Sound quality research

stefanom

New member
Mar 16, 2011
8
0
0
Visit site
In 2009 Newform Research of Midland Canada did a reaserch on sound quality between different mediums. They used mathematical calculations based on "dynamic range", "frequency response", "sampling rates" and "bit equivalents". Here are their results:

1. DVD-Audio 46.1 points

2. SACD 35 points

3. Reel-to-reel tape 11.7 points

4. CD 7.1 points

5. Vinyl LP 6.3 points

6. Cassette 3.5 points

7. MP3 3.2 points

8. 8-track cassette 1.2 points

9. Shellac 0.9 points

10. Wax cylinder 0.3 points

Very surprising how low the vinyl scores. So, where are we now? CDs are dying/fading away (deluxe editions still going strong), SACD and DVD-Audio have never taken off commercially, vinyl is increasing in sales and now we have Hi-rez downloads.

What does the future hold for us? Are we stuck with the old vinyl format, or is it just a fad for hipsters and old geezers that will go away. Or is Hi-rez download/streaming the future of good sound quality?
 

Native_bon

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2008
180
4
18,595
Visit site
stefanom said:
In 2009 Newform Research of Midland Canada did a reaserch on sound quality between different mediums. They used mathematical calculations based on "dynamic range", "frequency response", "sampling rates" and "bit equivalents". Here are their results:

1. DVD-Audio             46.1 points

2. SACD                     35 points

3. Reel-to-reel tape   11.7 points

4. CD                          7.1 points

5. Vinyl LP                  6.3 points

6. Cassette                 3.5 points

7. MP3                         3.2 points

8. 8-track cassette     1.2 points

9. Shellac                    0.9 points

10. Wax cylinder          0.3 points

Very surprising how low the vinyl scores. So, where are we now? CDs are dying/fading away (deluxe editions still going strong), SACD and DVD-Audio have never taken off commercially, vinyl is increasing in sales and now we have Hi-rez downloads.

What does the future hold for us? Are we stuck with the old vinyl format, or is it just a fad for hipsters and old geezers that will go away. Or is Hi-rez download/streaming the future of good sound quality?
The main problem being audio and TV world is driven by profit as suppose to quality. Companies are not interested in marketing quality, but marketing and manufacturing were profit is to be made.

DVD audio was probably not promoted due to lack of profits from that format.
 
Native_bon said:
stefanom said:
In 2009 Newform Research of Midland Canada did a reaserch on sound quality between different mediums. They used mathematical calculations based on "dynamic range", "frequency response", "sampling rates" and "bit equivalents". Here are their results:

1. DVD-Audio 46.1 points

2. SACD 35 points

3. Reel-to-reel tape 11.7 points

4. CD 7.1 points

5. Vinyl LP 6.3 points

6. Cassette 3.5 points

7. MP3 3.2 points

8. 8-track cassette 1.2 points

9. Shellac 0.9 points

10. Wax cylinder 0.3 points

Very surprising how low the vinyl scores. So, where are we now? CDs are dying/fading away (deluxe editions still going strong), SACD and DVD-Audio have never taken off commercially, vinyl is increasing in sales and now we have Hi-rez downloads.

What does the future hold for us? Are we stuck with the old vinyl format, or is it just a fad for hipsters and old geezers that will go away. Or is Hi-rez download/streaming the future of good sound quality?
The main problem being audio and TV world is driven by profit as suppose to quality. Companies are not interested in marketing quality, but marketing and manufacturing were profit is to be made.

DVD audio was probably not promoted due to lack of profits from that format.

Perhaps the results are meaningless today. SACD always did better than DVD Audio as there was much more in the way of hardware that could handle the format.

Again it takes no account of people's musical preferences, some p buy vinyl and nothing else, simply because they like the physical media and they actually own the object.

In these days of hires downloads it means you need more hardware to acquire, store, and play this media but that's the thing. Hardware manufacturers work hand-in-glove with software manufacturers, take the latest MQA fiasco for instance.
 

