Human hearing and standard CD Vs. SACD / DVD-A

[Nalzan]

I have one but don't possess either a DVD-A or a SACD-could'nt find one containing the kind of music I like.
Not much choice in Delhi.

Look up sa-cd.net for the available titles(excellent forum).Then buy them from Amazon.com

 

[soundofmusic]

I have heard one or two titles in DVD -Audio, never impressed me , But practically a better CD player with good quality CDs is more then sufficient for our listening

regards

 

[vkiran]

Look up sa-cd.net for the available titles(excellent forum).Then buy them from Amazon.com

I love SACD, even if you keep aside the hihger sampling etc. The sound from some of the SACDs I have are terrific. My top of my collection:

1. Brothers in Arms
2. Sting
3. Shania twain

 

[ranjeetrain]

I love SACD, even if you keep aside the hihger sampling etc. The sound from some of the SACDs I have are terrific. My top of my collection:

1. Brothers in Arms
2. Sting
3. Shania twain

Where do you buy them? I haven't seen many SACDs in reputed stores here in Delhi.

 

[particleman]

Where do you buy them? I haven't seen many SACDs in reputed stores here in Delhi.

Here in Mumbai, they are available at "Planet M" and at "Rhythm House". But the selection is pitiful - only 10-20 titles at best are available. Rhythm House has a web site (Rhythm House India) that accepts all-India orders but despite repeated requests to them it is not possible to search for SACDs alone. It is a matter of searching for titles and seeing if the SACD is also available. The most easily available are Pink Floyd's DSOTM and the Rolling Stones SACD releases. Also Bob Dylan, etc. Oddly enough you CAN search for DVD-A by criteria under "movie search" (!)

The Super Audio CD | SA-CD | SACD Reference remains the best source for SACD and Amazon.com works out the cheapest if buying 10 or more at once. Pity CD-wow.com no longer has the low prices of earlier after their lawsuit.

The 3 best recorded SACDs in my collection are:
1) Steely Dan - Gaucho (incredible quality!)
2) John Coltrane - A Love Supreme
3) The Who - Tommy (Deluxe Edition)

 

[ranjeetrain]

Thanks for the info mate. I also souce majority of my music from Planet M only, but you know these days they are concentrating more on fast moving items such as low priced DVDs, compilations, remixes etc.

 

[Bill Brekke]

I'd like to chime in about the difference in sound quality between a good CD and a SACD. I have about 40 SACDs, now. I was one of you (older) people who stuck with LPs in the 70s when people were moving to Cassettes, though I admit I moved to CDs in the 80s. I don't listen in 5.1, but I do have a big magnet subwoofer I use as a crossover with my good bookshelf speakers and I have Sennheiser HD590 headphones. And when I want to really listen, I turn off the A/C fan, ceiling fan, no dishwasher going, etc. I find that certain SACDs are very clearly superior compared to their CD layers or to other comparable CD material. Some, however, seem a waste of money. I'd say, two thirds have been a dissapointment, but that includes re-releases. I'm talking about DSD SACDs now, not those which go through a 24 bit process and are then transferred. The 24 bit transfers are some of my biggest dissapointments. This is "my theory" as to why the good ones sound so good. While the 44kh sampling of CDs provides a pure-tone range of 22kh for each ear, which is certainly beyond the range of human pure-tone hearing, that's not a good analogy. A SACD samples 2.5 million bits per second. This tells the system to go up or down in amplitude a little bit 2.5 million times per seconds. A standard CD can tell the system to go from mininum amplitude to maximum ampitude and back 20 thousand times a second. This is not what we want. We want the system to sense changes of any kind very, very frequently. An orchestra consists of many competing instruments, including groups of violins and different instruments playing at the same time. On beyond doing justice to pure tones, the media must capture the timbre of each instrument and of multiple instruments, simultaneously. The complexity of this exceeds the resolution of a single 20khz tone. It's not really about the ear, it's about the brain. The brain can resolve these, if given a chance, just as you can make out a conversation three couples people over, with room noise, and music going, but only if you concentrate (with you brain). My A/B comparisons mostly involve playing music on SACD and then switching over to a different player and playing the same music over an optical connection for the CD to the same amplifier, allowing the amplifier to do the digital to analog conversion. I've also tested in other similar configurations over the years and this seems fairest. Coaxial digital connecton for the CD sounds the same to me as optical. Generally, the most noticable improvements, in order of "noticableness", are: traditional string bass, Bass drum (like the big one in a jazz/rock with a pedal)-very soft and rounded, electric bass - soft and rounded, individual violins-piercing but not raspy, groups of violins-vaguely separate and crystaline, trumpets, triangles-very metalic, and cymbols - metallic. Also, instruments seem to be more in a specific place. By the way, I have a hard time giving SACD any credit with improving human voice reproduction. This may be a separate problem relating microphones, I don't know, or maybe nobody is really trying there. Here are some of my favorite examples of SACD improving sound over CD: Beethoven Symphonies by Haitink (Bass, strings, flutes), B.B. King Reflections (Bass drum, electric bass), Hilary Hahn - Mendelssohn Violin Concerto ( violin - but not her DG recordings and not the orchestra in that one ?!?), Rachmaninoff Symph 2 - Ivan Fischer (Violins, Bass, triangles, separation), Chet Baker from the 1950s (Horns and Bass), Bill Evans (from the 50s) (Piano attack, bass) , Gerswin - Rhapsody in Blue -Rochester Philharmonic (Clarinet, Piano attack, triangle). That's about it.

