and charlatans when they do not? There's nothing new about CD players with no pre-ringing - I have one right here that was sold in 1983. It is called a CDP 101! Bullroar! I will grant you that both observationally and aurally the extended frequency response and more gradual/higher frequency filters of DVD-A make it a moot problem for this format. Letsee: Moot with 44.1 KHz sampling, about 4.4 x moot at 192 KHz sampling. Works for me! A moot and trivial response as well. But since you and Dick are being so critical of rather insignificant aspects of SACD regarding Audio Empire's test, you fail to mention pre-ringing as the 800 lb gorilla in the room regarding CD. As I have pointed out before, pre-ringing is not an inherent feature of the CD format. This is a cop-out. Is a feature of virtually every filter used in a CD player since they were introduced. Some have tried filter designs that ameliorate it to some degree. But that certainly wasn't true of the CDP-101, among others. The CDP-101 was an early Sony, correct? I'll guarantee that their filter design did not ameliorate pre-ringing as it contained a multi-pole, analog, brick-wall filter. Those units not only exhibited pre-ringing, but the multi-pole filters had gobs of phase shift, so much so, that they affected not only supersonic frequencies, but frequencies in the passband as well, IIRC. Some more modern CD decks use Digital Signal Processors to effect pre-cognitive filters in an effort to reduce or eliminate pre-ringing. Some are obviously more successful than others. On the other hand, I've never seen any definitive evidence that pre-ringing is an audible artifact. But as a worthless, anecdotal aside, I use my Sony XA777ES SACD player as my CD deck and it sounds better playing Redbook CDs than any other CD player I own or have reviewed. Because the SACD player up-converts 16/44.1 PCM to SACD before outputting it as audio, it's not supposed to pre-ring. Whether or not is does, I have no way to tell. Like I said, that's a worthless anecdote but the XA777ES does make an excellent CD player. Many people, myself included, believe that pre-ringing may explain why cymbals and other high frequencies on CD often sound raw and splashy, and very, very un-natural. I suspect that this has more to do with the way CDs are mastered than it does with any of CD's inherent characteristics. I say this because I have some CDs (mostly those I have burned myself from my own masters) that don't exhibit this "raw and splashy" high-frequency content at all, but I have heard it on lots of commercial releases. And the bias controlled, statistically signficant listening tests supporting this contention may be found exactly where? Would you define what "believe" means to you, in conjunction with "has not been proven nor disproven" And why the absence of such may be the reason SACD (and DVD-A as well) is often judged as sounding more natural and life-like. And the bias controlled, statistically signficant listening tests supporting this contention may be found exactly where? Once again, would you please define what "believe" means to you, in conjunction with "has not been proven nor disproven" One of many examples of counter-evidence might be found he Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback". E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran. JAES 55(9) September 2007. "Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz "bottleneck." The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels. They were listening for noise, using what protocols or source materials they or you do not say, and presumably using a symetrical A/D/A conversion which is not typical of the real world. What you listen "for" is what you "hear" in ABX type tests (assuming this is what they were using). Perhaps if the challenge was "which sounds more real" the response would have been different. Not enough info here to even decide if you have a case. Agreed. And of course, Mr. Kruger has not provided us with a URL so that we might read this entire paper for ourselves. Although I suspect it's probably from the AES (or JAES) archives, in which case they will want an exorbitant amount of money for the privilege of reading what may well prove to be an irrelevant citation (as you point out, it seems, from what's written in the quoted text, that Mssrs. Meyer and Moran have restricted their investigations to noise content in the different resolution samples as opposed to actual sound quality). |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Mon, 10 May 2010 08:51:24 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... As I have pointed out before, pre-ringing is not an inherent feature of the CD format. This is a cop-out. Is a feature of virtually every filter used in a CD player since they were introduced. I sense quite a bit of confusion about pre-ringing. Pre-ringing is a consequence of the use of acausual filtering. It is not written in stone that a CD player must use acausual filtering. For example a number of CD players have been built that used causual filtering, more specifically minimum phase filtering. Some have tried filter designs that ameliorate it to some degree. But that certainly wasn't true of the CDP-101, among others. The CDP-101 was an early Sony, correct? I'll guarantee that their filter design did not ameliorate pre-ringing as it contained a multi-pole, analog, brick-wall filter. Those units not only exhibited pre-ringing, but the multi-pole filters had gobs of phase shift, so much so, that they affected not only supersonic frequencies, but frequencies in the passband as well, IIRC. Measurements of real hardware tell all. I have in my posession a working CDP 101, and I have measured it. You can IIRC all you want and I can look at my measurements. ;-) Some more modern CD decks use Digital Signal Processors to effect pre-cognitive filters in an effort to reduce or eliminate pre-ringing. Some are obviously more successful than others. I don't know how to descramble the above to respond to it, but I can comment on modern technology. Transient response of filters is uniquely determined by the combination of their steady-state phase and amplitude responses. Practicality puts