High resolution audio. The science, or lack of...?

[busb]

p.s. Just in case any readers don't know what DSD is, the following note might be of assistance . . .

DSD is 1-bit, has a sampling rate of 2.8224 Mhz. The output from a DSD recorder alternates between levels representing 'on' and 'off' states, and is a binary signal (called a bitstream). The long-term average of this signal is proportional to the original signal. DSD makes use of noise shaping techniques in order to push quantisation noise up to inaudible ultrasonic frequencies. In principle, the retention of the bitstream in DSD allows the SACD player to use a basic (one bit) DAC design which incorporates a low-order analog filter. The SACD format is capable of delivering a dynamic range of 120 dB from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and an extended frequency response up to 100 kHz, although most currently available players list an upper limit of 80–90 kHz and 20 kHz is the upper limit of human hearing.

JC

You seem a nice bloke, jcb, but only when you're not in patronising mode

I'm glad you are not being entirely serious or I'd suspect you of making a virtue out of ignorance or do you just feel left out?. If JC had used a sneering manner or had been overtly superior, I might agree. I now have a far better idea of how digital audio works from such posts, the links & my willingness to read up. Understanding technical stuff does take effort & one's own bafflement can be frustrating but I still have a passion for learning as well as for music.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Don't you love armchair experts? Always right, belittle those who dare to disagree, wouldn't know a superior mind it it hit them and the face with the boson.

The boson is a particle they've all been looking for, by the way. Explanation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson

 

[busb]

I don't share your confidence in DB ABX testing - it doesn't deal with false negatives & needs to be conducted by professionals, is time consuming & rather boring to take part in so say nothing of the expense. No one in the industry is going to risk such tests, IMO. I've bee to demos of speaker cables where I've stated tha I couldn't really tell much difference to be challenged by the manufacturer with such statements as "Are you sure!" or "Well, it's pretty obvious to the rst of us!" etc. Such tests always start at the cheap end then work upwards. I never been to a demo whee the audiance has ever been asked to guess what level a particular cable falls in their range!

Exactly the problem with this thread, then.

Oooh, a bullet whistling past from a sniper! What bits of digital technology you choose to believe doesn't change the technology. If it's boring you, why the hell post? If I feel sorry for anyone here, it certainly ain't me.

Hehe, this always makes me laugh. Posters who join a thread simply to bajs on it. "It's boring", "Is this still going?", "just listen to the music", etc etc.

Fair enough first time, 1. See new thread, 2. Is it interesting to me? 3. Yes...contribute 4. No...Click on another thread and get on with life.

There are some people who contribute and some who spoil

There have been some great technical posts in this thread, and I am very glad I started it. Some great information (much over my head even if I have an A level in maths) and some interesting points.

The chread- trappers know who they are...they contribute nothing and are essentially trolling.

It's a big forum. There is lots to see. Lots to contribute. So why waste time if it is uninteresting? Seriously, I don't get it.

I don't entirely, either. Maybe such threads make the insecure feel uncomfortable. I have to admit to finding this thread illuminating - either for the technical insights or for the socialogical reactions from some.

 

[steve_1979]

p.s. Just in case any readers don't know what DSD is, the following note might be of assistance . . .

DSD is 1-bit, has a sampling rate of 2.8224 Mhz. The output from a DSD recorder alternates between levels representing 'on' and 'off' states, and is a binary signal (called a bitstream). The long-term average of this signal is proportional to the original signal. DSD makes use of noise shaping techniques in order to push quantisation noise up to inaudible ultrasonic frequencies. In principle, the retention of the bitstream in DSD allows the SACD player to use a basic (one bit) DAC design which incorporates a low-order analog filter. The SACD format is capable of delivering a dynamic range of 120 dB from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and an extended frequency response up to 100 kHz, although most currently available players list an upper limit of 80–90 kHz and 20 kHz is the upper limit of human hearing.

JC

You seem a nice bloke, jcb, but only when you're not in patronising mode

I had no idea what DSD was so JC's brief summary was very useful. Thanks to JC (and others) I'm learning a lot about digital audio from this thread. Kept it up guys. 8)

 

[chebby]

Don't you love armchair experts? Always right, belittle those who dare to disagree, wouldn't know a superior mind it it hit them and the face with the boson.

The boson is a particle they've all been looking for, by the way. Explanation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson

Bosons don't need much 'looking for' in the case of photons

 

[steve_1979]

Don't you love armchair experts? Always right, belittle those who dare to disagree, wouldn't know a superior mind it it hit them and the face with the boson.

The boson is a particle they've all been looking for, by the way. Explanation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson

Bosons don't need much 'looking for' in the case of photons

He probably ment the 'Higgs' boson.