 

[Kamal]

That was a pretty interesting & informative post, Bill.
Its disturbing that you were'nt happy with as much as 2/3rds of your SACD purchases.
Whats your take on HDCD/XRCDs/K2/K2HD discs?

 

[abhijitnath]

If that were not the case, people wouldn't be crazy to spend billions on R&D to develop new formats such as SACD/DVD-A/HDCD etc.

SACD and DVD-A were introduced the year the Philips and Sony patents on the CD expired...every large CE company wanted a share of the format royalties the 2 had been enjoying for 2 decades..I guess ultimately noone won! In the day of 128 kpbs mp3s, who cares about 96/24 or SACD?
Something similar is happening in the BluRay/HDVD world (at least there is a clear single choice there), with the exception that quality differences are much easier to find in video.

 

[Bill Brekke]

I'd like to chime in about the difference in sound quality between a good CD and a SACD. I have about 40 SACDs, now. I was one of you (older) people who stuck with LPs in the 70s when people were moving to Cassettes, though I admit I moved to CDs in the 80s. I don't listen in 5.1, but I do have a big magnet subwoofer I use as a crossover with my good bookshelf speakers and I have Sennheiser HD590 headphones. And when I want to really listen, I turn off the A/C fan, ceiling fan, no dishwasher going, etc. I find that certain SACDs are very clearly superior compared to their CD layers or to other comparable CD material. Some, however, seem a waste of money. I'd say, two thirds have been a dissapointment, but that includes re-releases. I'm talking about DSD SACDs now, not those which go through a 24 bit process and are then transferred. The 24 bit transfers are some of my biggest dissapointments. This is "my theory" as to why the good ones sound so good. While the 44kh sampling of CDs provides a pure-tone range of 22kh for each ear, which is certainly beyond the range of human pure-tone hearing, that's not a good analogy. A SACD samples 2.5 million bits per second. This tells the system to go up or down in amplitude a little bit 2.5 million times per seconds. A standard CD can tell the system to go from mininum amplitude to maximum ampitude and back 20 thousand times a second. This is not what we want. We want the system to sense changes of any kind very, very frequently. An orchestra consists of many competing instruments, including groups of violins and different instruments playing at the same time. On beyond doing justice to pure tones, the media must capture the timbre of each instrument and of multiple instruments, simultaneously. The complexity of this exceeds the resolution of a single 20khz tone. It's not really about the ear, it's about the brain. The brain can resolve these, if given a chance, just as you can make out a conversation three couples people over, with room noise, and music going, but only if you concentrate (with you brain). My A/B comparisons mostly involve playing music on SACD and then switching over to a different player and playing the same music over an optical connection for the CD to the same amplifier, allowing the amplifier to do the digital to analog conversion. I've also tested in other similar configurations over the years and this seems fairest. Coaxial digital connecton for the CD sounds the same to me as optical. Generally, the most noticable improvements, in order of "noticableness", are: traditional string bass, Bass drum (like the big one in a jazz/rock with a pedal)-very soft and rounded, electric bass - soft and rounded, individual violins-piercing but not raspy, groups of violins-vaguely separate and crystaline, trumpets, triangles-very metalic, and cymbols - metallic. Also, instruments seem to be more in a specific place. By the way, I have a hard time giving SACD any credit with improving human voice reproduction. This may be a separate problem relating microphones, I don't know, or maybe nobody is really trying there. Here are some of my favorite examples of SACD improving sound over CD: Beethoven Symphonies by Haitink (Bass, strings, flutes), B.B. King Reflections (Bass drum, electric bass), Hilary Hahn - Mendelssohn Violin Concerto ( violin - but not her DG recordings and not the orchestra in that one ?!?), Rachmaninoff Symph 2 - Ivan Fischer (Violins, Bass, triangles, separation), Chet Baker from the 1950s (Horns and Bass), Bill Evans (from the 50s) (Piano attack, bass) , Gerswin - Rhapsody in Blue -Rochester Philharmonic (Clarinet, Piano attack, triangle). That's about it.