Benedict_Arnold

New member
Jan 16, 2013
661
3
0
Visit site
It seems to me, that, generally, the older the technology, the lower the score. No surprises there.
MP3 scored badly, because, despite being a relatively new technology, the files are, as we all know, horribly compressed and best reserved for annoying fellow passengers on the tube with hissy earbuds. Similarly audio cassettes, certainly cheaply produced ones, never sounded that great.
I'm surprised reel-to-reel scored so well, unless, of course, the tapes were "factory" copies. My dad used to use his Akai for taping other people's LPs and the Sunday night top 40. He also used to have some original BBC 4 track session tapes from the 60s that his father brought home from the BBC via the back door, but that's another story.
 

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
129
0
0
Visit site
Reel to reel scored higher than CD and vinyl?

DVD audio 6x better than CD, SACD 5x....?

That research is bogus. Their math is wrong more detail required methinks......
 

BigH

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2012
115
7
18,595
Visit site
I'm surprised that SACD is so much different from cd when many can't hear a difference, otherless they are talking about 5 channel? No surprise about vinyl. I think a lot of this is on paper and not about audible differences, can anyone hear a difference above 20 bit?

The future, vinyl will start to fade soon, lots of trendy youngsters don't even play it, its just for show. Streaming will take over but most will be mp3. Hifi is a very small proportion of the market. Out of all the formats I think Blu Ray audio had the most potential for consumers. Players are cheap, you can get many albums on each disc, they are good value to buy but its not taking off. New formats like DSD I doubt will either. Problem is there are too many different formats, what we need is one good one that everyone will buy, with decent mastering and wide dynamic range.
 

expat_mike

Well-known member
Mar 30, 2013
160
4
18,595
Visit site
stefanom said:
In 2009 Newform Research of Midland Canada did a reaserch on sound quality between different mediums. They used mathematical calculations based on "dynamic range", "frequency response", "sampling rates" and "bit equivalents".

Like any mathematical calculation to generate survey results, they will have needed to apply a 'weighting' to each of the four criteria "dynamic range", "frequency response", "sampling rates" and "bit equivalents", according to how important they consider each one, as a contributor to 'sound quality'. Adjusting these relative weights, can easily modify the order of the results.
 

CnoEvil

New member
Aug 21, 2009
556
13
0
Visit site
It's an interesting theoretical exercise, but since music is a subjective experience and most people choose a format based on personal preference, in practice it's of less relevance.
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
expat_mike said:
stefanom said:
In 2009 Newform Research of Midland Canada did a reaserch on sound quality between different mediums. They used mathematical calculations based on "dynamic range", "frequency response", "sampling rates" and "bit equivalents". 

Like any mathematical calculation to generate survey results, they will have needed to apply a 'weighting' to each of the four criteria "dynamic range", "frequency response", "sampling rates" and "bit equivalents", according to how important they consider each one, as a contributor to 'sound quality'. Adjusting these relative weights, can easily modify the order of the results.

 

Yes, without knowing how they've achieved the figures they're completely meaningless.

Plus it's 7 years old, that's a lifetime in this sort of technology, hence no mention of high-res digital files (only DVD-a and sacd). Also no mention of what bitrate the mp3 was, the result suggests they've used a very compressed form. A high bitrate mp3 should have a dynamic range and frequency response close to CD and certainly on a par with vinyl.
 

basshound

Well-known member
Sep 23, 2007
116
0
18,590
Visit site
BigH said:
Problem is there are too many different formats, what we need is one good one that everyone will buy, with decent mastering and wide dynamic range.

That is the best thing I`ve read on this forum for a long time and something we as audiophiles/music lovers can surely all agree on. Sadly I think it is also very unlikely to happen.
 

manicm

Well-known member
BigH said:
I'm surprised that SACD is so much different from cd when many can't hear a difference, otherless they are talking about 5 channel? No surprise about vinyl. I think a lot of this is on paper and not about audible differences, can anyone hear a difference above 20 bit?