certain limits on the amplitude and phase response characteristics of analog filters. In principle a wider variety of response characterics can be achieved in the analog domain than has generally been actually implemented in the analog domain. Analog filters have tended to stay close to being minimum phase because that is easiest and cheapest to obtain with them. Minimum phase filtering is by definition causal. In fact all real world filters are causual in the sense that their output *always* starts some time after the stimulus is applied to them. The filters we call acausal are in fact limited in this way due to our current inability to reliably foretell the future, even with elaborate hardware. However, a filter that has time delay at low and medium frequencies can appear to be acausal if you reference its performance to its output at low and medium frequencies. This is where pre-ringing comes from - some high frequencies show up at the output before most of the low and medium frequencies do. Digital filtering makes it relatively cheap and easy to provide a wide range of combinations of phase and amplitude characteristics. The usual extreme cases are minimum phase response which by definition has no pre-ringing, and linear phase response which has a great pre-ringing. A steep slope low pass minimum phase by definition has a great deal of high frequency phase shift. A linear phase filter with a similar amplitude response by defintiion has the same phase shift at all frequencies as a simple delay line. This is where a great deal of poorly-informed audiophile myth and fancy rears its ugly head. Some early CD players were built with analog filters and some of those analog filters were minimum phase. Therefore, they had a lot of phase shift at high frequencies if you looked at the numbers. Confusing the matter were a number of other irrelevant problems. Some of the same players had only one DAC, and therefore had a 1/2 sample delay between their left and right outputs. The nature of complex analog filters is that they are difficult and expensive to implement with exact consistency, so some of the filters had frequency response errors that were due to production variatons. Due to production costs, there was a desire to minimize the designs, and this led to a few frequency response errors of their own. Finally, the application of bias-controlled testing to both professional and consumer audio gear was incomplete in those early days. So, prejudice and anxiety was a factor in many listening evaluations. One of many examples of counter-evidence might be found he Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback". E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran. JAES 55(9) September 2007. "Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz "bottleneck." The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels. Here we have contradicory opinions: They were listening for noise, using what protocols or source materials they or you do not say, and presumably using a symetrical A/D/A conversion which is not typical of the real world. What you listen "for" is what you "hear" in ABX type tests (assuming this is what they were using). Perhaps if the challenge was "which sounds more real" the response would have been different. Not enough info here to even decide if you have a case. In fact they were not listening to noise, and nobody who is not familiar with the paper could possibly definitively say that they were listening to noise. Either people have read the paper and know that the listening tests involved commercial recordings of music, or they can admit that they just don't know. Agreed. And of course, Mr. Kruger has not provided us with a URL so that we might read this entire paper for ourselves. It's against forum policies to break the copyright law. The paper is copyrighted by the AES. Although I suspect it's probably from the AES (or JAES) archives, The abstract I posted clearly and explicitly says as much. No suspicions needed - just ordinary reading skills. ;-) in which case they will want an exorbitant amount of money for the privilege of reading what may well prove to be an irrelevant citation (as you point out, it seems, from what's written in the quoted text, that Mssrs. Meyer and Moran have restricted their investigations to noise content in the different resolution samples as opposed to actual sound quality). This is a very strange interpretation of the abstract. Some details about the Meyer and Moran JAES paper can be found he http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm This is BTW the third response from the following Google seach: Meyer moran high resolution |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
On 5/10/2010 8:51 AM, Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny wrote in message There's nothing new about CD players with no pre-ringing - I have one right here that was sold in 1983. It is called a CDP 101! Bullroar! No, Arny is correct. Pre-ringing in CD players is caused by the linear phase reconstruction filters that are used in the vast majority of them. The CDP-101 did not have those, which came out before they were implemented in consumer audio. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
Audio Empire wrote:
CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels. I'm going to use the same rules of evidence for this paper as some have used to reject my double-blind test findings. Without a detailed description and analysis of the methodology used in Meyer and Moran's "series of double-blind tests", their so-called results are meaningless. You have to do more than just read the abstract! Well, I don't have access to more than the abstract, and only have that because you posted it. Last I checked, the AES wants quite a lot of money for their articles and I haven't been a member since the 1980's. $20 for an article. About what you'd pay for a new LP these days...but ever so much more accurate. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