 

[venkatcr]

In the day of 128 kpbs mp3s, who cares about 96/24 or SACD?

Something similar is happening in the BluRay/HDVD world (at least there is a clear single choice there), with the exception that quality differences are much easier to find in video.

I am sorry, but I must disagree with you on this. MP3 at whatever KBPS is nowhere near a Redbook CD, let alone a DVD-A or an audio CD. I have heard clearly audible differences and lack of depth in an MP3 version of the same musical number as compared to a simple Redbook CD. Please understand that to covert a 40 MB to something like 4 MB, you are losing a lot of data irrespective of whatever compression techniques you use. That is the reason, MP3 is called 'lossy' compression.

Please take a look at Stereophile: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD where John Atkinson has very clearly proved that MP3 is not good. I have personally listened to both a MP3 version and a Apple lossless (AIF) version of a song that I ripped myself. On the same audio equipment and on a brand new Classic iPod with good earphones. the difference was like day and night.

John concludes in the article as follows.

QUOTE
Basically, if you want true CD quality from the files on your iPod or music server, you must use WAV or AIF encoding or FLAC, ALC, or WMA Lossless. Both MP3 and AAC introduce fairly large changes in the measured spectra, even at the highest rate of 320kbps. There seems little point in spending large sums of money on superbly specified audio equipment if you are going to play sonically compromised, lossy-compressed music on.
UNQUOTE

I am not a great admirer of Stereophile or John Atkinson. But this is one point I will wholeheartedly agree with him.

Cheers

 

[venkatcr]

Re: Pardon my ignorance !!

Has any one on this forum auditioned a DVD - A Player ? Is there one in India ?

Ms. Shanthi:

I have a Oppo 983 that plays SACD and a DVD-A. This is connected to an Onkyo 875 that can understand and decode LPCM data.

I have listened to a number of DVD-A such as Dhoom 2, Vettayadu Villayadu, and Wagners Overtures Preludes, played by Berliner Philharmoniker conducted by the great Herbert Von Karajan. The Wagner, in particular, was mastered from the original analogue tapes by Abbey Studios, and is a masterpiece. The Dhoom 2 and Vettayadu Vilayadu were also recorded at 24bit/48Khz from mult channel original analogue tapes and sound excellent when heard.

DVD-A envelops you in a way that a Redbook CD can never do. It is a different feeling altogether and has great effect in music that has multiple instruments and singers.

In a Redbook CD called "Ragamala' by Ravi Shankar who plays the Sitar alongwith the Royal Philharmonic conducted by Zubin Mehta - there is a number that I just love. In this number, an artist takes a small bell that he plays in tune with the number and 'walks' across the stage. If you close your eyes, you can actually visualise the bell moving from one end of the stage to another. I would any day pay a premium if I can get a SACD or DVD-A of this great album.

Cheers.