 

[jcbrum]

Hmmm, I've heard that Apple, and Samsung, are both claiming patents on the Higgs-Bosun, and have sent 'Cease and Desist' letters to CERN.

JC

 

[steve_1979]

How could you patent a boson? It's one of the fundamental building blocks of the universe. They're a part of nature. It's like saying you want to patent photons or electrons.

:doh:

Right that's it! I'm going to patent, copyright and trademark gravity. From now on nobody's going to be allowed to use gravity without paying me royalties frist.

:roll:

 

[jcbrum]

Right that's it! I'm going to patent, copyright and trademark gravity.

I've been reading a fascinating book about anti-gravity . . .

I just couldn't put it down.

JC

 

[davedotco]

How could you patent a boson? It's one of the fundamental building blocks of the universe. They're a part of nature. It's like saying you want to patent photons or electrons.

:doh:

Right that's it! I'm going to patent, copyright and trademark gravity. From now on nobody's going to be allowed to use gravity without paying me royalties frist.

:roll:

Way too slow. Newton and (of course) Apple got there first.

 

[steve_1979]

Way too slow. Newton and (of course) Apple got there first.

If ever there was a comment which deserved that famous 'Ba dum tssshhh' YouTube link then that was it.

 

[Alec]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[danielberwick]

I added a comment about the excess loudness and collapse of DR on the redbook layer of the Brothers in Arms SACD here:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/461106/the-loudness-war-your-experiences/135#post_10308867

The waveforms for Money for Nothing are below, basically the original 1985 CD is top and the RB layer of the SACD is bottom:

It made me wonder; as the original CD has amazing DR numbers (and sounds great too), the SACD 5.1 layer seems to have great DR as well. The only anomaly is the redbook layer on the SACD release has the worse mastering of all versions.

It made me wonder if it was planned to make the DSD layer version sound so much better than the CD layer by direct comparison on the disk?

Here’s some links on the rated DR on the loudness wars site:

Original release:

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/15006

Redbook layer on the 20 year SACD release:

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/443

5.1 SACD mix:

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/29612

Stereo SACD mix (second worse in terms of DR numbers, but not as bad as RB layer):

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/43589

I personally find the original CD mastering amazing but the new SACD redbook layer has lost a lot of the subtle range of instrumentation, it all sounds a similar volume. Visually when expanding the wave in Audacity, the peak parts of the wave has been flattened in lots of places in the new mix (like chopping off the top of a cupcake).

I thought it was interesting.

 

[fr0g]

That is very interesting. Seems they have purposefully made the SACD better.

I am usually not into conspiracy, but that is simply fraud IMO.

 

[steve_1979]

Here's a simple experiment that anyone can try at home with their CD player to test how loud the noise floor of 16 bit audio is.

1. Find a track on one of your CD's where the music gradually fades away to silence at the end of the song.

2. Turn the volume up loud as the music fades away.

3. Does the music sound distorted as it gets quieter? *

4. This shows that even during the sections of music that are recorded at a very low volume the noise floor of a CD is still too quiet to hear.

* Bare in mind that you will get some humming coming from your amplifier when the volume is turned up high, but that's coming from the amplifier and will still be there whether the music is playing or not. The hum from the amplifier is completely unrelated to the noise floor of the CD.

Out of interest has anyone tried this?

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Nah, the rest of us live in the real world. Life's to short, mate, and that's the honest truth.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733.html

some more reading on the subject

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Ever thought of listening to the music instead of reading about it? Lots more fun!

 

[steve_1979]

Ever thought of listening to the music instead of reading about it? Lots more fun!

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/geeks

 

[spiny norman]

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/geeks

There's something terribly onanistic about linking to oneself.

 

[steve_1979]

There's something terribly onanistic about linking to oneself.

There's something terribly onanistic about people who like to thread c**p for no reason other than to stir up trouble.

 

[spiny norman]

There's something terribly onanistic about people who like to thread c**p for no reason other than to stir up trouble.

Is whatever is meant by 'thread c**p' the same internet 'insider' nonsense as those people who accuse anyone disagreeing with them of being a 'troll'? How unimaginatively holier than thou.

No intention of stirring up trouble, old thing, but you tend to get a bit dull and self-referential at times, and that last one was a corker. Just saying...

 

[steve_1979]

Is whatever is meant by 'thread c**p'

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thread%20crapping

 

[spiny norman]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thread%20crapping

Linking beats thinking, huh? Thanks for confirming it was one of those nonsensical internet 'insider' things.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Steve, mate, you're on a hiding to nothing here. Those who are still interested in this are all on your home active apeaker forum, so why not stick to that for educational topics? HiFi is about having fun.

Also, does owning a certain brand of speaker mean you automatically become an anorak?