The future, vinyl will start to fade soon, lots of trendy youngsters don't even play it, its just for show. Streaming will take over but most will be mp3. Hifi is a very small proportion of the market. Out of all the formats I think Blu Ray audio had the most potential for consumers. Players are cheap, you can get many albums on each disc, they are good value to buy but its not taking off. New formats like DSD I doubt will either. Problem is there are too many different formats, what we need is one good one that everyone will buy, with decent mastering and wide dynamic range.

Linn, who have long since ceased making cdps, still make their very expensive lp12, even its most basic guise, and so are other established turntable makers. Where you're wrong is that only youth have been the catalyst for vinyl 'resurgence'. That is a myth. My guess is that both CD players and turntables will prevail for far longer than some may like to think.
 

manicm

Well-known member
basshound said:
BigH said:
Problem is there are too many different formats, what we need is one good one that everyone will buy, with decent mastering and wide dynamic range.

That is the best thing I`ve read on this forum for a long time and something we as audiophiles/music lovers can surely all agree on. Sadly I think it is also very unlikely to happen.

there already is - high resolution pcm - whether as raw wav or compressed flac, but no....
 
K

keeper of the quays

Guest
BigH said:
I'm surprised that SACD is so much different from cd when many can't hear a difference, otherless they are talking about 5 channel? No surprise about vinyl. I think a lot of this is on paper and not about audible differences, can anyone hear a difference above 20 bit? 

The future, vinyl will start to fade soon, lots of trendy youngsters don't even play it, its just for show. Streaming will take over but most will be mp3. Hifi is a very small proportion of the market. Out of all the formats I think Blu Ray audio had the most potential for consumers. Players are cheap, you can get many albums on each disc, they are good value to buy but its not taking off. New formats like DSD I doubt will either. Problem is there are too many different formats, what we need is one good one that everyone will buy, with decent mastering and wide dynamic range.
have you ever heard a good sacd player?
 
K

keeper of the quays

Guest
This is quite the silliest thread I have seen so far on this forum! I'm not sure I want to contribute anything to be honest!
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
manicm said:
basshound said:
BigH said:
 Problem is there are too many different formats, what we need is one good one that everyone will buy, with decent mastering and wide dynamic range.

That is the best thing I`ve read on this forum for a long time and something we as audiophiles/music lovers can surely all agree on. Sadly I think it is also very unlikely to happen.

there already is - high resolution pcm - whether as raw wav or compressed flac, but no....

We've already had it for 30 years, CD, properly mastered it would be perfect, the format is no reason for poor mastering.
 

BigH

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2012
115
7
18,595
Visit site
manicm said:
BigH said:
I'm surprised that SACD is so much different from cd when many can't hear a difference, otherless they are talking about 5 channel? No surprise about vinyl. I think a lot of this is on paper and not about audible differences, can anyone hear a difference above 20 bit?

The future, vinyl will start to fade soon, lots of trendy youngsters don't even play it, its just for show. Streaming will take over but most will be mp3. Hifi is a very small proportion of the market. Out of all the formats I think Blu Ray audio had the most potential for consumers. Players are cheap, you can get many albums on each disc, they are good value to buy but its not taking off. New formats like DSD I doubt will either. Problem is there are too many different formats, what we need is one good one that everyone will buy, with decent mastering and wide dynamic range.

Linn, who have long since ceased making cdps, still make their very expensive lp12, even its most basic guise, and so are other established turntable makers. Where you're wrong is that only youth have been the catalyst for vinyl 'resurgence'. That is a myth. My guess is that both CD players and turntables will prevail for far longer than some may like to think.