 

[venkatcr]

Srinath opened this thread with a article hea read somewhere. By a strange coincidence, I came across an article by John Atkinson of Stereophile written in 1995 on the same subject. This sounds like a lesson in History.

QUOTE

Perfect Sound Forever?

By John Atkinson ? May, 1995

When some unknown copywriter coined that immortal phrase to promote the worldwide launch of Compact Disc in late 1982, little did he or she foresee how quickly it would become a term of ridicule. Yes, early CDs and players offered low background noise, a flat spectral balance, and freedom from wow and flutter. But all too often, the music encoded in the "perfect-sounding" pits seemed to have taken a vacation, leading the renowned recording engineer John Eargle to offer, in the medium's defense, that if you were to hear just one CD that sounded good, digital technology would be proved to be okay.

While we waited for that exception to truly prove the rule, we found that neither was the word "forever" a guarantee. I remember one radio station proudly proclaiming its allegiance to the future by promising to play CDs exclusively, only to have its very first broadcast marred by a skipping CD.

But even as "perfect sound" and "forever" were being recognized as marketing hype, the problems with both the CD medium and with digital recording were starting to be addressed. It was known even before the CD launch in 1983 that professional digital recorders needed word lengths longer than 16 bits if there was any chance that the data on the CD would have anything approaching true 16-bit resolution. Dreadful digital editors were replaced by transparent hard-disk systems. The performance of analog/digital converters took a quantum leap forward in late 1988 with the introduction of the Robert Adams-designed 20-bit UltraAnalog ADC module. The realization that datastream jitter could significantly reduce signal resolution took rather longer to develop; but coupled with the introduction of quieter, more-linear DAC chips and high-resolution digital filters, this enabled even inexpensive playback systems to achieve true 16-bit resolution in the mid-'90s.

However, even as that was happening, engineers started to realize that significantly better sound quality could be achieved with digital word lengths longer than 16 (see the January 1994 "As We See It"). Mastering techniques and processors such as Sony's Super Bit Mapping, Apogee's UV-22, DG's 4D, and Meridian's 618 the latter used on Concert all preserve a significant amount of 20-bit sound quality on the 16-bit CD. And now we have the commercial availability of High Definition Compatible Digital CD (see our interview with its inventors in this issue), which uses a buried subchannel to take 16-bit replay to a new level of sonic performance at least in the opinions of Robert Harley and myself.

Yet so far, the overall reaction to HDCD has been mixed. Putting aside commercial questions regarding Pacific Microsonics' licensing policy and the fact that only one record company, Reference Recordings, is currently releasing HDCD-encoded CDs, not all who have heard decoded HDCD think it offers significantly improved sound quality. This puzzles me, as I feel HDCD's opening up of the reproduced soundstage and its clearer presentation of recorded detail are reminiscent of what I have heard from true 20-bit digital media. But some denizens of cyberspace have found decoded HDCD recordings to sound merely different rather than better, leading me to muse that if we actually heard perfect sound quality, would we even recognize it for what it was?

The answer to that question will become clearer once more record companies release HDCD-encoded CDs and as more D/A-processor manufacturers incorporate the Pacific Microsonics digital filter chip. I wonder, however, if a more serious criticism of HDCD is that it might be too late. As you will have read in April's "Industry Update" (pp.331-37), the 16-bit CD itself could be superseded. Both Toshiba and Sony/Philips have announced CD-sized media two different "Digital Video Discs" that can carry between four and twelve times as much data as a CD. Although this new technology is aimed at the video market, many see its potential for carrying a music signal encoded with up to 24-bit data words or with a higher sampling rate either of which might render moot the need for HDCD.

Don't throw your CD and laserdisc players in the trash just yet. HDCD offers a real jump forward in sound quality right now, and I don't think a high-density CD medium whichever of the two wins out will be a commercial reality much before early 1997.