On Sat, 15 May 2010 20:02:39 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels. I'm going to use the same rules of evidence for this paper as some have used to reject my double-blind test findings. Without a detailed description and analysis of the methodology used in Meyer and Moran's "series of double-blind tests", their so-called results are meaningless. You have to do more than just read the abstract! Well, I don't have access to more than the abstract, and only have that because you posted it. Last I checked, the AES wants quite a lot of money for their articles and I haven't been a member since the 1980's. $20 for an article. About what you'd pay for a new LP these days...but ever so much more accurate. Sorry, I'd rather spend that $20 on an LP or CD. [ Back to audio, everyone, rather than meta-issues. -- dsr ] |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
Audio Empire wrote: CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels. I'm going to use the same rules of evidence for this paper as some have used to reject my double-blind test findings. Without a detailed description and analysis of the methodology used in Meyer and Moran's "series of double-blind tests", their so-called results are meaningless. You have to do more than just read the abstract! Well, I don't have access to more than the abstract, and only have that because you posted it. Last I checked, the AES wants quite a lot of money for their articles and I haven't been a member since the 1980's. $20 for an article. About what you'd pay for a new LP these days...but ever so much more accurate. Moot given that I've provided a link to a full PDF of the article. Here it is again: http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Audio Empire wrote: CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels. I'm going to use the same rules of evidence for this paper as some have used to reject my double-blind test findings. Without a detailed description and analysis of the methodology used in Meyer and Moran's "series of double-blind tests", their so-called results are meaningless. You have to do more than just read the abstract! Well, I don't have access to more than the abstract, and only have that because you posted it. Last I checked, the AES wants quite a lot of money for their articles and I haven't been a member since the 1980's. $20 for an article. About what you'd pay for a new LP these days...but ever so much more accurate. Moot given that I've provided a link to a full PDF of the article. Here it is again: http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf Thanks for the article....seems fairly complete, but some omissions raise a couple of potentially important questions: 1. Why did the test ignore normal ABX testing proceedures of at least 17 -20 tests per subject in order to get individual results as well as group results? No mention of the number of individual trials other than "10" for one tester. Did it vary? If listeners were allowed to "give up" finding identification difficult, this could influence results. A bit strange to have excluded this part of conventional ABX thinking. 2. Were the musical samples used tailored to the main musical preferences of the listener, thus breeding genre familiarity? No mention of this in the article. 3. Were the listeners told what to listen for....i.e. what the aspects ascribed to high-definition recordings might be (e.g. better defined bass, more relaxed sounding strings, etc.) as based on the non-biased controlled comments cited early in the article. If not, why not, as conventional wisdom for abx dbt's is that listeners must be "trained" as to what to listen for in order for the tests to have any validity? Just seems to be a strange and possibly very important omission...no mention of this in the article. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Universal high end "everyting" player
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Audio Empire wrote: CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels. I'm going to use the same rules of evidence for this paper as some have used to reject my double-blind test findings. Without a detailed description and analysis of the methodology used in Meyer and Moran's "series of double-blind tests", their so-called results are meaningless. You have to do more than just read the abstract! Well, I don't have access to more than the abstract, and only have that because you posted it. Last I checked, the AES wants quite a lot of money for their articles and I haven't been a member since the 1980's. $20 for an article. About what you'd pay for a new LP these days...but ever so much more accurate. Moot given that I've provided a link to a full PDF of the article. Here it is again: http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf Thanks for the article....seems fairly complete, but some omissions raise a couple of potentially important questions: 1. Why did the test ignore normal ABX testing proceedures of at least 17 -20 tests per subject in order to get individual results as well as group results? No mention of the number of individual trials other than "10" for one tester. Did it vary? If listeners were allowed to "give up" finding identification difficult, this could influence results. A bit strange to have excluded this part of conventional ABX thinking. 2. Were the musical samples used tailored to the main musical preferences of the listener, thus breeding genre familiarity? No mention of this in the article. 3. Were the listeners told what to listen for....i.e. what the aspects ascribed to high-definition recordings might be (e.g. better defined bass, more relaxed sounding strings, etc.) as based on the non-biased controlled comments cited early in the article. If not, why not, as conventional wisdom for abx dbt's is that listeners must be "trained" as to what to listen for in order for the tests to have any validity? Just seems to be a strange and possibly very important omission...no mention of this in the article. All questions and comments should be routed to the authors. I believe that if you email the Boston Audio site , they can route mail to them for you. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Universal high end "anything" player? | High End Audio | |||
Ayre C-5xe Universal "Silver Disc" Player | Audio Opinions | |||
"AKAI", "KURZWEIL", "ROLAND", DVDs and CDs | Audio Opinions |