I did not say cd/lp will disappear but I'm saying streaming either by streaming services or by playing downloads will be the most played music formats. Yes there are lps but sales even now are less than 4%, new cd sales are falling rapidly. Where did I say its only youth?
 

tonky

New member
Jan 2, 2008
36
0
0
Visit site
Benedict_Arnold said:
It seems to me, that, generally, the older the technology, the lower the score. No surprises there. MP3 scored badly, because, despite being a relatively new technology, the files are, as we all know, horribly compressed and best reserved for annoying fellow passengers on the tube with hissy earbuds. Similarly audio cassettes, certainly cheaply produced ones, never sounded that great. I'm surprised reel-to-reel scored so well, unless, of course, the tapes were "factory" copies. My dad used to use his Akai for taping other people's LPs and the Sunday night top 40. He also used to have some original BBC 4 track session tapes from the 60s that his father brought home from the BBC via the back door, but that's another story.

I used to have use of a grundig reel to reel 1969/1971. The microphone did overtime recording off the radio. Managed to record Led Zepp BBC radiosession. Then I used a cassette recorder taping off a friend's parents radiogram.

Never mind the quality - feel the music!! - tonky - reminesce mode!
 
K

keeper of the quays

Guest
The_Lhc said:
manicm said:
basshound said:
BigH said:
 Problem is there are too many different formats, what we need is one good one that everyone will buy, with decent mastering and wide dynamic range.

That is the best thing I`ve read on this forum for a long time and something we as audiophiles/music lovers can surely all agree on. Sadly I think it is also very unlikely to happen.

there already is - high resolution pcm - whether as raw wav or compressed flac, but no....

We've already had it for 30 years, CD, properly mastered it would be perfect, the format is no reason for poor mastering.
cd properly recorded is very fine indeed.
 

MajorFubar

New member
Mar 3, 2010
690
6
0
Visit site
Thompsonuxb said:
Reel to reel scored higher than CD and vinyl?

DVD audio 6x better than CD, SACD 5x....?

That research is bogus. Their math is wrong more detail required methinks......

Not sure how their weird maths have calculated that open-reel tape is better than CD unless they factor-in its ability to record ultrasonic frequencies that no one can hear, but there's no question that it has the potential to trounce vinyl. Even a basic domestic machine like an old Akai 4000DB will rival vinyl on every qualitative test you can throw at it, providing it's well-serviced and you use high-quality tape-stock @7 1/2IPS. Move up to such as a half-track B77 @15IPS and you've left poor old vinyl in the dust.
 
K

keeper of the quays

Guest
MajorFubar said:
Thompsonuxb said:
Reel to reel scored higher than CD and vinyl?

DVD audio 6x better than CD, SACD 5x....?

That research is bogus. Their math is wrong more detail required methinks......

Not sure how their weird maths have calculated that open-reel tape is better than CD unless they factor-in its ability to record ultrasonic frequencies that no one can hear, but there's no question that it has the potential to trounce vinyl. Even a basic domestic machine like an old Akai 4000DB will rival vinyl on every qualitative test you can throw at it, providing it's well-serviced and you use high-quality tape-stock @7 1/2IPS. Move up to such as a half-track B77 @15IPS and you've left poor old vinyl in the dust.
reel to reel has always been the best source. But its limitations are its downfall! Exc sacd/cd it was the best of all sources once..but i came across a 90s cassette tape of jaque loussier and i must say its rather fab! (why are French recordings so much better?)
 
K

keeper of the quays

Guest
ColinLovesMusic said:
Research is all well and good in some ways but by what standards and parameters is that research carried out? I am not convinced at all that MP3 is not as good as cassette if a sufficiently high bitrate is used. Rates over 192kbps and up to 320kbps will trance a compact cassette - even a good one. 320kbps second will sound as good as CD to most people and when played on average and even reasonably good hifi equipment. Difference between 320 lossy and lossless like CD is there but requires high resolution playback equipment to be obvious. By what measure did the researchers test MP3? MP3 can be anything from 32kbps to 320kbps. 96kbps is just about acceptable for non critical listening and below that bitrate MP3 sounds horrible. Cassette can be answerphone quality or as good as CD so what qualities did they judge the two by? Reel to Reel can run at a low quality 2inches per second or master tape 30inches per second - a speed that outperforms digital.  CD has a limitation in that the 'RED BOOK' CD standard specifies 16bit and 44.1kHz sampling rate and that can never change however good the studio transfer master is. Potentially and if applied right digital download will be the best format because the 'sky is the limit' where quality is concerned and not bogged down by 'Red Book' style standards. I cannot fathom how any researcher can place vinyl anywhere as it depends on how well it is pressed and what it is played with. One person will play their vinyl on a Crosley that is like a childrens toy and sounds as good and another will play same record on something like a LinnLP12 or the like at four figure sums. This research is something else to talk about but I wouldn't say the results can be any way set in stone.
it depends too on the player? How is it a level playing field? Its just a silly thread..but a good one if the forum is floundering a bit! Nice to see you posting here Colin..we need guys like you who think their own thoughts and express them coherently..prepare to be vilified mate..lol ;)
 