But I am excited about the potential for the true coming-together of video and audio offered by DVD. I envision a common-carrier future in which a header on every 5", high-density disc tells a universal decoder what it is: an MPEG-2-encoded movie with a Dolby AC-3-encoded, 5.1-channel soundtrack; or a movie with a DTS Zeta-encoded six-channel soundtrack; or a movie with three different-language, Dolby Pro Logic stereo soundtracks; a 24-bit stereo music recording; a 16-bit, 44.1kHz-sampled, HDCD-encoded, six-channel music recording; a 20-bit, 88kHz-sampled, Ambisonics-encoded surround-sound recording; and so on. All the signal processing would be handled by a versatile DSP engine, the player automatically adjusting the playback decoding algorithm video and/or audio to whatever was appropriate.

And if a new recording technology was introduced, the owner would simply upgrade her player's software. Or, more likely, the disc itself would contain the new instructions for the decoding DSP much as Dolby Stereo Digital films include the AC-3 decoder software in the data area before the movie starts. (The cinema's system automatically updates itself if it detects a more recent software version on the film.)

As with all future-gazing, I'm probably more wrong than right. But one high-density medium for many high-quality formats that's an idea that excites me even more than the introduction of HDCD.

UNQUOTE

I am sure John must be chuckling to himself.

 

[mahiruha]

Hi Guys,
Can anybody please guide me what is the best way to play 24bit 96 Khz music on pc. currently I have realtek HD soundcard getiing my Asuss xonar in couple of days time. Just want to make sure I have the necessary software to play the music. Currently I am using foobar but is it case everytime I want to play a higher resolution file I need to manually change the settings in realtek HD audio manager.
Thanks.

 

[bhagwan]

Do you take analogue out from your PC ?

Or

Do you take a digital out to an out board DAC ?

I use all 3.
MM / Foobar / J River
All 3 sound different & it all depends on your config.

I only take 44.1 / 16 out from my PC to an outboard upsampler.

I used to take a firewire out - Weiss Minerva & that player 24/192 for me.
Great product...

 

[mahiruha]

Hi Shanti,
I will take analogue out from my pc. No external DAC in business. I don't want to upsample just play each file the way they are.
Thanks.

 

[bhagwan]

Hi Shanti,
I will take analogue out from my pc. No external DAC in business. I don't want to upsample just play each file the way they are. Thanks.

I suggest you download Media Monkey - it is free.
Install it & go to the output setting & change it to the config you need.

Basically just google the set up options & you will get some forum that shows you how to do it.
Rather simple.

It will play all your hi rez files for you.
My office computer does it & I use Altec Lansing & it is 'listenable' !!

I have a M Audio Delta 1010 LT [very old] sound card & it works just fine.

Try it, tell me how it goes...All the Best !

 

[deba]

Excellent Post from Srinath. There is no doubt that SACD and DVD-A was introduced in 1999/2000 and even after 10 years it has failed to gain mass market penetration. I have auditioned 96 vs 44.1 and failed to spot any differences. I think even if there is any - its negligible.

Maybe HD Audio has more to do with Placebo effect than improvement in quality.:lol:

So for me its standard stereo 44.1 Audio CD.:yahoo:

 

[bhagwan]

So for me its standard stereo 44.1 Audio CD.

Sir,
I too listen to 16/44.1 & am very happy with it.

However, 24/96 or 24/176 on computer from 2L & Refereance Recordings sounds better for sure.
SACD from a top end SACD Player too sounds better than PCM.
I did a test last weekend. Posted on another thread. dCS Puccini & Meridian 808i.2.
On CD both were very nice. A matter of personal preferance.
However on SACD, the dCS was way better than Pcm - for sure...

Good set up & hi rez is surely a winner. The only downside is the scarsity of 'software' !! :sad:

 

[mahiruha]

I suggest you download Media Monkey - it is free.
Install it & go to the output setting & change it to the config you need.

Basically just google the set up options & you will get some forum that shows you how to do it.
Rather simple.

It will play all your hi rez files for you.
My office computer does it & I use Altec Lansing & it is 'listenable' !!

I have a M Audio Delta 1010 LT [very old] sound card & it works just fine.

Try it, tell me how it goes...All the Best !

Hi shanti,
thanks for the info. I ama aware of monkey audio but this Media monkey is something new to me. It seems monkey and audio goes hand in hand. I will play the files from my computer in my stereo rig lets see how it goes.
Thanks.