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
129
0
0
Visit site
MajorFubar said:
Thompsonuxb said:
Reel to reel scored higher than CD and vinyl?

DVD audio 6x better than CD, SACD 5x....?

That research is bogus. Their math is wrong more detail required methinks......

Not sure how their weird maths have calculated that open-reel tape is better than CD unless they factor-in its ability to record ultrasonic frequencies that no one can hear, but there's no question that it has the potential to trounce vinyl. Even a basic domestic machine like an old Akai 4000DB will rival vinyl on every qualitative test you can throw at it, providing it's well-serviced and you use high-quality tape-stock @7 1/2IPS. Move up to such as a half-track B77 @15IPS and you've left poor old vinyl in the dust.

I'll have to take your word Major, I have no experience of reel to reel tape.

I worked with a fella who used videotape as a recording medium to good effect. He integrated his videoplayer into his set. Better than cassette tape by some margin but was still limited in frequency extremes. Bass in particular.....just saying.

This compared to vinyl at the time.

CD will accommodate anything produced on tape or vinyl and vinyl we know is limited to the stylus/turntable used.
 

MajorFubar

New member
Mar 3, 2010
690
6
0
Visit site
keeper of the quays said:
reel to reel has always been the best source. But its limitations are its downfall! Exc sacd/cd it was the best of all sources once..but i came across a 90s cassette tape of jaque loussier and i must say its rather fab! (why are French recordings so much better?)

I too have noticed this, along with some W German albums on Polydor. Cassettes really did have the potential to sound excellent, and like vinyl, were a truimph of engineering over a compromised design. For example my cassette version of Themes by Vangelis is as enjoyable to listen to as the CD and significantly better than the record, which suffers from the usual compromises they had to make when cramming nearly 30 mins per side, which of course doesn't affect CD and tape. (It's also the only album I ever bought on three different formats, though years apart.) But mostly, and for no other reason than cassettes were aimed at the mass-market lo-fi brigade who now happily download MP3, the quality of most pre-recorded cassettes stank.
 

MajorFubar

New member
Mar 3, 2010
690
6
0
Visit site
Thompsonuxb said:
I worked with a fella who used videotape as a recording medium to good effect. He integrated his videoplayer into his set. Better than cassette tape by some margin but was still limited in frequency extremes. Bass in particular.....just saying.

Yeah I think a few of 'us' home recordists did this at the time. It was a cheap(ish) way to equip yourself with a very high quality 'mastering deck' to which you could send your 4-track mixes. Sound quality wise, it wasn't exactly knocking on the door of a B77 1/2 track with say a nice DBX NR bolted on the back, but for those of us with shallower pockets, it was pretty good.
 

ColinLovesMusic

New member
May 3, 2016
5
0
0
Visit site
Yeah silly thread but like you say it gets people posting and a forum being used is what matters. The research is just another example of a bunch of research lab technicians somewhere trying to justify their own existance and the research equipment they were itching to use. Researchers in general try the impossible of attempting to put complex and variable subject matter into little pidgeon holes because it is the way their brains work. I am now immune to vilifacation on this forum. I realize now it is a means of communication for some. I am confident there is no way this thread will inspire anyone to accuse me or anyone else of being a spammer.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts