# Question about SACD vs. CD



## 13hm13

Please take 15 min out of your time and watch this video:






In the video discussion, please pay special attention to the vlogger's claim about recent SACD releases of classic Deutsche Grammophon recordings. Yes, as I and many others have noted, DG is often quite ... ahem ... lacking in the fidelity department (compared to other contemporaries: EMI, Decca, etc). That said, this vlogger (and others reviewing the same SACD releases) have noted that these new "remastered" releases significantly improve fidelity compared to previous releases. 
I own none of the releases the vlogger notes. Maybe some of you do. So my some questions to those who do:
Are the new releases the vlogger describes a "dramatic" improvement over prev. releases?
What about the CD layer, if it is a dual SACD/CD release?
I don't think many are duals, so it's possible that all the hype is because the new releases have been EQ'd or cleaned up.
My own limited experience with SACD -- over 12 years ago -- was that its quality varied significantly.

Thx!


----------



## schigolch

I buy now very few CDs, and no SACD.

But I do buy now and then DSD files, that are using the same PDM format.

Yes, I also think that the quality varies... as well as it also varies in PCM. The most important thing in a recording is the mastering, in my view.


----------



## NoCoPilot

As a late-middle-aged man, I cannot hear ANY DIFFERENCE between CDs and SACDs (comparing like recordings on my dual CD/SACD player). If there is a difference, my ears are too far gone to hear it.

Couple that with the plethora of SACDs made from old recordings from the '50s and '60s and '70s. Fifty years ago the dynamic range, frequency range and total harmonic distortion of recordings was nowhere near modern standards. In fact, I've detected a shift as recently as about 2010, where recordings prior to that date had no content below 50Hz, and dynamic ranges were limited to about 60dB. It's only been in the past 10-12 years that engineers have learned how to capture the full frequency and full dynamic range of an orchestra at full bore.

As far as I can tell, the spate of SACDs made in the earlier 2000s was one thing and one thing alone: milking the back catalog, one more time, to gullible buyers.


----------



## progmatist

To answer one question: the CD layer is exactly like an audio CD to a non-SACD player. The DSD layer is completely invisible to a CD player.

I personally think it's asinine to continue producing highly encrypted SACDs when so much Hi-Res content, including raw DSD files is on the market. Especially when SACD players are becoming increasingly hard to come by.


----------



## Bulldog

NoCoPilot said:


> As a late-middle-aged man, I cannot hear ANY DIFFERENCE between CDs and SACDs (comparing like recordings on my dual CD/SACD player). If there is a difference, my ears are too far gone to hear it.


With little exception, I hear a major difference. With SACDS, the sound is more immediate and the sound field significantly more open.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Define "immediate" and "open." Try to be objective, not subjective, when you translate these terms.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> Define "immediate" and "open." Try to be objective, not subjective, when you translate these terms.


I was about to ask the very same thing. What on earth is "immediate?"


----------



## NoCoPilot

My wife likes to watch home remodel shows on HGTV. Every single one of the remodels has to be "open concept," bright, airy, clean, and "with a pop of color."

Sometimes words become meaningless through repetition.


----------



## Bulldog

NoCoPilot said:


> Define "immediate" and "open." Try to be objective, not subjective, when you translate these terms.


Find someone else to follow your orders.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> My wife likes to watch home remodel shows on HGTV. Every single one of the remodels has to be "open concept," bright, airy, clean, and "with a pop of color."
> 
> Sometimes words become meaningless through repetition.


Yes but we know what open means when it's used in a remodel show. It means you take down walls so everyone can see you mess in the kitchen. So that whatever you are listening to or watching will be disturbed by everyone in the house. So that you have no elegant room in which to dine in sequestered luxury. It is imperative every human on earth now tear down all the interior walls of their home so they can be like everyone else.

In music, I have no clue what it means.


----------



## NoCoPilot

eljr said:


> In music, I have no clue what it means.


Neither does Bulldog, apparently.


----------



## Bulldog

You guys need to expand your horizons. I said what I wanted to on the subject - so long.


----------



## RobertKC

The author of the linked video ignores important facts.

Here's an objective reason why SACD is superior to CD:


SACD supports 5.1 multi-channel. CD doesn't.

Here's 3 objective reasons why Blu-ray (which the author of the video completely ignores) is superior to CD:


Blu-ray supports 5.1 multi-channel. CD doesn't.
Blu-ray supports high-definition video. CD doesn't support video at all.
Blu-ray has vastly greater storage capacity than the 40-year-old-digital-storage-technology known as Redbook CD.


Classical music lovers sometimes must decide which is more important, their perception of the quality of a performance, or the audio quality of a recording.

IME/IMO, if you want the best audio quality from a recording, that means modern performances/recordings (i.e., performances recorded in the last 15 years or so) that were captured and mastered in multi-channel hi-res digital (e.g., 24bit/192kHz PCM, or DSD), and delivered on a disc featuring DTS-HD MA 5.1 (e.g., Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Ultra HD Blu-ray), or an SACD disc that features multi-channel DSD.

OTOH, if you listen solely to decades-old recordings, then you're limited to decades-old recording quality. In this case, hi-res remastering may or may not improve the sound quality. And a hi-res consumer deliverable (e.g., Blu-ray, SACD, hi-res download) may or may not improve the sound quality. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

Here's a recent post of mine that I think is relevant to this topic: Stereo Equipment you'd buy again...

Here's a relevant thread: https://www.talkclassical.com/54011-blu-ray-videos-classical.html?highlight=


----------



## 13hm13

All else held equal, DSD is the best digital recording / playback format known. It should be ... it has the research and science of Soy/Philips behind it. 
But those two messed things from the get go, crippling their own superior format, that had so much potential. The biggest drawback, IMO, is encryption. Sure, _now_ -- decades later -- there is some DSD avail for download, but the industry missed the boat. Like some of you noted, other high-rez downloads and BluRay discs are also avail., crowding the marketplace.
Another MAJOR drawback is on the production end. One can't easily (or non-destructively) edit or filter DSD in the digital domain. Not like PCM.

DSD is a great format for analog tape preservation or live (direct-to-disc)-like recordings.


----------



## AndorFoldes

RobertKC said:


> Here's an objective reason why SACD is superior to CD:
> 
> 
> SACD supports 5.1 multi-channel. CD doesn't.
> 
> Here's 3 objective reasons why Blu-ray (which the author of the video completely ignores) is superior to CD:
> 
> 
> Blu-ray supports 5.1 multi-channel. CD doesn't.
> Blu-ray supports high-definition video. CD doesn't support video at all.
> Blu-ray has vastly greater storage capacity than the 40-year-old-digital-storage-technology known as Redbook CD.


I don't need any of those things. I just want to listen to music in a simple, practical way.



RobertKC said:


> Classical music lovers sometimes must decide which is more important, their perception of the quality of a performance, or the audio quality of a recording.


My perception is clearly more important to me.



RobertKC said:


> IME/IMO, if you want the best audio quality from a recording, that means modern performances/recordings (i.e., performances recorded in the last 15 years or so) that were captured and mastered in multi-channel hi-res digital (e.g., 24bit/192kHz PCM, or DSD), and delivered on a disc featuring DTS-HD MA 5.1 (e.g., Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Ultra HD Blu-ray), or an SACD disc that features multi-channel DSD.


None of this matters if, say, the microphone placement was bad, or the mastering engineer did a lousy job. Or maybe the musicians just had an off day. There is so much more to recordings than audio resolution.


----------



## jegreenwood

13hm13 said:


> All else held equal, DSD is the best digital recording / playback format known. It should be ... it has the research and science of Soy/Philips behind it.
> But those two messed things from the get go, crippling their own superior format, that had so much potential. *The biggest drawback, IMO, is encryption.* Sure, _now_ -- decades later -- there is some DSD avail for download, but the industry missed the boat. Like some of you noted, other high-rez downloads and BluRay discs are also avail., crowding the marketplace.
> Another MAJOR drawback is on the production end. One can't easily (or non-destructively) edit or filter DSD in the digital domain. Not like PCM.
> 
> DSD is a great format for analog tape preservation or live (direct-to-disc)-like recordings.


Of course, today it is fairly simple to rip the DSD layer of an SACD. The chip used in dozens of SACD and universal players has been "hacked" to allow for it.


----------



## Heck148

AndorFoldes said:


> .....None of this matters if, say, the microphone placement was bad, or the mastering engineer did a lousy job. Or maybe the musicians just had an off day. There is so much more to recordings than audio resolution.


right!! a mediocre. lackluster performance in stunning present-day hi fidelity is still a mediocre, lackluster performance....
I've little or no interest in such recordings...


----------



## Malx

Heck148 said:


> right!! a mediocre. lackluster performance in stunning present-day hi fidelity is still a mediocre, lackluster performance....
> I've little or no interest in such recordings...


Yeah but you would have to concede that it is easier to hear just how mediocre the performance may be on a clearer, higher spec recording


----------



## Heck148

Malx said:


> Yeah but you would have to concede that it is easier to hear just how mediocre the performance may be on a clearer, higher spec recording


That's true in many cases. 
some of the "old" recordings are pretty decent - the original tapes are not bad, in fact, quite good...
for me, the quality of the playing, conducting, will take precedence over the "sound quality" [considered as an independent entity]
I have some recordings from the 40s which are remarkably good....for me, they are preferable to some of the "great" sounding present-day productions of mediocre stuff.


----------



## RobertKC

In my post #13 above, I listed objective benefits of Blu-ray and SACD compared with CDs and LPs.

My subjective opinion is that often modern (i.e., recorded in the last 15 years or so) Blu-ray and SACD deliver better audio quality compared with CDs and LPs. IMO, Blu-ray audio/video discs are capable of delivering a more enjoyable overall experience.

If you'd like to read my long-winded rationale for my preference for Blu-ray, then read on.

Several years ago, I conducted an assessment of the audio quality of more than a dozen recordings of Beethoven Symphony 9, including LP, CDs, SACDs, hi-res download, and Blu-rays. In general, the more modern recordings had superior audio quality. Here's a list of the recordings I sampled:


CD (Archipel) of a 1942 performance by Wilhelm Furtwängler and the Berliner Philharmoniker
SACD (tahra) of a 1954 performance by Wilhelm Furtwängler and the Philharmonia Orchestra London
CD (Testament | EMI) of a 1957 performance by Otto Klemperer and the Philharmonia Chorus & Orchestra
CD (Chesky) of a 1961 performance by Rene Leibowitz and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
SACD (DG) of a 1962 performance by Herbert Von Karajan and the Berliner Philharmoniker
CD (Penguin Classics) of a 1972 performance by Sir Georg Solti and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra
LP (DG) box set copyright dated 1972 of performances of all Beethoven symphonies by Karl Böhm and the Wiener Philharmoniker.
CD (Seraphim Classics) of a 1988 performance by Riccardo Muti and The Philadelphia Orchestra
DVD (Euroarts) of a 2000 performance by Claudio Abbado and the Berliner Philharmoniker (PCM stereo and Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks)
24bit/96kHz FLAC download (DG) from HDTracks.com of a 2002 performance by Claudio Abbado (stereo only)
SACD (BIS) of 2006 performances by Osmo Vanska and the Minnesota Orchestra (stereo and 5.1 tracks)
Blu-ray (DRS | Dacapo Records) box set of 2013 performances of all Beethoven symphonies by Rafael Frühbeck de Burgos and the Danish National Symphony Orchestra (DTS-HD MA 5.0/5.1 and PCM Stereo). 
Blu-ray (Cmajor) box set of 2008 - 2010 performances of all Beethoven symphonies by Christian Thielemann and the Wiener Philharmoniker recorded at the Goldener Saal der Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Vienna (DTS-HD MA 5.0 and PCM Stereo).
Blu-ray (ARTHAUS MUSIK) box set of 2012 performances of all Beethoven symphonies by Mariss Jansons and the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra recorded in Tokyo Suntory Hall (DTS-HD MA 5.0 and PCM Stereo). 
Blu-ray (ARTHAUS MUSIK) box set of 2014 - 2015 performances of all Beethoven symphonies by Philippe Jordan conducting the Orchestra and Chorus of the Opera national de Paris (DTS-HD MA 5.1 and PCM Stereo). 

IMO, the newer Blu-ray and SACD recordings have superior audio quality, and the difference with vintage recordings is not subtle.

My benchmark for the audio quality of classical music reproduced in my home is how classical music sounds when performed live in its intended venue, with no sound reinforcement system - i.e., 100% natural sound. IME, my modern Blu-rays (and SACDs) of large-scale classical music excel at creating the illusion that I'm in the symphony hall or opera house.

Following are my current hi-fi systems that were used during my listening tests, and form the basis of my opinions.

TV room: Main front left & right speakers are Klipsch Palladium P-37F. Center: Klipsch RC-64III. Single rear: Klipsch RP-502S. Subwoofer: Klipsch P-312W. The source is an Oppo UDP-205 for playing Blu-ray and SACDs, and a USB hard drive containing high-res FLAC recordings. I generally use vintage tube amps for music: Scott 399, Fisher X-1000, Scott 299C, McIntosh MX110Z / McIntosh MC240 or McIntosh MC225. I use solid-state amps for movies (and summertime): NAD C375BEE, and an NAD D 3045. A patch panel (banana plugs) allows me to connect the speakers to whichever amp I want, and Niles AXP-1 RCA selector switches connect the Oppo to the amp. HDTV is connected via TOSLINK to the UDP-205 to play audio from broadcast TV via the hi-fi. Chromecast connected to the HDMI input of my UDP-205 for streaming video. Chromecast Audio is connected via analog audio to the NAD C375BEE for internet radio.

Basement: Front, center, and left speakers are Klipsch RF-7 II. A single rear speaker is a Klipsch RF-7. Subwoofers: SVS SB16-Ultra and Klipsch R-115SW (connected via Y-adaptor). Source: Oppo UDP-205 for playing Blu-ray and SACDs, and a USB hard drive containing high-res FLAC recordings. Amps: Scott 272, Inspire "Fire Bottle" SE Stereo Tube Amplifier HO, Scott 222C, Fisher KX-200, Scott 296, Pilot SA-260, Scott LK150, Altec 353A, Kenwood KR-9050. (This system also has a Schiit Loki tone-control. I can connect the power amps direct to the Oppo, or insert the Loki.) A patch panel allows me to connect the speakers to whichever amp I want, and F/F RCA cables enable me to connect an amp to the Oppo, and a power amp to the Loki if I choose to do so. Chromecast Audio is connected via TOSLINK to the UDP-205 for internet radio.

Living room: Stereo speakers are Snell Type CV. Center: Klipsch RC-64III. Single rear: RP-502S. Subwoofer: Klipsch P-312W. The source components are Oppo BDP-105 for playing Blu-ray and SACDs (and a USB hard drive containing high-res FLAC recordings), and Dual 1249 with Stanton 681EE equipped with a new Shibata stylus. Amps include a pair of McIntosh MC30s, Scott 296, McIntosh MX110Z / McIntosh MC275, a pair of Pilot HF-56 mono receivers, an NAD pre-amp and Acurus A250 power-amp for movies, and a McIntosh 2155 that can drive the center channel and single rear speaker or JBL L830s in the kitchen / dining room. A patch panel (banana plugs) allows me to connect the speakers to whichever amp I want, and a F/F RCA cables enable me to connect an amp to the Oppo. Chromecast Audio is connected via analog audio to the NAD pre-amp for internet radio.

Bedroom: Front, center, and left speakers are Klipsch WF-35. SVS SB-2000 Pro subwoofer. Source is an Oppo BDP-95 for playing Pure Audio Blu-ray and SACDs, and a USB hard drive containing high-res FLAC recordings. (No TV.) Fisher 500C drives the left & right speakers. Fisher TA 500 (AM/FM mono receiver) drives the center speaker. Chromecast Audio for internet radio.

Office: Stereo speakers are JBL L880. Source: Windows 10 laptop with Music Streamer II DAC. Amps: Fisher 800B, Scott 299B, and an NAD D 3020 for general internet use (and summertime).​
A few years ago, all 5 of my hi-fi systems were stereo. I assembled a proof-of-concept surround-sound system and listened to modern SACDs and Blu-ray. Based on my satisfaction with that proof-of-concept trial, I converted one of my systems to surround-sound. After living with that surround-sound system for 6 months, I upgraded 3 more of my systems to surround-sound. IMO, that's how much better modern state-of-the-art Blu-ray and SACD are compared with CDs.

I employ my Oppo UDP-205 (x2), BDP-105, and BDP-95 universal players' internal audiophile grade DACS and 5.1 analog audio outputs. Because the rear channels in classical recordings have little content (mostly audience applause), I combine them via a Y-cable. (Oppo has verified that this is OK.) Typically, one vintage stereo tube amp drives the main left & right speakers. Another vintage stereo tube amp drives the center and single rear speaker. My approach may be unorthodox, but it works great in 4 of my 5 hi-fi systems. And - most important - it sounds fabulous for the classical music and opera that I love. (For me, the evolution of recorded music involves Blu-ray, but not AVRs.)

My Oppo universal players can play all types of digital recordings:


CD (stereo only)
DVD (stereo and 5.1)
DVD-Audio (stereo and 5.1)
SACD (stereo and 5.1)
Blu-ray (DTS-HD MA 5.1, plus stereo track, and sometimes additional audio tracks)
Pure Audio Blu-ray (DTS-HD MA 5.1, plus stereo track, and sometimes additional audio tracks)
Ultra HD Blu-ray (DTS-HD MA 5.1, plus stereo track, and sometimes additional audio tracks)
Hi-res downloads: 24bit/192kHz PCM (stereo and 5.1), hi-res DSD (stereo and 5.1)

Additionally, I can play streaming services (e.g., Spotify Premium) and internet radio (e.g., kusc.org) via Chromecast Audio connected via TOSLINK into my Oppo UDP-205. (And I can play streaming services in my office via my PC.)

Based on listening to examples of all of the digital recording formats listed above (except DVD-Audio), and LPs, on a wide variety of equipment, my subjective opinion is that modern Blu-ray delivers the best audio (and video) quality. For example, in my basement system, four tower speakers plus two subwoofers collectively provide plenty of "acoustical power" in this average size listening room. (I sit approximately 10 feet from the speakers.) Collectively, they total four 1 ¾" titanium compression drivers mated to Tractrix horns, eight 10" woofers, one 15" powered subwoofer, and one 16" powered subwoofer. The dynamic range and frequency range of modern Blu-ray played on this system comes close to what I remember hearing in the concert hall. Playing a modern Blu-ray on my basement system (or living room, or TV room system) is a different experience from playing an LP on a stereo system.

Even listening at low volume late at night on my bedroom system, my multi-channel SACD of Charles Bruffy conducting Rachmaninoff's "All Night Vigil" sounds fabulous. The matching left, center, and right speakers deliver a beautiful presentation of the music.

Moreover, Blu-ray (and Ultra HD Blu-ray) classical music recordings include high-definition video. High-definition video is particularly relevant for ballet and opera (i.e., seeing the singers, dancers and scenery). Another major benefit of Blu-ray audio/video discs (Blu-ray, Ultra HD Blu-ray) is the ability to see the libretto of an opera on the HDTV screen. (For example, providing an on-screen English translation of an opera sung in Italian.) Additionally, I think that high-definition video is _usually _enjoyable for classical symphonic concerts (i.e., seeing the conductor, musicians, and concert hall). Blu-ray has enabled me to see concert halls all over the world that I otherwise would never have seen, and enables me to see many different conductors in action.

Blu-ray audio/video is my favorite format. Pure Audio Blu-ray and SACD are my next choices.

I'm not saying that vintage recordings can't be enjoyable. I'm not saying that CDs and LPs can't be enjoyable. And I'm not saying that music can't be enjoyed via a modest stereo (or mono) hi-fi system.

I'm saying that based on my significant experience with a wide variety of recordings and equipment, Blu-ray is much more enjoyable for me, because it comes closest to the live concert hall experience.

I recognize that other music lovers may have different goals for their hi-fi system, and different constraints for their hi-fi system. To each their own.

P.S.

For anyone who wants to "dip their toe" into Blu-ray, IMO the following is a good example of a box set:










Rafael Frühbeck de Burgos conducting the Danish NSO


Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphonies Nos. 1-9
Joaquín Rodrigo: Concierto de Aranjuez
Hector Berlioz: Symphonie fantastique, Op. 14
Richard Strauss: Eine Alpensinfonie (An Alpine Symphony), Op. 64, TrV 233

Excellent DTS-HD MA 5.0/5.1 audio, and 1080p video. This box set is currently listed on amazon.com for $44.28 with free shipping. IMO this box set is an excellent value - i.e., a lot of music for the money.

Here's just a few of my other Blu-rays that I enjoy:





































For some composers, I own more than one box set of Blu-rays of all symphonies, featuring different conductors and orchestras.

I also own and enjoy many opera and ballet Blu-rays.

YouTube has excerpts from many classical Blu-rays, which provides a no-risk way to get an idea of what a recording is like, recognizing that YouTube's audio and video quality isn't as good as Blu-ray.


----------



## RobertKC

Heck148 said:


> right!! a mediocre. lackluster performance in stunning present-day hi fidelity is still a mediocre, lackluster performance....
> I've little or no interest in such recordings...


I'm not a music scholar, so I'm probably easier to satisfy regarding the performance. I enjoy many modern conductors and orchestras.


----------



## Subutai

Be that as it may, I am recently beginning to discover that I actually prefer mp3 audio sound more so then my standard CDs when played in the car. It may be that I have a superior MP3 player connected via Bluetooth compared to my standard Car CD player. But I find I find so much more detail in the lossy MP3 then lossless CD. Anyone else sensed this, or is it Memorex?


----------



## 13hm13

This is getting off-topic ... but on the topic of old recordings and fidelity .... one's imagination might be forced into an "overactive" state to "extract" more from, say, 1940s mono recording. MAYBE, then, that "handicap" brings the music and performance more in the forefront. 
Lately, I've been deliberately seeking out older recordings ... playing them back on my high-end system. Some of those war-time recordings have so much passion and violence that they may indeed be best served on acetate


----------



## RobertKC

13hm13 said:


> This is getting off-topic ... but on the topic of old recordings and fidelity .... one's imagination might be forced into an "overactive" state to "extract" more from, say, 1940s mono recording. MAYBE, then, that "handicap" brings the music and performance more in the forefront.
> Lately, I've been deliberately seeking out older recordings ... playing them back on my high-end system. Some of those war-time recordings have so much passion and violence that they may indeed be best served on acetate


My understanding is that many people regard the 1942 Furtwängler recording of Beethoven 9 that I listed earlier as historically significant. Per the liner notes, this recording was made from a radio broadcast onto seven 12-inch "Decelith" discs, and the audio quality is very poor.

OTOH, I prefer the 1954 performance by Wilhelm Furtwängler and the Philharmonia Orchestra London that was remastered and delivered on SACD.










I own approximately 20 SACDs that are RCA Living Stereo or Mercury Living Presence remastered vintage recordings.

For those who aren't familiar with the history, some RCA Living Stereo recordings from the 1950s were originally recorded in 3 channels (left, center, right) on magnetic tape. Some of these recordings have been remastered from the original analog tapes and delivered as 3 channel recordings on SACD. Similarly, some Mercury Living Presence vintage recordings (e.g., Janos Starker) were recorded on 35mm magnetic film, and some of these recordings have been remastered and delivered on SACD in the original 3 channel format.

For example, I own the following SACD (and the 1950s era LP pressing) of Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos and find them enjoyable.










The Mendelssohn Violin Concerto performed by Heifetz was recorded by RCA in 1959 in 3 channels (left, center, right) on analog tape, and the SACD delivers the original 3 channels. The SACD's Technical Notes state: "In remastering these tapes, we kept the signal path as short as possible. No signal processing was necessary to 'improve' these extraordinary tapes." This SACD sounds surprisingly good for a 1959 recording. (The Beethoven Violin Concerto was recorded in 1955 on 2 tracks.)

As I said earlier, IMO recorded music can be enjoyed with less than state-of-the-art recordings and hi-fi systems.


----------



## progmatist

NoCoPilot said:


> Define "immediate" and "open." Try to be objective, not subjective, when you translate these terms.


I would add "transparent" to "open." By opening up the mix, the sound of every instrument and effect has more room to expand, making each and everyone more individually audible. Reverb in particular sounds lighter, airier, and more free flowing throughout the mix. Because it has more space in which to flow. Background instruments and effects have less tendency to get lost in the clutter.



13hm13 said:


> All else held equal, DSD is the best digital recording / playback format known. It should be ... it has the research and science of Soy/Philips behind it.
> But those two messed things from the get go, crippling their own superior format, that had so much potential. The biggest drawback, IMO, is encryption. Sure, _now_ -- decades later -- there is some DSD avail for download, but the industry missed the boat. Like some of you noted, other high-rez downloads and BluRay discs are also avail., crowding the marketplace.
> Another MAJOR drawback is on the production end. One can't easily (or non-destructively) edit or filter DSD in the digital domain. Not like PCM.
> 
> DSD is a great format for analog tape preservation or live (direct-to-disc)-like recordings.


DSD recording and editing is out of reach for most. Back in the 80s, a 16/44.1 digital recorder was expensive enough. A 20bit, 96KHz recorder was on a whole nother level. Same with DSD vs PCM today. The USB audio interfaces, along with the ProTools, Logic, Cubase, et cetera, et cetera one buys from Guitar Center ain't gonna cut it. The hardware and software required to work with DSD is very high-end.


----------



## Heck148

RobertKC said:


> I'm not a music scholar, so I'm probably easier to satisfy regarding the performance. I enjoy many modern conductors and orchestras.


I do too, "new" certainly isn't bad, per se....but there is a magic, a real unity of ensemble and purpose in some of the past recordings...some of the conductor/orchestra combinations were really quite special.


----------



## eljr

Heck148 said:


> I do too, "new" certainly isn't bad, per se....but there is a magic, a real unity of ensemble and purpose in some of the past recordings...some of the conductor/orchestra combinations were really quite special.


Did they become better through nostalgia? That is what I have found.


----------



## Triplets

I didn’t listen to the video, perhaps later. I will say that I have many Karajan/BPO releases on Blu Ray Audio, and they always are a huge improvement over the red book CDs


----------



## Heck148

eljr said:


> Did they become better through nostalgia? That is what I have found.


I don't think so....it's more by head to head comparison....

truth told, I don't hear many orchestras these days that can match some of the great ensembles of the past - there are fine orchestras today, no doubt, and the best of course stack up well with those of any period....but you listen to some of those Chicago, NYPO, Cleveland, LeningradPO, VPO, Philadelphia, LondonSO, CzechPO, etc from past decades....they set a very, very high standard....sections were really "settled in" with longtime principals, with preservation of the tone and style of performance...led by great conductors who devoted long years building the ensembles towards an ideal goal....
We are fortunate that so many of these performances are preserved in decent, sometimes excellent sound...


----------



## eljr

Heck148 said:


> I don't think so....it's more by head to head comparison....
> 
> truth told, I don't hear many orchestras these days that can match some of the great ensembles of the past - there are fine orchestras today, no doubt, and the best of course stack up well with those of any period....but you listen to some of those Chicago, NYPO, Cleveland, LeningradPO, VPO, Philadelphia, LondonSO, CzechPO, etc from past decades....they set a very, very high standard....sections were really "settled in" with longtime principals, with preservation of the tone and style of performance...led by great conductors who devoted long years building the ensembles towards an ideal goal....
> We are fortunate that so many of these performances are preserved in decent, sometimes excellent sound...


and how do you eliminate the bias in nostalgia during your tests? 

I have an interesting perspective on this. Knowing how bias affects what we hear, I say go with it. If, to you (or me or anyone) something sounds better, so be it. It is of little consequence if the "better" though better sound or bias. 
What I do think important is that people don't represent their preference as fact.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with you, just shooting the **** as it were. Seems to me most things improves as time wears on. Things are perfected that were good. Things that were serviceable become good. It's pretty much the nature of man to not stumble backward in endeavor. To always move the needle forward.

Certainly I have no quibbles with orchestras of the past. The ones you mention, IMO are as good as it gets.


----------



## Heck148

eljr said:


> and how do you eliminate the bias in nostalgia during your tests?


I try to listen intensely and as objectively as possible...listen to what's being played, or what's coming out of the speakers....
I know a huge number of orchestral works and have played so many...score study is helpful too...listen to what's happening, compared with what's supposed to be happening.


----------



## 13hm13

RobertKC said:


> I own approximately 20 SACDs that are RCA Living Stereo or Mercury Living Presence remastered vintage recordings.


I own some of those, too. 
Play them back on an aftermarket modified (for audiophile improvement) Pioneer DV-59 "Elite" universal player.

And I play the CD layer back on a (believe it or not) heavily modified multi-bit Philips CD player (late 1980s). 
And the CD layer, on the Philips, beats the SACD on the Pioneer every time. 
I'm sure if I had a high end SACD player, or if my Pioneer were further modified, I could probably make the SACD "win".


----------



## SixFootScowl

I don't care about the sound quality of SACD, but am concerned to be able to rip or play it. I understand SACD needs as special player and that to play it on regular CD players and drives you have to get what is called the Hybrid SACD, and I do have some of those. I did not watch the video so maybe this was covered.


----------



## mbhaub

13hm13 said:


> Lately, I've been deliberately seeking out older recordings ... playing them back on my high-end system. Some of those war-time recordings have so much passion and violence that they may indeed be best served on acetate


Me too. I've been slowly getting through that huge Ormandy/Philadelphia box of 120 cd in glorious mono. It's been a revelation and thoroughly entertaining adventure. I even listen with headphones and the creaky mono sound doesn't interfere one iota. The music making, the passion, the excitement is totally engrossing. No one conducts like this today and its our loss. The playing level of the Philadelphia Orchestra in the late '40s through the late '50s is just astonishing.

And in addition, I picked up mostly mono sets with Rodzinski, Markevitch, Munch and Walter. Incredible, incandescent performances the likes of which we'll never have again. Those mono recordings have a lot to teach us if we are willing to give them a listen.


----------



## AndorFoldes

Triplets said:


> I didn't listen to the video, perhaps later. I will say that I have many Karajan/BPO releases on Blu Ray Audio, and they always are a huge improvement over the red book CDs


Very possible, but are you sure that this is because of the audio format, or could it be that the Blu Ray remasterings are better?


----------



## AndorFoldes

mbhaub said:


> Me too. I've been slowly getting through that huge Ormandy/Philadelphia box of 120 cd in glorious mono. It's been a revelation and thoroughly entertaining adventure. I even listen with headphones and the creaky mono sound doesn't interfere one iota. The music making, the passion, the excitement is totally engrossing. No one conducts like this today and its our loss. The playing level of the Philadelphia Orchestra in the late '40s through the late '50s is just astonishing.


While I'm not an audiophile, I would be hard pressed to listen to a 120 CD boxed set of mono recordings. I guess we all have our tolerance levels. Not to say anything against the performances themselves, which I'm sure are splendid.


----------



## Heck148

mbhaub said:


> Me too. I've been slowly getting through that huge Ormandy/Philadelphia box of 120 cd in glorious mono. It's been a revelation and thoroughly entertaining adventure. I even listen with headphones and the creaky mono sound doesn't interfere one iota. The music making, the passion, the excitement is totally engrossing. No one conducts like this today and its our loss. The playing level of the Philadelphia Orchestra in the late '40s through the late '50s is just astonishing.


I agree...the sound on many of the mid-late 50s recordings is really quite good, and the mono recordings are decent as well...I've found that adding a center channel enhances the mono sound - the sound spectrum [left-right-center] is filled out...
The performances are real standouts in many cases...the passion, excitement is palpable - the section ensemble, the unity of purpose is really infectious....I've made a similar point on various threads.....In many cases, I simply don't hear that expressiveness, the intensity, the virtuosity exhibited on many current/recent recordings...
Those conductor/orchestra combinations of the past set a very high standard.
At present, current orchestras may have a stand by stand higher level of technical proficiency thru the sections than those of the past...[not necessarily principals, tho!!] - but I don't know if this overall increase in technical ability necessarily coalesces into a better corporate, total ensemble presentation...
even some of the '40s mono recordings are tough to beat for performance excitement, expression and great ensemble - ie -

Mahler #4/Walter/NYPO
Ravel -La Valse/Reiner/PittsSO
Shostakovich #9/Kurtz/NYPO

to name just a few....


----------



## progmatist

AndorFoldes said:


> While I'm not an audiophile, I would be hard pressed to listen to a 120 CD boxed set of mono recordings. I guess we all have our tolerance levels. Not to say anything against the performances themselves, which I'm sure are splendid.


Many people are more concerned with the performance than the sound quality. There's actually a market for VHS tapes of bootleg concert recordings. Shot from the audience with a handheld camcorder, before there were smart phones.


----------



## 13hm13

About mono and compromised fidelity (up to a point) potentially _benefiting_ a performance or score ...
... listen about 12:42 into Brucker 8/ Jochum (1949 recording) .... 




The performance is blazing ... but being held back by the prison bars. Ahh ... that tension!


----------



## NoCoPilot

RobertKC said:


> Classical music lovers sometimes must decide which is more important, their perception of the quality of a performance, or the audio quality of a recording.


True story, but there is some music that cries out for the best possible recording: Stravinsky, Copland's 3rd, pipe organ, Higdon, Daugherty, [your favorite spectacular here]. Other music does not rely so much on dynamics and extremes of frequency response, and the quality of the performance takes over: Chopin, Mozart, Brahms, etc. I'd take a poorly recorded-- no, make that a dated recording over a poor performance anyday. But ideally we shouldn't have to choose!


RobertKC said:


> The author of the linked video ignores important facts.


Thank you for pointing that out. I was tempted to say I wouldn't trust this reviewer as far as I could throw him, but thought that might be unkind. The guy is remarkably clueless.


----------



## Triplets

I love SACD-currently playing Andrew Liston and Oslo in Rachmaninov Second Symphony—but Red Book CD has gotten very good with current DACs. As for burning a SACD to a HD, the CD layer now suffices for me. I listen to many SACDs now that way but will play the actual disc if I want the Full Fat experience. It isn’t like choosing between awful and good, more like between great and somewhat greater


----------



## NoCoPilot

progmatist said:


> I would add "transparent" to "open." By opening up the mix, the sound of every instrument and effect has more room to expand, making each and everyone more individually audible. Reverb in particular sounds lighter, airier, and more free flowing throughout the mix. Because it has more space in which to flow. Background instruments and effects have less tendency to get lost in the clutter.


Okay, that's a LITTLE more to work with than Bulldog offered. However, unless your playback mechanism is a morass of THD and IMD, the qualities you describe are much more due to recording and engineering than playback. Two formats of the same recording should sound nearly identical. If they don't, your playback is way below normal.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> there is some music that cries out for the best possible recording


which music does not benefit with the best possible recording? Poorly performed music would be about it, no?


----------



## NoCoPilot

All music benefits from the best possible recording of course, but with solo piano, string quartets, Gregorian Chant, or solo harp there is not the dynamic range or frequency range of a full symphony orchestra.

Microphones have not improved much in 50 years. Recording equipment has.

And I hesitate to include the harp, because I have one recording where you can clearly hear the harpist activating the foot pedals against the wooden studio (stage?) floor.


----------



## RobertKC

Here's an excerpt from an historic performance of "Madama Butterfly" that I enjoy. In my fantasy scenario, this recording would feature state-of-the-art hi-res-multi-channel-audio and high-definition video.






I particularly enjoy modern performances that feature excellent audio/video quality, such as this excerpt from a film adaptation of "La Bohème" that has excellent audio/video quality on Blu-ray:






And, this excerpt from a film adaptation of "Tosca" that I own on Blu-ray:






And, this excerpt from a live concert that is stunning on Blu-ray:


----------



## progmatist

NoCoPilot said:


> Okay, that's a LITTLE more to work with than Bulldog offered. However, unless your playback mechanism is a morass of THD and IMD, the qualities you describe are much more due to recording and engineering than playback. Two formats of the same recording should sound nearly identical. If they don't, your playback is way below normal.


Bear in mind certain human perceptions cannot be quantified, and not every human perceives the same things. As I stated in another thread, most people simply cannot hear the more open, transparent sound. In the same way and for the same reason most people can't hear the individual notes in a chord. The way most young people could never qualify as a naval Sonar Technician, because they can't hear the subtle difference between the various tones. Before spending a single dollar training new Sonar Techs, the US Navy will thoroughly test candidates' hearing, to ensure they can in fact distinguish the various tones. One of my own A School classmates was originally slated to be a Sonar Tech, but failed the hearing test. He instead trained to be an Avionics Tech.


----------



## eljr

progmatist said:


> Bear in mind certain human perceptions cannot be quantified,


like what?



> most people simply cannot hear the more open, transparent sound


or it's just that no one can define it in relatable terms which would give rise to speculation on it's existence


----------



## progmatist

eljr said:


> like what?
> 
> or it's just that no one can define it in relatable terms which would give rise to speculation on it's existence


Similarly, some people at the high end are Super Recognizers, while some at the low end are Face Blind. The latter can't recognize anybody's face. Most people with average recognition can recognize other people far better than facial recognition software. If human facial recognition was quantifiable, it could be replicated in fool proof software.

In music, tone deaf people at the low end can't even hear the difference between chords.


----------



## eljr

progmatist said:


> Similarly, some people at the high end are Super Recognizers, while some at the low end are Face Blind. The latter can't recognize anybody's face. Most people with average recognition can recognize other people far better than facial recognition software. If human facial recognition was quantifiable, it could be replicated in fool proof software.
> 
> In music, tone deaf people at the low end can't even hear the difference between chords.


I assure you, human facial recognition is made objective and can be improved. (I assume that is what you mean by "quantifiable")

That there are great mysteries that cannot be unraveled is hog wash. "Open" is nonsense.

sorry, it is what it is

Peace


----------



## progmatist

eljr said:


> I assure you, human facial recognition is made objective and can be improved. (I assume that is what you mean by "quantifiable")
> 
> That there are great mysteries that cannot be unraveled is hog wash. "Open" is nonsense.
> 
> sorry, it is what it is
> 
> Peace


If machines could match human perception, captcha as a means of verifying humanity would become useless. And for the purposes of positive ID, facial rec at best can narrow down a pool of suspects. The final determination must still be made by a human. If you ask a Super Recognizer how they're able to recognize absolutely everybody, do you think they'd be able to articulate it in any coherent manner? It's a mystery to them how the rest of us can't.


----------



## eljr

progmatist said:


> If machines could


give it time my friend give it time

all is discoverable, nothing is mysterious or not discernable.

all capabilities are not held now nor will be held ever less for one point on the line of time but trite subject such as recognition is being harvested as i type

peace


----------



## NoCoPilot

eljr said:


> "Open" is nonsense.


I wouldn't go that far, but when somebody cannot define what they mean by "openness" I do begin to question whether they understand what they're talking about.

Audio is filled with "woo merchants" who will sell you crystals to mount on your wall, because a portion of "the audiophile community" doesn't understand the difference between science and magic.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> I wouldn't go that far, but when somebody cannot define what they mean by "openness" I do begin to question whether they understand what they're talking about.
> 
> Audio is filled with "woo merchants" who will sell you crystals to mount on your wall, because a portion of "the audiophile community" doesn't understand the difference between science and magic.


i would not be so quick to attack the audiophile community

most people do not understand the difference between science and magic.


----------



## NoCoPilot

The farther you go into audiophilia the higher the percentage of woo. It's just the nature of the beast. Beyond a certain point you're not dealing with the science of audio reproduction anymore.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> The farther you go into audiophilia the higher the percentage of woo. It's just the nature of the beast. Beyond a certain point you're not dealing with the science of audio reproduction anymore.


IMHO, you have an anti audiophile bias.

For grins and giggles, why don't you define just what an audiophile is.

and what is it that makes him less aware of science than the average slob ?

Thanks


----------



## NoCoPilot

eljr said:


> IMHO, you have an anti audiophile bias.
> 
> For grins and giggles, why don't you define just what an audiophile is.
> 
> and what is it that makes him less aware of science than the average slob ?
> 
> Thanks


Well, I guess I'd make a distinction between a "lover of high fidelity music reproduction" and an "audiophile" because the latter term has been tarred and feathered with all the outlandish associations and crystals on the walls.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Audio_woo

Comparable to the distinction between a "lover of fine wine" and an oenophiliac.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/185056/the-billionaires-vinegar-by-benjamin-wallace/


----------



## NoCoPilot

eljr said:


> and what is it that makes him less aware of science than the average slob ?


Just to address this point specifically, there are SOME in the audiophile community -- present company excepted of course -- who think that they can hear things other people can't hear, can make distinctions other people can't make, can discern distortions that other people can't discern. "What, you can't hear that? Well then you're stupid."

It doesn't matter that what they claim to hear can't be measured, or even CAN be measured and disagrees with their perceptions. "I know what I hear, and no science is going to change my mind. My ears are superhuman."

They've never heard of "confirmation bias" or "self-delusion."


----------



## progmatist

NoCoPilot said:


> Just to address this point specifically, there are SOME in the audiophile community -- present company excepted of course -- who think that they can hear things other people can't hear, can make distinctions other people can't make, can discern distortions that other people can't discern. "What, you can't hear that? Well then you're stupid."
> 
> It doesn't matter that what they claim to hear can't be measured, or even CAN be measured and disagrees with their perceptions. "I know what I hear, and no science is going to change my mind. My ears are superhuman."
> 
> They've never heard of "confirmation bias" or "self-delusion."


When attempts are made to prove we're not actually hearing what we "think" we're hearing, it's an attempt to prove a negative. In my own experience, when adjusting my vinyl noise cleaning software, I can hear when I start over-adjusting and hearing less and less of what I hear in Hi-Res. If what I'm hearing is imaginary, that's one hell of an auditory hallucination.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> Well, I guess I'd make a distinction between a "lover of high fidelity music reproduction" and an "audiophile" because the latter term has been tarred and feathered with all the outlandish associations and crystals on the walls.
> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Audio_woo
> 
> Comparable to the distinction between a "lover of fine wine" and an oenophiliac.
> https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/185056/the-billionaires-vinegar-by-benjamin-wallace/


I think I would be considered and audiophile yet I am most definitely an objectivist.

Yes, I think many use the term to disparage others but I won't shy from the label. I will not replace the label as you suggest either.

Others hold no such power over me. Especially when I so keenly understand their motivations.

Peace


----------



## 13hm13

Not sure why these two 1940s recordings needed the SACD treatment .... but I'm listening to them now ... impressed by the sonics and performance .... but the SACD layer is not an improvement.

https://www.discogs.com/release/125...iener-Philharmoniker-Symphony-No-8-In-C-Minor


----------



## NoCoPilot

13hm13 said:


> Not sure why these two 1940s recordings needed the SACD treatment ....


New life for dormant catalog


----------



## Triplets

NoCoPilot said:


> I wouldn't go that far, but when somebody cannot define what they mean by "openness" I do begin to question whether they understand what they're talking about.
> 
> Audio is filled with "woo merchants" who will sell you crystals to mount on your wall, because a portion of "the audiophile community" doesn't understand the difference between science and magic.


Measurements aren't everything. Having said that, SACDs use DSD which samples the incoming signal at something like 2.5M times/second, compared to standard Red Book CD at 44K/second. The disc itself doesn't matter, as a DSD download will similarly beat the pants off of a standar resolution download . As a rule, SACDs, properly decoded, do tend to capture more ambience, which sometimes will be described as openness.
It is reasonable to question whether these benefits can be realized on older source material. I did pick up , secondhand, a Furtwangler SACD, out of curiosity, and compared it to aCD I had of the same concert issued by EMi/Warner. The SACD had been issued by EMI years ago so I don't even know if it is the same remastering (different engineering people are listed so I suspect not).
I preferred the CD, as the SACD sounded more diffuse and hazy. A limited sample size, to be sure, but I will not be rushing out to buy more pre stereo SACDs


----------



## AndorFoldes

Triplets said:


> Measurements aren't everything. Having said that, SACDs use DSD which samples the incoming signal at something like 2.5M times/second, compared to standard Red Book CD at 44K/second. The disc itself doesn't matter, as a DSD download will similarly beat the pants off of a standar resolution download . As a rule, SACDs, properly decoded, do tend to capture more ambience, which sometimes will be described as openness.
> It is reasonable to question whether these benefits can be realized on older source material. I did pick up , secondhand, a Furtwangler SACD, out of curiosity, and compared it to aCD I had of the same concert issued by EMi/Warner. The SACD had been issued by EMI years ago so I don't even know if it is the same remastering (different engineering people are listed so I suspect not).
> I preferred the CD, as the SACD sounded more diffuse and hazy. A limited sample size, to be sure, but I will not be rushing out to buy more pre stereo SACDs


Yes, the recording, mixing, mastering and playback equipment are all surely more important than the audio resolution, which for CD already covers the humanly audible frequency spectrum.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> Just to address this point specifically, there are SOME in the audiophile community -- present company excepted of course -- who think that they can hear things other people can't hear, can make distinctions other people can't make, can discern distortions that other people can't discern. "What, you can't hear that? Well then you're stupid."
> 
> It doesn't matter that what they claim to hear can't be measured, or even CAN be measured and disagrees with their perceptions. "I know what I hear, and no science is going to change my mind. My ears are superhuman."
> 
> They've never heard of "confirmation bias" or "self-delusion."


I agree that some in the audiophile community make claims that cannot be verified. Fact is, people do this in all walks of life all day long. It's simply part of the human condition.

I challenge such claims all the time. It is important for people who make unverifiable claims like this to state the personal nature of the claim and not to claim anything more. As long as one says "to me" it sounds better, I am fine with whatever they hear.

The placebo effect is real and if their enjoyment is enhanced by it, God bless them. One would be just as wrong to say the placebo effect is not real, that they do not experience enhanced enjoyment.

Peace


----------



## NoCoPilot

Triplets said:


> Measurements aren't everything.


"Measurements aren't everything"? That is essentially asserting "science isn't everything."

Which is letting magical thinking and supernatural effects into the discussion. If something is real, it should be measurable. If it's not measurable, then it either isn't real, or you're not measuring the right thing.



Triplets said:


> As a rule, SACDs, properly decoded, do tend to capture more ambience, which sometimes will be described as openness.


I hear this all the time, but nobody can explain the science behind it. Standard Redbook goes up to 22kHz, so presumably this "ambience" one is hearing is above 22k? But I've tested my hearing, and I cannot hear even 20k anymore, much less 2.8mHz. How is an effect supposed to be audible if it's out of the humanly-audible range?



> DSD takes a different approach to the creation of a high resolution audio signal. Instead of using many bits of information in the signal, DSD uses a single bit. However, instead of sampling the information several thousand times a second, this single bit samples 2.8 million times a second to generate the audio signal. The result is still a high-res signal it's just generated in a completely different way.


https://www.cambridgeaudio.com/usa/en/blog/what-dsd

I really would like someone to explain the science to me. Maybe it's real... but I suspect eljr's explanation of "placebo effect" or "confirmation bias" is probably closer to the truth.


----------



## Joe B

I've been reading this thread since it started and would like to throw in my 2 cents.

I've got a 5.1 system in my living room, and listening to multi-channel SACD's is enjoyable. I can not actually say anything about the sonic differences between the DSD layer and the Redbook layer, as all digital signals are converted to a 32 bit signal and processed by my room correction software prior to going through the DAC. Any 'real' comparisons would therefore be impossible.

That said, I have purchased SACD's. Multi-channel playback can increase soundstage and imaging and gives you a better seat at the performance. I have not purchased anything multi-channel which was not captured in that format. I do have a few Mobile Fidelity SACD's which are 2 channel SACD's. These recordings sound great, but the differences between the original release and the 2 channel SACD is all about the re-mastering, and you can hear that.

Now in regards to differences between the DSD and PCM formats I can give my anecdotal experience. The DAC/headphone amp I use for my headphone rig in my office can play back 16/44.1, 16/48, 24/48, 24/96, 24/192 in the PCM format as well as DSD 64 and DSD 128. I've downloaded music samples from the 2L test bench to do comparisons. Using Foobar as a music player, I'm able to make a switch between one format and another in roughly 1-2 seconds, so there is really no time to "forget" what it sounded like prior to a change.

Here is what I've experienced repeatedly:

All high-res formats sound better than Redbook. 24/96 sounds slightly better. 24/192 more so. DSD 64 is very similar to 24/192, but I prefer 24/192. DSD 128 is great, sounding better than 24/192. The samples are all played back on the same equipment so sonic differences can be attributed to differences in the format.

There are upscaling devices and DACS (Chord comes first to mind) out on the mark which can up-vert Redbook's 44.1kHz to 705.6kHz. I've read that listening for the first time to a favorite recording is revelatory.

Now, all THAT said, I think the bottom line is the quality of the original recording and the mastering. You can't add anything in the audio chain. If its not there in the first place, you'll never hear it. What truly blows my mind is the amount of sonic material that is picked up with quality mics and skillful engineers. Most of my CD's sound fabulous.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Thank you Joe for a cogent and non-hysterical response. You said hi-res sounds "better"...

In what way better? Pull up a section of music where you can hear the difference, and tell me what you can hear in one resolution that you can't hear in the other.

I need to know what the difference is, before I can even begin to investigate the science behind it.


----------



## NoCoPilot

> The DSD format benefits listeners because the sampling rates go up to an incredible 2.8MHz or 5.6MHz and 11.2Mhz, which is 64 or 128 and 256 times greater than the rate of a standard audio CD, respectively. However, it does so at 1-bit depth, rather than the up-to-24-bit rate you'll get in some of the other formats listed below. So every time it captures audio data, it captures less, but it does so with astonishing regularity.


https://www.highdeftapetransfers.ca/pages/formats-explained

Explanations like this are totally not helpful. Yes, 2.8mHz is "astonishingly regular" but 44.1kHz is not exactly random either. Nyquist theorem says 44.1 gives response to 22k, so why is sampling more frequently (with less resolution) able to capture more information, in the audible range of 20-20,000 cycles?

A few years ago somebody tried to tell me that tiny squiggles in the waveform fell between the samples on 44.1, and so were not captured. But "falling between the samples" is exactly what it means to be above 22kHz, and thus those squiggles were not audible anyway.


----------



## progmatist

Triplets said:


> Measurements aren't everything. Having said that, SACDs use DSD which samples the incoming signal at something like 2.5M times/second, compared to standard Red Book CD at 44K/second. The disc itself doesn't matter, as a DSD download will similarly beat the pants off of a standar resolution download . As a rule, SACDs, properly decoded, do tend to capture more ambience, which sometimes will be described as openness.
> It is reasonable to question whether these benefits can be realized on older source material. I did pick up , secondhand, a Furtwangler SACD, out of curiosity, and compared it to aCD I had of the same concert issued by EMi/Warner. The SACD had been issued by EMI years ago so I don't even know if it is the same remastering (different engineering people are listed so I suspect not).
> I preferred the CD, as the SACD sounded more diffuse and hazy. A limited sample size, to be sure, but I will not be rushing out to buy more pre stereo SACDs


I would point out DSD and PCM are apples and oranges. DSD is only 1 bit wide, while PCM is between 8 and 64 bits wide.

*EDIT:* What you describe as more ambience, I described in post 25 as the reverb in particular sounding lighter, airier and more free flowing throughout the mix. If you listen to vinyl and cassette versions of 80s recordings, they sound soaking wet with reverb. That's because in the early days of digital recording, they compensated for reverb blunting by simply cranking up the level of the reverb. By the 90s, they found better, more subtle ways of dealing with the blunting.



NoCoPilot said:


> https://www.highdeftapetransfers.ca/pages/formats-explained
> 
> Explanations like this are totally not helpful. Yes, 2.8mHz is "astonishingly regular" but 44.1kHz is not exactly random either. Nyquist theorem says 44.1 gives response to 22k, so why is sampling more frequently (with less resolution) able to capture more information, in the audible range of 20-20,000 cycles?
> 
> A few years ago somebody tried to tell me that tiny squiggles in the waveform fell between the samples on 44.1, and so were not captured. But "falling between the samples" is exactly what it means to be above 22kHz, and thus those squiggles were not audible anyway.


I would agree "some not being captured" is a bit hyperbolic. But there is definitely some truncation happening. The DAC compensates for most of that truncation, by way of anti-aliasing. But I would argue not all, the same way anti-aliasing doesn't entirely restore a digital photo. The old adage "Garbage In Garbage Out" still applies today, just to a much lesser extent.

If you think about it, forty four thousand, one hundred hertz is quite an oddball number. Apparently that extra one hundred hertz was just enough to push sound quality over the line from marginal to good. But at a time when computer memory was upgraded in chunks of either 4 or 16 Kilobytes, squabbling over increments of 100 hertz wasn't that unreasonable. When the DVD video standard was established years later, Moore's Law had increased the power and lowered the cost of digital tech to the point they could round it up to a nice even 48KHz. A multiple of 8, 16 and 24.


----------



## NoCoPilot

The first PCM encoders stored their signal on video recorders, which dictated the bit rate.


> If you modulate a digital audio stream in such a manner that you encode three samples of audio on every visible line of video, then you can record audio in real time on a VCR if you sample at exactly 44.1 kHz


https://www.cardinalpeak.com/blog/why-do-cds-use-a-sampling-rate-of-44-1-khz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_recording


----------



## NoCoPilot

progmatist said:


> But there is definitely some truncation happening. The DAC compensates for most of that truncation, by way of anti-aliasing. But I would argue not all, the same way anti-aliasing doesn't entirely restore a digital photo.


What do you mean by "truncation"? Usually that word is used when something is being shortened. Are you saying the digital samples are shortened, or not fully captured by the 44.1 capture rate? If that's the case, what's being cut off? Something that "falls between the samples"?

Also, "restoring a digital photo" is not the same as digitizing one and then converting it back to a photo. I agree you can't get more resolution out of a digital file than you put in, although interleaving algorithms (in both photo and audio) can minimize the aliasing. That's why MP3s and JPEGs are acceptable space-saving formats where file size is important.


----------



## RobertKC

NoCoPilot said:


> https://www.highdeftapetransfers.ca/pages/formats-explained
> 
> Explanations like this are totally not helpful. Yes, 2.8mHz is "astonishingly regular" but 44.1kHz is not exactly random either. Nyquist theorem says 44.1 gives response to 22k, so why is sampling more frequently (with less resolution) able to capture more information, in the audible range of 20-20,000 cycles?
> 
> A few years ago somebody tried to tell me that tiny squiggles in the waveform fell between the samples on 44.1, and so were not captured. But "falling between the samples" is exactly what it means to be above 22kHz, and thus those squiggles were not audible anyway.


I was first introduced to Nyquist's theorem in the 1970s when I began work in the telecommunications industry, and I learned about T1 circuits. (T1 is a time-division-multiplexed carrier system that was introduced in the 1960s, and could carry 24 phone calls (assuming robbed-bit signaling) over two pair of copper wires.)

Nyquist's theorem is just that - a theorem. I don't doubt that a sampling rate of 44.1kHz is adequate for reproducing a sine wave up to 20kHz.

Do you think that 100 years from now scientists will look back and say that in 2022 the recording industry understood every facet of human enjoyment of recorded music, and had identified specifications that could result in the perfect reproduction of music? Do you think that 100 years from now scientists will look back and say that 16bit/44.1kHz Redbook CD stereo recordings deliver the best-available audio quality? (I don't think so.)

For the extremely complex sound of large-scale classical music and opera, which can have tremendous dynamic range, I prefer modern performances/recordings (i.e., performances recorded in the last 15 years or so) that were captured and mastered in multi-channel hi-res digital (e.g., 24bit/192kHz PCM, or DSD), and delivered on a disc featuring DTS-HD MA 5.1 (e.g., Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Ultra HD Blu-ray), or an SACD disc that features multi-channel DSD.

Notice that I said "modern performances/recordings" (i.e., performances recorded in the last 15 years or so). Provenance of a recording is extremely important. Garbage-in / garbage-out. You can't make a silk purse from a SOW's ear. Delivering a vintage recording in a "hi-res" wrapper doesn't magically improve its quality. If you pour 5 gallons of milk into a 55-gallon drum, it's still 5 gallons.

Of course, recorded music can be enjoyed with less than state-of-the-art recordings and hi-fi systems. With that said, my point is that historic performances are limited to technology available at the time of the recording.

Please see my post #20 above for my assessment of the audio quality of more than a dozen different recordings of Beethoven Symphony 9. Bottom line, the modern performances/recordings that were recorded, mastered, and delivered in hi-res multi-channel sound the best. IMO.

A few years ago, all 5 of my hi-fi systems were stereo. I assembled a proof-of-concept surround-sound system and listened to modern SACDs and Blu-ray. Based on my conclusion from that proof-of-concept trial that I prefer modern hi-res 5.1 recordings, I permanently converted that system to surround-sound. After living with that surround-sound system for 6 months, I upgraded 3 more of my systems to surround-sound. IMO - based on my subjective listening enjoyment - that's how much better modern state-of-the-art Blu-ray and SACD are compared with CDs.

FWIW, I use vintage vacuum-tube amps connected to my Oppo UDP-205. No AVR involved. (People who listen to hi-res surround-sound recordings via an inexpensive AVR may not be giving modern hi-res multi-channel recordings a fair shake. IMO.)

For stereo-only, could I hear the difference between a top-quality modern CD and the same recording in a stereo hi-res format (e.g., the stereo track of a Blu-ray)? I don't know. I will say this: For a recording that was captured and mastered in multi-channel 24bit/192kHz PCM audio and high-definition video, I prefer to invest in a consumer deliverable that is an exact copy of the master recording (e.g., Blu-ray's DTS-HD MA 5.1 and 1080p video). Why would I want to buy a version that is down-sampled to Redbook CD's 40-year-old 16bit/44.1kHz-stereo-only/audio-only format?

Similarly, if a recording was captured and mastered in hi-res multi-channel DSD, why would I want to buy a version that is converted to Redbook CD's 40-year-old 16bit/44.1kHz stereo-only format?

My Oppo UDP-205 will play all digital formats. Why would I default to - why should I compromise and accept - the vintage Redbook CD format?

All I know for certain is that I very much enjoy modern Blu-rays for classical music, opera, and ballet. More so than CDs. All of the recordings that I've bought in the last several years have been Blu-ray. I rarely pull a CD off the shelf.

P.S.

I'm heading into my TV room to listen to the latest Blu-ray box set that I've acquired:










I'll write a brief review of the audio and video quality sometime in the next few days.


----------



## progmatist

NoCoPilot said:


> What do you mean by "truncation"? Usually that word is used when something is being shortened. Are you saying the digital samples are shortened, or not fully captured by the 44.1 capture rate? If that's the case, what's being cut off? Something that "falls between the samples"?
> 
> Also, "restoring a digital photo" is not the same as digitizing one and then converting it back to a photo. I agree you can't get more resolution out of a digital file than you put in, although interleaving algorithms (in both photo and audio) can minimize the aliasing. That's why MP3s and JPEGs are acceptable space-saving formats where file size is important.


What's being "cut off" is the precision of the numbers. Dealing with pure sine waves, as most explanations of the Nyquist theorem tend to do, this wouldn't be a problem. Dealing with a highly complex waveform encompassing many instruments and effects, some information is bound to be lost. And yes, "entirely restore" was a poor choice of words on my part, as it pertains to photos. "Perfectly enhance" would be more to my point.


----------



## NoCoPilot

"Nyquist's theorem is just a theory" but so is the theory of gravity. The science is not in doubt.

Nyquist doesn't just apply to sine waves, it applies to any audio waveform -- complex, simple, reverbed or dry. Information is not "bound to be lost," not unless you can disprove Nyquist's theorem. In a properly matched ADC-DAC pair, there is one -- and only one -- output wave that results, and it must be an exact match to the input wave, right up to the Nyquist frequency. If the mics didn't capture the whole frequency range, or the whole dynamic range then the output won't either, but as Joe B stated up above it's AMAZING what modern mics are capable of.

Yes, there can be problems with the equipment, problems with playback, problems with recording. But you cannot say digital recording itself misses the music in between the bits.

Although that's a common assertion, it is entirely unproven.... unlike Nyquist.


----------



## NoCoPilot

RobertKC said:


> FWIW, I use *vintage vacuum-tube amps* connected to my Oppo UDP-205.





RobertKC said:


> Why would I want to buy a version that is down-sampled to Redbook CD's *40-year-old 16bit/44.1kHz-stereo-only/audio-only format? *


I'm sensing a disconnect here.


----------



## Triplets

NoCoPilot said:


> "Measurements aren't everything"? That is essentially asserting "science isn't everything."
> 
> Which is letting magical thinking and supernatural effects into the discussion. If something is real, it should be measurable. If it's not measurable, then it either isn't real, or you're not measuring the right thing.
> 
> I hear this all the time, but nobody can explain the science behind it. Standard Redbook goes up to 22kHz, so presumably this "ambience" one is hearing is above 22k? But I've tested my hearing, and I cannot hear even 20k anymore, much less 2.8mHz. How is an effect supposed to be audible if it's out of the humanly-audible range?
> 
> https://www.cambridgeaudio.com/usa/en/blog/what-dsd
> 
> I really would like someone to explain the science to me. Maybe it's real... but I suspect eljr's explanation of "placebo effect" or "confirmation bias" is probably closer to the truth.


Science. I am a Physician. Literally every week I look in a journal and there is some new enzymatic system being elucidated that no one new existed before. Similar analogies can be made for Astronomy and every branch of Science. Only a Fool would declare that our knowledge for Science is finite


----------



## RobertKC

NoCoPilot said:


> "Nyquist's theorem is just a theory" but so is the theory of gravity. The science is not in doubt.
> 
> Nyquist doesn't just apply to sine waves, it applies to any audio waveform -- complex, simple, reverbed or dry. Information is not "bound to be lost," not unless you can disprove Nyquist's theorem. In a properly matched ADC-DAC pair, there is one -- and only one -- output wave that results, and it must be an exact match to the input wave, right up to the Nyquist frequency. If the mics didn't capture the whole frequency range, or the whole dynamic range then the output won't either, but as Joe B stated up above it's AMAZING what modern mics are capable of.
> 
> Yes, there can be problems with the equipment, problems with playback, problems with recording. But you cannot say digital recording misses the music in between the bits.


As I said earlier - All I know for certain is that I very much enjoy modern Blu-rays for classical music, opera, and ballet. More so than CDs.

Please share your experience with modern recordings that were captured and mastered in multi-channel 24bit/192kHz PCM audio and high-definition video. (Preferably, not played through a cheap AVR.) How do such recordings compare with Redbook CDs?

What is the video quality of Redbook CD? (Of course, CD doesn't offer video.)

How good is Redbook CD's surround-sound audio? (Of course, CD doesn't offer surround-sound.)

I'm heading back into my TV room to listen to my latest Blu-ray audio/video classical recording …


----------



## RobertKC

NoCoPilot said:


> I'm sensing a disconnect here.


I don't see a disconnect at all. IME/IMO, a very high-quality system would involve a state-of-the-art hi-res multi-channel recording driving five 1950s era McIntosh MC30 tube amps.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Triplets said:


> Similar analogies can be made for Astronomy and every branch of Science. Only a Fool would declare that our knowledge for Science is finite


Yes, but as a scientist, surely you'd agree findings outside the expectations of known science aren't evidence of magic. They're evidence of incomplete science. Hopefully you'd agree with that?


----------



## NoCoPilot

RobertKC said:


> I don't see a disconnect at all. IME/IMO, a very high-quality system would involve a state-of-the-art hi-res multi-channel recording driving five 1950s era McIntosh MC30 tube amps.


High quality tube amps sound very very good. I was just tweaking your nose a little bit, don't take it too seriously.

Tube amps DO have as much as 1000x the distortion of state-of-the-art solid state amps, but it's "harmonic distortion" which is perceived as more pleasant than inharmonic distortion. It's a matter of preference and what you're used to.
https://kenrockwell.com/audio/why-tubes-sound-better.htm

It _MAY NOT _sound exactly like live music -- unless you're a Hendrix fan -- but then our listening rooms aren't concert halls.


----------



## NoCoPilot

RobertKC said:


> All I know for certain is that I very much enjoy modern Blu-rays for classical music, opera, and ballet. More so than CDs.


That's all one needs to say. "I enjoy B more than A." That's perfectly fine & normal to have preferences.

The problem comes when those preferences are extended to pseudo-scientific "explanations" which contradict the science.


----------



## RobertKC

NoCoPilot said:


> High quality tube amps sound very very good. I was just tweaking your nose a little bit, don't take it too seriously.
> 
> Tube amps DO have as much as 1000x the distortion of state-of-the-art solid state amps, but it's "harmonic distortion" which is perceived as more pleasant than inharmonic distortion. It's a matter of preference and what you're used to.
> https://kenrockwell.com/audio/why-tubes-sound-better.htm
> 
> *It doesn't sound like live music -- unless you're a Hendrix fan*


Respectfully, I disagree 100% with the statement that "It doesn't sound like live music -- unless you're a Hendrix fan.".

Before COVID-19, I attended more than 30 live classical concerts each year - in world class venues with 100% natural sound. I have a pretty good idea how live classical music sounds ...


----------



## RobertKC

NoCoPilot said:


> That's all one needs to say. "I enjoy B more than A." That's perfectly fine & normal to have preferences.


I agree with this statement.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Fine, as I said it's perfectly normal to have preferences and yours appear to be informed by all the right sorts of experiences. You disagree 100%, I was too glib, we're all good here.

Peace.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> That's all one needs to say. "I enjoy B more than A." That's perfectly fine & normal to have preferences.
> 
> The problem comes when those preferences are extended to pseudo-scientific "explanations" which contradict the science.


Exactly what I posted this morning in different words.


----------



## NoCoPilot

The article I linked above makes some interesting statements:


Ken Rockwell said:


> With this progressive, "dynamic" distortion, tubes add sharp attacks while retaining long, floating sustains for every musical note.





Ken Rockwell said:


> Solid state gear was so dry-sounding in the last days of tubes that it helped compensate for the warm, muffled, woolly and ringy speakers of the time. There were no dome tweeters, just 2" paper cones! Sure, some people used electrostatic tweeter panels, but with big 15" bass-reflex cabinets on the bottom. Speakers were so cloudy and obscure-sounding that anything that help cut-through sounded better, unless of course you were one of the lucky few with Quad ESLs.


What do you think about these statements?

* Are tube-induced "long floating sustains" responsible for reverb sounding more open and ambient?

* Do solid-state amps compensate for "ringiness" in woolly speakers?


----------



## RobertKC

NoCoPilot said:


> The article I linked above makes some interesting statements:
> 
> What do you think about these statements?
> 
> * Are tube-induced "long floating sustains" responsible for reverb sounding more open and ambient?
> 
> * Do solid-state amps compensate for "ringiness" in woolly speakers?


For the next few hours I'm going to watch the Kansas City Chiefs play football.

For now, I'll respond with the following:












Peace!!!


----------



## NoCoPilot

Gorgeous hall! Where's that?

[Edit: Nevermind. Helzberg Hall, Kauffman Center, KCMO. It's stunning.)

__
https://flic.kr/p/15518223100


----------



## NoCoPilot

RobertKC said:


> For the next few hours I'm going to watch the Kansas City Chiefs play football.


Well THAT was a pretty entertaining game!


----------



## Joe B

NoCoPilot said:


> Thank you Joe for a cogent and non-hysterical response. You said hi-res sounds "better"...
> 
> In what way better? Pull up a section of music where you can hear the difference, and tell me what you can hear in one resolution that you can't hear in the other.
> 
> I need to know what the difference is, before I can even begin to investigate the science behind it.


I assume the increase in file size as you move up in sample rate more accurately replicates what was picked up by the mic. The acoustic space of the recording gets more detail. I consistently find improvements in soundstage, imaging, and inner detail. The perceived experience of being at the performance is improved.


----------



## RobertKC

NoCoPilot said:


> Well THAT was a pretty entertaining game!


My response:


----------



## progmatist

Joe B said:


> I assume the increase in file size as you move up in sample rate more accurately replicates what was picked up by the mic. The acoustic space of the recording gets more detail. I consistently find improvements in soundstage, imaging, and inner detail. The perceived experience of being at the performance is improved.


Nobody would deny a 720P television looks better than SD, 1080i looks better than 720P, and 4K looks stunningly better than 1080i/p. Yet somehow, adding more bits of information to an audio file, above 16/44.1 will render no improvement in sound quality?


----------



## eljr

progmatist said:


> Nobody would deny a 720P television looks better than SD, 1080i looks better than 720P, and 4K looks stunningly better than 1080i/p. Yet somehow, adding more bits of information to an audio file, above 16/44.1 will render no improvement in sound quality?


This is a logical fallacy. 

What studies have concluded that we can only see at 720P?


----------



## NoCoPilot

progmatist said:


> Nobody would deny a 720P television looks better than SD, 1080i looks better than 720P, and 4K looks stunningly better than 1080i/p. Yet somehow, adding more bits of information to an audio file, above 16/44.1 will render no improvement in sound quality?


That's a very smart observation, and one it might take some science to refute.

Let's see. Televisions are measured in DPI dots per inch (or in older CRT cathode ray tube televisions lines per inch, with other complications like refresh rates and interleaving which we can ignore for the purposes of this discussion). The 720p and 1080i and 4k and 8k specifications on TVs refer to the number of pixels (dots) or lines per inch.

Note: broadcast television does not have different incoming data rates. Even HD TV broadcasts just increase the number of pixels, not the refresh rate or the delivery rate of the pixels. All TVs are compatible because there are broadcast standards.

DVDs and Blu-rays have higher pixel rates (and better audio) than VHS tapes, but they're still using the same screen refresh rates, which is 60 times per second (US or NTSC standard), or 50 times per second (European or PAL standard).

Therefore the difference between different TVs and various content options is one of INFORMATION DENSITY not information speed.

Contrast that to audio.

There is no "unit of audio" comparable to a pixel, no discrete packet. Audio waves are continuous, and storage and playback work with only one waveform at a time. They're captured by causing them to move a membrane (in the case of a microphone) and played back by moving a membrane in open air (in the case of a speaker). The speed of the sound wave is set (by physics) and the rate of delivery is set by the unfolding of time (1 second of audio must be delivered in one second, if you're listening and not copying it).

Therefore, the variations in audio delivery are strictly in how precisely the audio wave is described, or defined. You're not going to alter the size or speed of the wave, just its description.

The important difference to note here is this: Audio = one wave. TV = many pixels. Audio = varying levels of precision on the one wave. TV = varying levels of precision by HOW MANY PIXELS are displayed. Audio = QUALITY. TV = QUANTITY.

In digital recording, analog waveforms are digitized with an ADC analog-to-digital converter. The ADC breaks up the waves into packets with precise descriptions of what's happening at every measurement point (chroma for digital video, amplitude for digital audio). This measurement is then stored in its digital format.

To turn it back into an analog waveform (audio or video) the digital bitstream is run through a DAC which converts the digital back into analog.

In any properly matched pair of ADC-DACs (which means they meet current standards), there is one--and only one--output waveform which matches the input waveform. Not "an approximation" as in analog audio, but an exact match (for all frequencies below the Nyquist frequency, with the Nyquist frequency being defined by the speed of the ADC sampling).

Higher speeds of sampling (48, 96, 128, 256 KiloHertz per second) provide more datapoints for reconstructing the waveform, but NOT MORE INFORMATION IN THE WAVE itself. Is a hi-def reconstruction more accurate? That requires a further level of examination -- bear with me on this:

Higher sampling speeds raise the Nyquist frequency, but the upper range of human hearing is still only 20,000 cycles per second, so all that extra accuracy above 20k isn't of much use. There isn't any useful musical information up there anyway, because nobody but dogs can hear it. So we can eliminate 20-55k as any benefit.

Could the waveform below 20,000 be more accurate? Could be -- but remember, the ADC at the other end has to be matched to capture any additional detail. You can't reproduce more detail than was originally captured. A recording that is "upsampled" is just interleaving existing information.

Higher sampling rates, in theory therefore, could more accurately define the analog waveform below 20,000 A.) if that waveform was captured by the ADC at a higher rate, and B.) the waveform was too complex to be accurately described at 44.1kHz. Bear in mind, this lack of accuracy isn't "falling between the samples" since "falling between the samples" on Redbook only occurs with frequencies above 22k (and those are not audible). Anything below 22k will get at least partially captured by 44.1.... and the farther you get from 22k, the more bits you will have on each wave. (What's the highest musical instrument fundamental? About 8,000Hz.... with most under 1/4 of that.)

So when would an audible waveform be too complex to be captured by a 44.1k sampling, without going into the supersonic range? Would a wave that complex even be "musical"? That's the $10,000 question.

So yeah, I have no doubt higher sampling rates and bit depths will be more accurate. I've just been yet to be convinced I can hear the difference.


----------



## progmatist

eljr said:


> This is a logical fallacy.
> 
> What studies have concluded that we can only see at 720P?


Studies to disprove improved sound quality boil down to "proving" a negative...which create their own sets of problems.

*EDIT:* You're absolutely right. My comparing TV to audio resolutions is completely illogical. I was applying the same logic as those who insist nothing sounds better than 16/44.1 audio. The only difference is the former is more easily proven than the latter. Because it is in fact easier to spot differences in video resolutions and hear them in audio resolutions.


----------



## RobertKC

Let me begin by saying that my education is in science, and my work career was as a SME (Subject Matter Expert) in various technical specialties associated with telecommunications. My point is simply this: I am NOT anti-science. 

At the same time, I point out that I do NOT have a PhD in mathematics. (I had to work my way through college, and I was burned out after achieving a bachelor’s degree.)

With that said, and as I said earlier, Nyquist’s theorem is just that – a theorem. I don’t doubt that a sampling rate of 44.1kHz is adequate for reproducing a sine wave up to 20kHz.

What I don’t know (i.e., ignorance on my part) is how Nyquist’s theorem applies to something like a violin that has unique timbre, which involves complex harmonics (using an engineering term). Are the overtones (a term used by musicians) of a violin band-limited to 20kHz? (What about cymbals? Operatic soprano? Piano? Other natural orchestral instruments that have complex high-frequency overtones?) How does Nyquist’s theorem apply to tremolo and vibrato of natural orchestral instruments? (Full disclosure: I’m also not a musician.)

Again - ignorance on my part – but my guess is that it may be over-simplistic to assert the following: “Human hearing is nominally limited to 20kHz, and therefore according to Nyquist Theorem a sampling rate of 40kHz is adequate, and therefore the Redbook CD standard ‘exceeds human hearing capability’”.

I’ll paraphrase something that Einstein once said: I should load my conscience with grave sins against the sacred spirit of lucidity were I to formulate our aims in this way, without serious reflection and detailed explanations.

I’m too old to delve into these technical complexities, including but not limited to Fourier transformations. (Additionally, I’m on my fifth bourbon this evening …)

What I do know is that I generally enjoy modern hi-res recordings more than CDs. Please see my post #20 above for my assessment of the audio quality of more than a dozen different recordings of Beethoven Symphony 9. (Yes, the quality of the recording and mastering is extremely important.)

I suggest listening to an early digital recording of Barber’s “Adagio for Strings”. Do you find yourself cringing, and turning down the volume when the massed strings are playing high notes loudly? Next, listen to a modern hi-res recording. Which sounds better? Which is better at reproducing the complex sound of massed violins? Which allows you to listen for hours without “listener fatigue”?

I suggest listening to a CD (or LP) of Mahler Symphony 2. Set your volume control so that the beginning of Movement 4 is appropriate (i.e., an alto singing softly in the symphony hall, with no use of a sound reinforcement system). Does the opening of Movement 5 sound like what you remember hearing in the symphony hall (i.e., blows-the-roof-off, and causes you to jump-out-of-your-seat)? How good of a job does a Redbook CD (or LP) do vs. a modern 24bit/192kHz PCM recording, or modern hi-res DSD recording?

Also, please also see my post #13 that lists irrefutable objective benefits of Blu-ray vs. Redbook CD.

My bottom line, FWIW: Regarding modern Blu-ray recordings – don’t knock it until you’ve tried it. (For me, the evolution of recorded music involves Blu-ray, but not AVRs. I prefer Blu-ray played via tube amps. Don’t judge Blu-ray if it’s played via a cheap AVR.)

I’d very much welcome someone who is more knowledgeable explain this more accurately, and more clearly. 

Peace and good will to all. 

P.S. Did I mention that I just poured my sixth bourbon? Lucidity and bourbon may not be congruous …


----------



## eljr

RobertKC said:


> What I do know is that I generally enjoy modern hi-res recordings more than CDs.


A bit depth of 24 bits, 192 kHz always sounds better to me even if I would not pass a double blind. :tiphat:


----------



## AndorFoldes

RobertKC said:


> With that said, and as I said earlier, Nyquist's theorem is just that - a theorem. I don't doubt that a sampling rate of 44.1kHz is adequate for reproducing a sine wave up to 20kHz.
> 
> What I don't know (i.e., ignorance on my part) is how Nyquist's theorem applies to something like a violin that has unique timbre, which involves complex harmonics (using an engineering term). Are the overtones (a term used by musicians) of a violin band-limited to 20kHz? (What about cymbals? Operatic soprano? Piano? Other natural orchestral instruments that have complex high-frequency overtones?) How does Nyquist's theorem apply to tremolo and vibrato of natural orchestral instruments? (Full disclosure: I'm also not a musician.)


Any band-limited signal can be represented as a sum of sine waves. Nyquist-Shannon guarantees that the representation will be accurate regardless of how complex it is.



RobertKC said:


> I suggest listening to an early digital recording of Barber's "Adagio for Strings". Do you find yourself cringing, and turning down the volume when the massed strings are playing high notes loudly? Next, listen to a modern hi-res recording. Which sounds better? Which is better at reproducing the complex sound of massed violins? Which allows you to listen for hours without "listener fatigue"?


This is not a fair comparison, given how much CD recordings have improved in the last 40 years. The only fair comparison is to take the exact same recording and convert it to each format.

The real advantage of having a higher sample rate than 44.1 kHz is that it's easier to make filters to band-limit the signal. Since you need a sample rate of 40 kHz to capture sound that is humanly audible, the filter has to roll off steeply above this value if you only have a sample rate of 44.1 kHz, and this can create a harsh sound. However, this issue has been solved with oversampling, which gives the filter more space to work.

The comparison to television is interesting because it shows how the industry uses resolution to justify the need for new products. You thought 4K was good enough? Never mind, now you need 8K. "Better microphones" or "Improved mastering software" are not arguments that consumers will easily relate to, but anyone can understand that 96 kHz/24 bit must be better than 44.1 kHz/16 bit because the numbers are bigger.


----------



## NoCoPilot

RobertKC said:


> P.S. Did I mention that I just poured my sixth bourbon?


What are you drinkin', buddy? I think I may owe you a fifth for making you read my interminable (but mostly sober...) man-splaining.

Here's my response. My hobby is making CDs, specifically taking old LPs that have never been issued on CD, cleaning them up, and burning a CD-R. I've done 3 or 4 thousand of them.

Which is a lot of digital editing, zooming in on the file to manually remove ticks and pops, because I've never heard an automated process that doesn't leave audible artifacts. I've done a lot of bit-by-bit editing. I know exactly what a tick looks like, and can distinguish it from a percussion instrument on sight.

As an aside, I think the most challenging digital cleanup I ever faced was an LP of a fireplace fire (for relaxation). How do you distinguish vinyl ticks and pops from the crackles of the fire? Turns out even those were pretty easily distinguishable... and to a larger degree than I've ever experienced before, the level of cleanliness was less picky. The small ticks blended right in(!)

Anyway, to your question about the rasp of violins. Yes, what makes violins and bassoons "raspy" is their complex waveforms, whereas flutes are a lot closer to sine waves. These rough waveforms do not exceed 20,000Hz in their squiggles -- else you couldn't hear the squiggles -- but the audible waveform can be very convoluted. I know you may be picturing squiggles right on the edge of inaudibility, but the sheer number of samples involved (44,100 of them per second) means that a 440Hz Musical A is outlined by about a hundred data points per wave (period = 1/f). A hundred datapoints in one cycle allows for A LOT of squiggles.

And the other thing to keep in mind is that you never hear the digital datapoints. You don't hear the stairstepped digital output. It has to be run through a DAC to become an analog wave again, which smooths out the transitions between the datapoints.

"Massed violins"? Yes, I've heard distortion on recordings like that, when the microphones in the studio were overdriven.

Never from digital recordings of massed violins. In fact, analog recordings are famous for violin smearing (viz. almost any Ormandy recording).

I have a small collection of the earliest digital recordings ever released, starting January 1971 in Japan, and Stomu Yamash'ta's percussion spectacular sounds, well, spectacular. These pre-Redbook recordings were mostly made on Denon's 32.0kHz PCM encoder, or Soundstream's 37.5kHz PCM, so the sampling frequency was even lower than today's standards. Overdriving microphones is a lot more common than distortion caused by incomplete sampling. (I wish I could play these for you to prove it, but they're not on the market.)



RobertKC said:


> my work career was as a SME (Subject Matter Expert) in various technical specialties associated with telecommunications.


Really? I spent my career in telecommunications too. In my last job before retiring I was a CCSI Cisco Certified Systems Instructor, which is even rarer (about 600 worldwide) than their CCIE internetworking expert level (35,000 in the world). Not that I understood 1/100th of the CCIE curriculum...


----------



## NoCoPilot

progmatist said:


> Studies to disprove improved sound quality boil down to "proving" a negative...which create their own sets of problems.


Can I just say this? Science can go to hell. It's all about what YOU like. All the scientific argument in the world means nothing because we each have a pair of ears, and those are what determine what we like. Ignore the science. Listen to your ears.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> Can I just say this? Science can go to hell. It's all about what YOU like. All the scientific argument in the world means nothing because we each have a pair of ears, and those are what determine what we like. Ignore the science. Listen to your ears.


This made me chuckle.

It's not what you hear, it's how your brain interprets it.

I think you petition that science should go to hell is not a sound approach to this or any aspect of life. At least not for me.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Another quick difference between audio and video. Due to "persistence of vision" we see the rapidly-refreshing TV screens (and the individual stills of a movie) as a continuous stream. When people complain about TV resolutions, they never complain about "flicker" (since the 1920s anyway).

There is no flicker in audio. It's a truly continuous format. Well, after exiting a DAC anyway.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Another quick observation: phase coherency in speakers is many times more important, more impactful, for reproducing complex waveforms than sampling rate of the recording. IME


----------



## RobertKC

AndorFoldes said:


> ...
> 
> This is not a fair comparison, given how much CD recordings have improved in the last 40 years. The only fair comparison is to take the exact same recording and convert it to each format.
> 
> ...


Understood, and agreed.

Because I own "universal players" in 4 of my hi-fi systems, I can play CDs, SACD, Blu-ray, etc. My perspective is that if a recording was captured and mastered in hi-res multi-channel, I'll buy a consumer deliverable that is in same format as the master. I have no reason to down-sample/convert a modern hi-res multi-channel recording to the 40-year-old Redbook CD audio-only/stereo-only format.

I won't belabor the audio quality of 24bit/192kHz vs. 16bit/44.1kHz for consumer deliverables. However, there's no debating the fact that CDs lack multi-channel audio and high-definition video - both of which I enjoy for classical music, opera, and ballet. Hi-res comes with the Blu-ray package.

IME, modern recordings that feature hi-res multi-channel are capable of fabulous sound. The bottom line for me is that I generally enjoy modern Blu-rays (and secondarily, Pure Audio Blu-ray and SACDs) more than CDs.


----------



## RobertKC

NoCoPilot said:


> ....
> 
> I spent my career in telecommunications too. In my last job before retiring I was a CCSI Cisco Certified Systems Instructor, which is even rarer (about 600 worldwide) than their CCIE internetworking expert level (35,000 in the world). Not that I understood 1/100th of the CCIE curriculum...
> 
> ....


I've been retired for more than 10 years. My entire career was in the role of a pre-sales technical Subject Matter Expert ("SME") in customer-facing roles for large business clients.

Late in my career I shifted from product focus (call center technologies) to professional services. For complex engagements for which there was no standard offer, I'd lead the customer discovery, develop a Statement of Work ("SOW") and pricing, and negotiate the SOW with the client.

The only thing that I miss about working was interacting with some really smart people (e.g., software architects, intellectual property attorneys, etc.) from all over the world.

Now - like many others - I'm just trying to survive "cabin fever" from COVID-19 sequestration. Hence, my long ramblings on discussion forums …


----------



## eljr

RobertKC said:


> Understood, and agreed.
> 
> Because I own "universal players" in 4 of my hi-fi systems, I can play CDs, SACD, Blu-ray, etc. My perspective is that if a recording was captured and mastered in hi-res multi-channel, I'll buy a consumer deliverable that is in same format as the master. I have no reason to down-sample/convert a modern hi-res multi-channel recording to the 40-year-old Redbook CD audio-only/stereo-only format.
> 
> I won't belabor the audio quality of 24bit/192kHz vs. 16bit/44.1kHz for consumer deliverables. However, there's no debating the fact that CDs lack multi-channel audio and high-definition video - both of which I enjoy for classical music, opera, and ballet. Hi-res comes with the Blu-ray package.
> 
> IME, modern recordings that feature hi-res multi-channel are capable of fabulous sound. The bottom line for me is that I generally enjoy modern Blu-rays (and secondarily, Pure Audio Blu-ray and SACDs) more than CDs.


A 24-bit 192KHz recording has 32,212,254,000,000 sampling points each second (192,000 x 16,777,216). This means 24-bit 192KHz recordings have over 111,455 times the theoretical resolution of a 16-bit 44.1KHz recording. :tiphat:


----------



## NoCoPilot

RobertKC said:


> Late in my career I shifted from product focus (call center technologies) to professional services.


For twenty years I designed & maintained call centers. Worked closely with Jim Deak at NANPA on the roll-out of new area codes, both overlays and inserts, as well as new ERCs. Built routing trees containing 10,000+ nodes. Until 1997 when the Telecommunications Act threw all that out the window.... Designed & build IVRs.

I was responsible for $3m/mo in billing, routing 11-15m calls/mo 24/7/365, and tracing harassing calls (an art in itself).

Good times. Don't miss it.


----------



## NoCoPilot

eljr said:


> A 24-bit 192KHz recording has over 111,455 times the theoretical resolution of a 16-bit 44.1KHz recording.


https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/the-24bit-delusion/


----------



## NoCoPilot

NoCoPilot said:


> https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/the-24bit-delusion/


This article states *in one sentence* what I spent a couple whole paragraphs trying to explain.


> According to Dr. Nyquist's theorem, sampling at twice the maximum audible frequency yields a perfect reproduction of the audio waveform. Any higher resolution will only plot more points along the same curves.


----------



## RobertKC

With all due respect to everyone in this discussion, let's remind ourselves that it is possible to cherry-pick statements that support a narrative (e.g., "Redbook CD delivers all you need" or "Redbook CD exceeds human hearing capability").

As I said earlier, I'm not an expert in sampling theory, or the application of Nyquist's Theorem. For those who want to read about why the application of Nyquist's Theorem isn't simple or straightforward, you might google this: "https://www.wescottdesign.com › articles › sampling"

I'm not asserting that this article is correct. And, I'm not saying that I have the correct answer requiring the application of Nyquist's Theorem to reproduction of classical music. I'm just saying that I think that the topic is more complicated than it is often represented.

Separately, there is debate about whether orchestral instruments' overtones that are above 20kHz affect a person's perception of the sound. Here's an interesting article: https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

Here's a relevant AES link: https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?elib=5509

Again, my point isn't that I can prove that these articles are correct. I'm just saying that I think that the topic is more complicated than it is often represented (e.g., "the limit of human hearing is 20kHz and therefore Redbook CD exceeds human hearing").

I respectfully suggest that people consider the following:


The assertion that Redbook CD is "perfect" - and "Redbook CD exceeds human hearing capacity" (whatever that means) - is hotly contested.
Why down-sample a modern hi-res recording (e.g., 24bit/192kHz PCM, or hi-res DSD) to the Redbook CD format (16bit/44.1kHz) - vs. delivering the recording in the format it was mastered?
Why cling to digital storage technology that was introduced to the marketplace 40 years ago (i.e., Redbook CD), when newer technologies have emerged? (Would you buy a PC with a 40-year-old disc drive?) IOW, Redbook CD is NOT "The Standard" for recorded music - it's only the standard for CDs. Other consumer deliverables (e.g., SACD, Blu-ray) meet other standards.
Which company is the "snake oil salesman"? The one that sells hi-res recordings and equipment? Or the one that's trying to convince you that "CD is perfect" (possibly because they sell CDs and/or products that only support CDs). 
As to whether people can hear the difference with hi-res recordings, here's a relevant AES paper: https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

As I said earlier, each individual can cherry pick information that supports the narrative that they're wed to. (Including me.)

My suggestion is simple: Instead of focusing on a theorem (unless you have an interest in mathematics), and instead of citing someone else's listening tests, LISTEN FOR YOURSELF. Make your own decisions based on your goals for your hi-fi system, your circumstances, and your constraints.

My advice for consumers who are considering hi-fi acquisitions is to spend a significant percentage of their time researching what recordings are available for the genres of music they enjoy, and be open-minded and consider - and experience - newer technologies such as multi-channel hi-res audio, and high-definition video. Then the consumer can make a well-informed decision about the types of recordings they want to invest in going forward, and the equipment that is needed to play those recordings.


----------



## NoCoPilot

All true. But we don't come here for truth, we come for an ARGUMENT.

No seriously, I know some people contest the science, because that's what some people do. It all boils down to what you like, how much money you have, and what you believe. 

It's not an argument that can be won, or lost.


----------



## Josquin13

I don't download, so I can't comment on the quality of sound in terms of downloading. But, to my ears, there is often (though not always) a significant difference between listening to CDs played on a conventional CD player versus hybrid SACDS played on a CD player. These differences become even more telling on DSD recordings of solo piano music and chamber works, but also for orchestral music, too.

For example, the string sounds are often noticeably warmer & less metallic sounding in chamber music. While I find a huge improvement in the sound quality between the regular CD recording of Claudio Arrau's first recording of the Liszt Sonata in B minor for Philips, for instance, versus the DSD hybrid SACD Japanese issue: which sounded like my old Philips LP on a high end system: https://www.cdjapan.co.jp/product/UCGP-7044. More recently, there's also been a DSD SHM-Single Layer SACD of this recording issued that I've not heard: https://elusivedisc.com/liszt-piano-works-japanese-import-shm-sacd/. Unfortunately, both these Japanese issues were limited editions, so it's difficult to find them now at a reasonable price (for example: https://www.ebay.com/itm/294167317167). Then again, the Heritage label box set of Arrau's Liszt recordings for Philips sound wonderful too, & the remasters are truer to what Arrau's unique piano timbre sounded like in recital than the earlier Philips CDs; even if the Heritage remasters aren't quite as jaw dropping as the Japanese hybrid SACD that I own.

Another example of the superiority of a solo piano recording on hybrid SACD versus a regular CD is a recording by pianist Janne Mertanen of piano works by Joonas Kokkonen on the Alba label, where Mertanen's piano almost sounds like its in the room with you: 



.

Another example is Hannes Minnaar's Edison award winning debut hybrid SACD recording of Ravel's Miroirs (& other works) on the Etcetera label, which similarly offers the rare combination of a terrific performance with 'state of the art' audio fidelity: 



.

The ARS Produktion label likewise offers superior sounding hybrid SACDs to the usual sound fidelity heard on CD. For example, here is a HIP performance of Bach Violin Concertos from the brilliant Icelandic violinist, Elfa Rún Kristinsdóttir, who won the Grand Prize at the Leipzig International Bach competition in 2006 before making this debut Bach recording in 2009, with the fine Berlin-based chamber orchestra, Solistenensemble Kaleidoskop:





https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/7996254--js-bach-violin-concertos

If that's not enough to convince, here are two more examples from the BIS & Channel Classics labels:

--Paolo Giacometti, playing piano works by Ravel on both a period Erard and a modern Steinway: 




-Freddy Kempf, Prokofiev Piano Sonatas Nos. 3, 8, & 9: 




But it depends on the label, too. The smaller labels, like the ones I've mentioned above, seem to take greater pains to produce an exceptional audiophile sound experience than the older, bigger labels now under the Universal Group umbrella. For example, the hybrid SACD orchestral recordings from the small Japanese Exton label are unusually spectacular & superior to most other labels, IMO (including DG), especially in the difficult to record symphonies of Mahler & Bruckner (except for some of Inbal's Exton recordings, which I don't overly care for sound-wise).

Here, for example, are two Mahler recordings that offer 'state of the art' audiophile hybrid SACD sound, & bear in mind that Mahler is notoriously difficult to record well,





https://www.challengerecords.com/products/1309175644

Conductor Jaap van Zweden's pre-New York Stravinsky & Bruckner on Exton hybrid SACDs are likewise of an unusually high audiophile quality: https://www.allmusic.com/album/stra...a-symphonies-of-wind-instruments-mw0001426506.

On a smaller scale, here too is pianist Sergei Edelmann playing Bach in state of the art audiophile hybrid SACD sound from Exton's 'Triton' series: 




The Pentatone label is likewise excellent, especially in their hybrid SACD "remastered classics" series of the old quadraphonic Philips & DG analogue catalogues.

Here are some examples, though I admit that using You Tube isn't an ideal way to make such sound comparisons; nevertheless, you should be able to hear certain key differences,

1. Arthur Grumiaux & Claudio Arrau playing Beethoven Violin Sonatas on regular CDs: 




& here are the same Grumiaux/Arrau recordings on a Pentatone hybrid SACD: https://www.pentatonemusic.com/prod...eethoven-sonatas-for-piano-and-violin/?play=1

2. The same differences are evident between the Pentatone hybrid SACD of Grumiaux's Brahms Violin Sonata No. 1, with pianist György Sebők, and the Philips CD release:

--Philips CD: 



--Pentatone hybrid SACD: https://www.pentatonemusic.com/prod...henri-vieuxtemps-ballade-et-polonaise/?play=1
--Philips LP: 




3. The Brendel/Marriner Mozart Piano Concertos likewise sound better on Pentatone's hybrid SACD; though these were excellent recordings to start with, so the differences may be more subtle here:

--Philips CD: 



--Pentatone hybrid SACD: https://www.pentatonemusic.com/prod...cs-mozart-piano-concertos-k-414-k-453/?play=1

By the way, I also like Universal Eloquence's AMSI or 'Ambient Surround Sound Imaging' remasters for these Brendel/Marriner recordings, & unlike Pentatone, they've remastered the complete cycle: https://www.amazon.com/Mozart-Die-K...2CRJWXA/ref=pd_lpo_1?pd_rd_i=B002CRJWXA&psc=1. (In addition, I prefer the AMSI remasters in the box set devoted to Clara Haskil's complete Mozart recordings, & especially those made for the Grumiaux/Haskil Mozart Violin Sonatas, which have never sounded better on CD from my experience: https://www.amazon.com/Haskil-Spiel...lara+haskil+spielt+mozart,classical,94&sr=1-1.)

4. I also prefer the Pentatone hybrid SACD sound on the Beaux Arts Trio's 9 selected Haydn Piano Trios over the regular Philips CDs from their complete Haydn box set:

--Philips CDs: 



--Pentatone Hybrid SACD: https://www.pentatonemusic.com/product/joseph-haydn-9-piano-trios/?play=1

However, on certain other labels, the sound difference may be less noticeable, even negligible.

As for DG, to my ears, the Esoteric hybrid SACD discs of DG recordings have generally shown an improvement over the regular DG CDs. So far, I've bought three recordings in this series: (1) Carlos Kleiber's Wagner Tristan und Isolde, (2) Rafael Kubelik's Smetana Má Vlast, and (3) Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli's recordings of Debussy's solo piano music, and I've found the Esoteric sound quality to be better in all three cases. However, unfortunately, the Esoteric series is prohibitive from the standpoint of its high cost; plus, the discs become ridiculously overpriced when they go out of print (so, if there is an Esoteric hybrid SACD that you really want, my advice is don't wait for it to go OOP, if you can help it, because the price will balloon up into the hundreds of dollars).

https://elusivedisc.com/wagner-tristan-und-isolde-hybrid-stereo-japanese-import-3sacd/
https://www.hraudio.net/showmusic.php?title=13037&showall=1
https://store.acousticsounds.com/d/...-Wagner_Tristan_und_Isolde-Hybrid_Stereo_SACD
https://www.hraudio.net/showmusic.php?title=11960
https://www.hraudio.net/showmusic.php?title=12167

I also bought the Esoteric issue of 8 Haydn Symphonies from Frans Bruggen's series for Philips, but didn't find the difference noticeable enough to warrant the extra cost--but, mind you, I'm not listening to any of these Esoteric hybrid SACDs on super high end equipment,

https://www.hraudio.net/showmusic.php?title=13788&showall=1

With that in mind, here's a review of the Esoteric series by an audiophile reviewer that is listening to them on high end equipment: https://www.audiophilia.com/reviews/2021/12/30/9pmgmzqoqyn2jzfrt82n23wmcz42uj

In regards to providing listening samples, here's the best that I can do, via You Tube: a sound comparison between an Esoteric hybrid SACD from the EMI catalogue and a regular EMI CD,

5. David Oistrakh's EMI recording of the Brahms Violin Concerto, with Szell in Cleveland:

--The EMI CD: 




--The Esoteric hybrid SACD (from 2010):


----------



## RobertKC

NoCoPilot said:


> All true. But we don't come here for truth, we come for an ARGUMENT.
> 
> No seriously, I know some people contest the science, because that's what some people do. It all boils down to what you like, how much money you have, and what you believe.
> 
> It's not an argument that can be won, or lost.


Well, if you insist on continuing the debate … 

My point in my previous post (#110) is that scientists disagree about whether "hi-res" audio recordings are better than Redbook CD.

Following are a few quotes from the articles I linked in my post #110. I cherry-picked these quotes based on my biases.

Here's quotes from the article titled "Sampling: What Nyquist Didn't Say, and What to Do About It":

_The assertion made by the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem is simple: if you have a signal that is perfectly band limited to a bandwidth of f0 then you can collect all the information there is in that signal by sampling it at discrete times, as long as your sample rate is greater than 2f0 . As theorems go this statement is delightfully short. Unfortunately, while the theorem is simple to state it can be very misleading when one tries to apply it in practice.

It is a common misconception that the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem could be used to provide a simple, straight forward way to determine the correct minimum sample rate for a system.

What the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem-absolutely and positively- does not say, is that you can design your system to operate right at the Nyquist rate, at least not with any reasonable chance of success.

The difficulty with the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem is that it is based on the notion that the signal to be sampled must be perfectly band limited. This property of the theorem is unfortunate because no real world signal is truly and perfectly band limited._​
Here's quotes from the CalTech paper titled "There's Life Above 20 Kilohertz!":

_At least one member of each instrument family (strings, woodwinds, brass and percussion) produces energy to 40 kHz or above, and the spectra of some instruments reach this work's measurement limit of 102.4 kHz.

Given the existence of musical-instrument energy above 20 kilohertz, it is natural to ask whether the energy matters to human perception or music recording. The common view is that energy above 20 kHz does not matter, but AES preprint 3207 by Oohashi et al. claims that reproduced sound above 26 kHz "induces activation of alpha-EEG (electroencephalogram) rhythms that persist in the absence of high frequency stimulation, and can affect perception of sound quality."

Oohashi and his colleagues recorded gamelan to a bandwidth of 60 kHz, and played back the recording to listeners through a speaker system with an extra tweeter for the range above 26 kHz. This tweeter was driven by its own amplifier, and the 26 kHz electronic crossover before the amplifier used steep filters. The experimenters found that the listeners' EEGs and their subjective ratings of the sound quality were affected by whether this "ultra-tweeter" was on or off, even though the listeners explicitly denied that the reproduced sound was affected by the ultra-tweeter, and also denied, when presented with the ultrasonics alone, that any sound at all was being played.

In a paper published in Science, Lenhardt et al. report that "bone-conducted ultrasonic hearing has been found capable of supporting frequency discrimination and speech detection in normal, older hearing-impaired, and profoundly deaf human subjects."

Even if we assume that air-conducted ultrasound does not affect direct perception of live sound, it might still affect us indirectly through interfering with the recording process. Every recording engineer knows that speech sibilants (Figure 10), jangling key rings (Figure 15), and muted trumpets (Figures 1 to 3) can expose problems in recording equipment. If the problems come from energy below 20 kHz, then the recording engineer simply needs better equipment. But if the problems prove to come from the energy beyond 20 kHz, then what's needed is either filtering, which is difficult to carry out without sonically harmful side effects; or wider bandwidth in the entire recording chain, including the storage medium; or a combination of the two.

On the other hand, if the assumption of the previous paragraph be wrong - if it is determined that sound components beyond 20 kHz do matter to human musical perception and pleasure - then for highest fidelity, the option of filtering would have to be rejected, and recording chains and storage media of wider bandwidth would be needed._​
Here's an excerpt from the abstract for the AES paper titled: "High-Frequency Sound Above the Audible Range Affects Brain Electric Activity and Sound Perception"

_The authors have developed a new system for sound presentation and a novel technique to measure brain electric activity, and used them to determine if high frequency components above the audible range can influence sound perception in ways not discerned by the method of paired comparisons. The authors report that high frequency sound induces activation of electroencephalogram rhythms that persist in the absence of high frequency stimulation, and can affect perception of sound quality._​
Here's an excerpt from the abstract for the AES paper titled: "A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation"

_Over the last decade, there has been considerable debate over the benefits of recording and rendering high resolution audio beyond standard CD quality audio. This research involved a systematic review and meta-analysis (combining the results of numerous independent studies) to assess the ability of test subjects to perceive a difference between high resolution and standard (16 bit, 44.1 or 48 kHz) audio. Eighteen published experiments for which sufficient data could be obtained were included, providing a meta-analysis that combined over 400 participants in more than 12,500 trials. Results showed a small but statistically significant ability of test subjects to discriminate high resolution content, and this effect increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training. This result was verified by a sensitivity analysis exploring different choices for the chosen studies and different analysis approaches. Potential biases in studies, effect of test methodology, experimental design, and choice of stimuli were also investigated. The overall conclusion is that the perceived fidelity of an audio recording and playback chain can be affected by operating beyond conventional resolution._​
As I stated earlier, Redbook CD is *NOT *"The Standard" for recorded music. Redbook CD is only the standard for CDs - which is based on the technology that was available more than 4 decades ago when the Redbook CD standard was set. Other consumer deliverables (e.g., SACD, Blu-ray) meet other, more modern standards.

Bottom line: Like many things in life, we each must decide what, and who, we believe. As I stated earlier, the assertion that Redbook CD is "perfect" - and "Redbook CD exceeds human hearing capacity" (whatever that means) - is hotly contested. What cannot be debated, as I stated earlier, is the objective fact that Redbook CD does not support multi-channel audio, or video, and Redbook CD has a small fraction of the storage capacity of Blu-ray.

I'll repeat my earlier advice: Listen with your own ears, and make your own decisions.

Peace and good will to all …


----------



## NoCoPilot

Oh my goodness. Competing science! 

I've stated my science. You've stated yours. Let's agree to disagree. I won't get into comparing sources or their motivations, because that won't change any minds. And I'm not here to change any minds.

All I ever wanted to do was point out that credible scientists dispute what is increasingly becoming the "common wisdom" on hi-def.


----------



## RobertKC

NoCoPilot said:


> Oh my goodness. Competing science!
> 
> I've stated my science. You've stated yours. Let's agree to disagree. I won't get into comparing sources or their motivations, because that won't change any minds. And I'm not here to change any minds.
> 
> All I ever wanted to do was point out that credible scientists dispute what is increasingly becoming the "common wisdom" on hi-def.


Understood, and agreed.

Peace and good will to all …


----------



## AndorFoldes

RobertKC said:


> Separately, there is debate about whether orchestral instruments' overtones that are above 20kHz affect a person's perception of the sound.


The point is that you will likely run into other limitations with the recording or playback before you get to the level of quality where you can notice sounds above 20 kHz modulating the audible sound.



RobertKC said:


> [*]The assertion that Redbook CD is "perfect" - and "Redbook CD exceeds human hearing capacity" (whatever that means) - is hotly contested.


I'm not claiming that the CD standard is perfect, only that it covers the humanly audible frequency range, and has more dynamic range than what can cause hearing loss.



RobertKC said:


> [*]Why down-sample a modern hi-res recording (e.g., 24bit/192kHz PCM, or hi-res DSD) to the Redbook CD format (16bit/44.1kHz) - vs. delivering the recording in the format it was mastered?


Modern recordings may be mastered in 32 bit. That means that the 24 bit version will be downsampled too.



RobertKC said:


> [*]Why cling to digital storage technology that was introduced to the marketplace 40 years ago (i.e., Redbook CD), when newer technologies have emerged? (Would you buy a PC with a 40-year-old disc drive?) IOW, Redbook CD is NOT "The Standard" for recorded music - it's only the standard for CDs. Other consumer deliverables (e.g., SACD, Blu-ray) meet other standards.


The Redbook standard is 40 years old, but recordings have improved a lot since then because the hardware and software used to make the recordings have improved. Does that mean that the SACD format will be outdated in 20 years time because it will be more than 40 years old by then?



RobertKC said:


> [*]Which company is the "snake oil salesman"? The one that sells hi-res recordings and equipment? Or the one that's trying to convince you that "CD is perfect" (possibly because they sell CDs and/or products that only support CDs).


Companies will always try to sell more products. I think this has to do with psychology. It's in our nature to always desire more and better things. But it's possible to resist that urge.



RobertKC said:


> My advice for consumers who are considering hi-fi acquisitions is to spend a significant percentage of their time researching what recordings are available for the genres of music they enjoy, and be open-minded and consider - and experience - newer technologies such as multi-channel hi-res audio, and high-definition video. Then the consumer can make a well-informed decision about the types of recordings they want to invest in going forward, and the equipment that is needed to play those recordings.


Fair enough. If you want surround sound or video to go with the music, then go for it.


----------



## AndorFoldes

Josquin13 said:


> In regards to providing listening samples, here's the best that I can do, via You Tube: a sound comparison between an Esoteric hybrid SACD from the EMI catalogue and a regular EMI CD,
> 
> 5. David Oistrakh's EMI recording of the Brahms Violin Concerto, with Szell in Cleveland:
> 
> --The EMI CD:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --The Esoteric hybrid SACD (from 2010):


But are these different masterings? The only way to make a fair comparison between CD and SACD is to take the exact same mastering and convert it to both formats.


----------



## AndorFoldes

RobertKC said:


> _The assertion made by the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem is simple: if you have a signal that is perfectly band limited to a bandwidth of f0 then you can collect all the information there is in that signal by sampling it at discrete times, as long as your sample rate is greater than 2f0 . As theorems go this statement is delightfully short. Unfortunately, while the theorem is simple to state it can be very misleading when one tries to apply it in practice.
> 
> It is a common misconception that the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem could be used to provide a simple, straight forward way to determine the correct minimum sample rate for a system.
> 
> What the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem-absolutely and positively- does not say, is that you can design your system to operate right at the Nyquist rate, at least not with any reasonable chance of success.
> 
> The difficulty with the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem is that it is based on the notion that the signal to be sampled must be perfectly band limited. This property of the theorem is unfortunate because no real world signal is truly and perfectly band limited._​


This is a well-known limitation of the CD format. If you only have a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz, the filter has to roll-off steeply above 20 kHz, which can sound harsh. It's solved by oversampling the signal, which gives the filter more space to work.


----------



## NoCoPilot

AndorFoldes said:


> This is a well-known limitation of the CD format. If you only have a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz, the filter has to roll-off steeply above 40 kHz, which can sound harsh. It's solved by oversampling the signal, which gives the filter more space to work.


The filter cutoff you want here is 20k, not 40k, because above 22kHz the Redbook standard begins to lose resolution. However, a quick look at any audio signal basically shows bupkis above 10k anyway, not even overtones (or reverb or "studio ambience").


----------



## AndorFoldes

NoCoPilot said:


> The filter cutoff you want here is 20k, not 40k, because above 22kHz the Redbook standard begins to lose resolution. However, a quick look at any audio signal basically shows bupkis above 10k anyway, not even overtones (or reverb or "studio ambience").


Right. I corrected my post.


----------



## eljr

RobertKC said:


> As I stated earlier, Redbook CD is NOT "The Standard" for recorded music. Redbook CD is only the standard for CDs - which is based on the technology that was available more than 4 decades ago when the Redbook CD standard was set. Other consumer deliverables (e.g., SACD, Blu-ray) meet other, more modern standards.


Exactly. ...............


----------



## NoCoPilot

RobertKC said:


> As I stated earlier, Redbook CD is NOT "The Standard" for recorded music. Redbook CD is only the standard for CDs - which is based on the technology that was available more than 4 decades ago when the Redbook CD standard was set. Other consumer deliverables (e.g., SACD, Blu-ray) meet other, more modern standards.


The extreme IRONY here of course is that so many of the SACDs on the market are re-releases of recordings from the '70s, '60s or even '50s....


----------



## NoCoPilot

> At least one member of each instrument family (strings, woodwinds, brass and percussion) produces energy to 40 kHz or above, and the spectra of some instruments reach this work's measurement limit of 102.4 kHz.


Let's assume for a moment that this is true. In order to reproduce these ultrasonic frequencies, one would have to:

1. Find a microphone on the market that captures that high

2. Find a mixing board on the market that passes signals that high

3. Find a tape recorder or digital recorder that records that high

4. Find a mastering mixer that passes signals that high

5. Find a way to pass signals this high to a manufacturing machine for

6. The format you found that will store signals that high

7. Find a consumer playback device that will play back that high

8. To an amplifier that will pass signals that high

9. To speakers that will reproduce sound waves that high

10. And finally, find a listener who can discern any effect from signal beyond her hearing.

Just on the face of it, those are ten separate hurdles I don't think anyone could get past with today's technology. Much LESS debating whether the end result is even audible!


----------



## That Guy Mick

Has the 2007 Meyer and Moran double blind listening test been mentioned in the discussion? It was conducted by two engineers who were members of a group called the Boston Audio Society and published by the Audio Engineering Society. Listeners (some of whom were sound professionals) were presented with SACD recordings played with either the original high resolution or a reduced Redbook CD resolution. After one year of testing no one was found who could reliably distinguish a difference. 
There have been a litany of reasons given for the results, the most notable and salient to my recollections was the discovery that some of the SACD recordings were simply upsampled CD recordings.


----------



## jegreenwood

That Guy Mick said:


> Has the 2007 Meyer and Moran double blind listening test been mentioned in the discussion? It was conducted by two engineers who were members of a group called the Boston Audio Society and published by the Audio Engineering Society. Listeners (some of whom were sound professionals) were presented with SACD recordings played with either the original high resolution or a reduced Redbook CD resolution. After one year of testing no one was found who could reliably distinguish a difference.
> There have been a litany of reasons given for the results, the most notable and salient to my recollections was the discovery that some of the SACD recordings were simply upsampled CD recordings.


What percentage were upsampled?


----------



## NoCoPilot

I suspect 0%. Either way, the other examples pretty much prove the negative.


----------



## jegreenwood

NoCoPilot said:


> I suspect 0%. Either way, the other examples pretty prove the negative.


No I think there are some. I believe I have a couple (Nora Jones and the Ter Linden Mozart symphony cycle). But if the total is more than 2% I'd be surprised. However, I'm not claiming that as a fact. Just a guess. Which is the same for anyone who can't supply actual evidence.

No desire to get political, but that's how bad information circulates. On music forums and elsewhere.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Here's the paper:
http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
Here are the "Conclusions":


> *CONCLUSIONS:*
> 
> We have analyzed all of the test data by type of music and specific program; type of high-resolution technology; age of recording; and listener age, gender, experience, and hearing bandwidth. None of these variables have shown any correlation with the results, or any difference between the answers and coin-flip results.
> 
> The previous work cited, some of it at the very beginning of the CD era and some more recent, pointed toward our result. With the momentum of widespread "high-rez" anecdotes over the last decade, culminating in the Stuart assertions, we felt the need to go further and perform a thorough, straightforward double-blind level-matched listening test to determine whether 16/44.1 technology would audibly degrade the sound of the best high-resolution discs we could find. We used a large and varied sample of serious listeners; we conducted our tests using several different types of high-quality playback systems and rooms; and we took as much time as we felt necessary to establish the transparency of the CD standard.
> 
> Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high-resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.


Here's a rebuttal:
https://www.soundandvision.com/content/yes-high-res-difference-audible


> We might drill deeper into the details and discuss the different hardware, content, listeners, and testing practices. One aspect of the newer study that I find interesting is the Training section. I probably can't quote the paywalled material at length but I'll summarize. Jackson, Capp, and Stuart believed, based on preliminary data and feedback, that listeners needed time to prepare themselves for the task. So they implemented a three-phase training program that allowed listeners to familiarize themselves with the 200-second piece of music used for comparison, the filtering used in the test to distinguish CD-quality audio from high-res audio, and the test conditions. Only when listeners had prepared themselves in this manner did the actual testing move forward.
> 
> The conclusions? Listeners could hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192. The filters and quantization used to downsample high-res masters for CD release can have a "deleterious effect." However, not all music reveals this loss of transparency. It is more audible with music having prominent echoes.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> Here's the paper:
> 
> Here are the "Conclusions":
> 
> Here's a rebuttal:


I just can't care anymore. If you prefer 16/44.1, God Bless you. If you insist on 24/192, enjoy.

What I don't understand is how folks listen to music from the 50's, for example, which sounds like absolute crap and praise it for it outstanding, never better, a classic that will always be the gold standard performance.

Generally they enjoy this unsurpassed music on YouTube or some MP3 platform.

Speaking for myself, without excellent sound quality, it does not matter how wonderful the performance is, it will sound like crap.


----------



## AndorFoldes

eljr said:


> What I don't understand is how folks listen to music from the 50's, for example, which sounds like absolute crap and praise it for it outstanding, never better, a classic that will always be the gold standard performance.
> 
> Generally they enjoy this unsurpassed music on YouTube or some MP3 platform.
> 
> Speaking for myself, without excellent sound quality, it does not matter how wonderful the performance is, it will sound like crap.


I think this is a good point, although some recordings from the 1950s are very good, and have been really well remastered, such as some of the RCA Living Stereo series. Bad sound is quite frustrating, especially when you can hear that the performance is excellent, and it's not limited to recordings from the 1950s.


----------



## eljr

AndorFoldes said:


> I think this is a good point, although some recordings from the 1950s are very good, and have been really well remastered, such as some of the RCA Living Stereo series. Bad sound is quite frustrating, especially when you can hear that the performance is excellent, and it's not limited to recordings from the 1950s.


I have come to realize I have a very low tolerance for poor sound. I'll even walk out of a beer hall if the amplification has any imperfections.


----------



## NoCoPilot

eljr said:


> Speaking for myself, without excellent sound quality, it does not matter how wonderful the performance is, it will sound like crap.


Actually there's a pretty wide gulf between "excellent sound quality" and "absolute crap." There are a great many recordings from the '60s-'80s which, while no longer state-of-the-art, are nonetheless still very, very good and still enjoyable. The Columbia "Great Performances" series, the RCA "Living Stereo" series, Decca's "Phase 4 Stereo" series, the "Philadelphia 360º Sound" series, and others keep a lot of worthy recordings in circulation a lifetime after their debut.

To limit oneself only to "excellent sound quality" would cut out anything prior to maybe 2010, which would eliminate a lot of world-class performers and conductors who are unfortunately no longer with us. This would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.


----------



## Joe B

NoCoPilot said:


> *To limit oneself only to "excellent sound quality" would cut out anything prior to maybe 2010*, which would eliminate a lot of world-class performers and conductors who are unfortunately no longer with us. This would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.


Where in the world did you come up with that?


----------



## RobertKC

In response to the recent discussion about the audio quality of modern vs. vintage recordings, I'll elaborate briefly on my post #20 in this thread.

This afternoon I conducted rapid-fire listening tests of a few of the 15 recordings of Beethoven 9 that I listed in my post #20. (Several years ago, I sampled all 15 recordings.) These recordings span 7 decades.

I listened on my basement: Front, center, and left speakers are Klipsch RF-7 II. A single rear speaker is a Klipsch RF-7. Subwoofers: SVS SB16-Ultra and Klipsch R-115SW (connected via Y-adaptor). Source: Oppo UDP-205. For this listening session, I chose my Scott LK150 (KT88 power amp, front-ended by a Schiit Loki tone-control) to drive the main L&R speakers, and my Scott 272 (EL34 integrated amp) to drive the center and single rear speaker.

For each recording, I listened to the first few minutes of Movement 1 of Beethoven Symphony 9. (IME, it takes just a few minutes to hear the difference in audio quality of the recording.)

I selected the following vintage recordings because IMO they have relatively good sound quality FOR THE DECADE IN WHICH THEY WERE RECORDED. My comments are focused on audio quality of the recording, not a critique of the performance.


SACD (tahra) of a 1954 performance by Wilhelm Furtwängler and the Philharmonia Orchestra London. Gramophone Award 1995. 24bit/192kHz remastering. IMO, this sounds like an historic recording, but the audio quality is surprisingly good for 1954, and is not unpleasant.










CD (Chesky) of a 1961 performance by Rene Leibowitz and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. Chesky remastered this recording from the original analog tapes "in an effort to achieve the finest audio quality". Copyright date 1992. I like this brisk performance, and the audio quality is good.










CD (Penguin Classics) of a 1972 performance by Sir Georg Solti and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Analog to digital remaster. Copyright date 1999. This is a slower performance, with good audio quality.










OTOH, several other vintage recordings of Beethoven 9 that I listed in my post #20 are IMO unlistenable due to poor audio quality.

I then switched gears to a more modern recording.


SACD (BIS) of 2006 performances by Osmo Vanska and the Minnesota Orchestra (stereo and 5.1 tracks). The audio quality of this SACD's surround-sound audio track is a noticeable step up from all of the earlier recordings of Beethoven 9 that I own.










In the next post I'll list the modern Blu-ray recordings that I own - all of which have superior audio quality.


----------



## RobertKC

Following are the four Blu-ray box sets that I own of Beethoven symphonies:


Blu-ray (DRS | Dacapo Records) box set of 2013 performances of all Beethoven symphonies by Rafael Frühbeck de Burgos and the Danish National Symphony Orchestra (DTS-HD MA 5.0/5.1 and PCM Stereo).










Blu-ray (Cmajor) box set of 2008 - 2010 performances of all Beethoven symphonies by Christian Thielemann and the Wiener Philharmoniker recorded at the Goldener Saal der Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Vienna (DTS-HD MA 5.0 and PCM Stereo).









Blu-ray (ARTHAUS MUSIK) box set of 2012 performances of all Beethoven symphonies by Mariss Jansons and the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra recorded in Tokyo Suntory Hall (DTS-HD MA 5.0 and PCM Stereo).










Blu-ray (ARTHAUS MUSIK) box set of 2014 - 2015 performances of all Beethoven symphonies by Philippe Jordan conducting the Orchestra and Chorus of the Opera national de Paris (DTS-HD MA 5.1 and PCM Stereo).










My benchmark for the audio quality of classical music reproduced in my home is how classical music sounds when performed live in its intended venue, with no sound reinforcement system - i.e., 100% natural sound.

IME, these modern Blu-ray recordings excel at creating the illusion that I'm in the symphony hall. These Blu-rays deliver a DRAMATIC improvement in audio quality compared with vintage recordings, when played on one of my surround-sound systems.

My preference for these modern Blu-ray recordings is based on listening (not technical theories).

Additionally, I enjoy Blu-ray's high-definition video.

Bottom line: As I stated in an earlier post, I'm not saying that vintage recordings can't be enjoyable. I'm not saying that CDs and LPs can't be enjoyable. And I'm not saying that music can't be enjoyed via a modest stereo (or mono) hi-fi system. I'm saying that based on my experience with a wide variety of recordings and equipment, Blu-ray is much more enjoyable for me, because it comes closest to the live concert hall experience.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Reading your two posts, the conclusion I took away was that a 2013 recording was better than a 1972 recording. That does not sound surprising to me. 

You can’t compare formats unless they’re the same recording — and mastered the same.


----------



## RobertKC

As I said in my first sentence in my post #134, my comments in #134 and #135 are in response to the recent discussion about the audio quality of vintage vs. modern recordings. I understand that there's more than one reason why modern Blu-rays are better than vintage recordings.

Clearly, I wasn't comparing different consumer deliverables (e.g., CD vs. Blu-ray) for the same modern recording.

If someone else wants to convert the DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio track of one of the Blu-rays that I listed in my post #135 to a 16 bit/44.1kHz audio-only/stereo-only file (in order to approximate a CD), knock yourself out. I have no interest in doing that.

Or, if someone else wants to try to track down a factory-made CD of the Blu-rays that I listed in my post #135 in order to compare the two, knock yourself out. I know that the CD won't have multi-channel audio, or video, and therefore I have no interest in buying a CD when a Blu-ray is available.


----------



## Malx

Interesting as all this is I believe the vast majority of contributors to this site will listen on much more modest systems in their homes and will therefore view 'sound quality' in a different way - perhaps if its good enough to give them pleasure whilst listening to music they love then all is well.
Chasing audio perfection is in my view an almost impossible task - living with what is a pleasing sound quality makes sense to me.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Malx said:


> Chasing audio perfection is in my view an almost impossible task - living with what is a pleasing sound quality makes sense to me.


I'm of the opinion that with the curve of diminishing returns, a normal Joe like you or me can get 98% or 99% of the way to state-of-the-art for a few thousand dollars. I've heard several $200,000 to $400,000 systems, and they're nowhere near 100x as good as good consumer gear. More like 0.1% better.... and some don't even meet that standard.

Like expen$ive wine and expen$ive cars, there's a market for high price + low quality, because status symbols don't care about quality. If you avoid the woo merchants, very fine stereos cost way less than a used car.


----------



## NoCoPilot

RobertKC said:


> I selected the following vintage recordings because IMO they have relatively good sound quality FOR THE DECADE IN WHICH THEY WERE RECORDED. My comments are focused on audio quality of the recording, not a critique of the performance.


Crucial point you made here.

I'm a fan of Fats Waller and Blind Willie McTell and several other artists from nearly 100 years ago. Their recordings are not pristine.

But you try to overlook the imperfections, and after a few minutes you barely notice the crackles and pops of the vintage 78s. You can train yourself to hear PAST the imperfections to the music behind them. The "audio quality of the recording" is just one aspect of listening to music, and arguably a lesser aspect than the quality of the performance.

Of course given two equally-good performances, the superior recording wins every time. And some recordings are so astoundingly good, they're fun to listen to just for their realism.

But recording quality isn't everything.

And if I may be forgiven for venturing into blasphemy a moment, the really good recordings from the 1940s-50s that I have heard have not been improved one whit by being translated to newer state-of-the-art formats like SACD. They STILL sound like '40s recordings, with all of the THD, IMD, lack of dynamic range, and limited frequency range of their age. I would almost prefer to hear them in their original format, with all of their ticks and pops because at least then they're not pretending to be something they're not.

I have a 1954 pipe organ recording of Bach Chorales by Karl Richter. It has marvelous depth and low frequencies, but it's hissy. I wouldn't have it any other way. 1954 was just a few years after commercial open-reel tape recorders came on the market, and that's how they sounded.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> The "audio quality of the recording" is just one aspect of listening to music, and *arguably a lesser aspect than the quality of the performance.*
> 
> .


I don't think so, I do not think this arguable at all.

I simply can no longer tolerate bad recordings.

How can you appreciate a performance that is not properly reproduced, this makes no sense at all. How is it a quaility perforamce, how would you even know?


----------



## jegreenwood

eljr said:


> *I don't think so, I do not think this arguable at all. *
> 
> I simply can no longer tolerate bad recordings.
> 
> How can you appreciate a performance that is not properly reproduced, this makes no sense at all. How is it a quaility perforamce, how would you even know?


Two very different statements. Given the number of members of this forum who treasure recordings reaching back to the twenties if not before, there seem to be a lot of people who would disagree with the second.

I have very few orchestral recordings that I feel got everything right. For the rest, I listen through the flaws. And yes, there are certainly some where I cannot.

Oddly, I find it more difficult to listen to poor recordings of popular music.


----------



## eljr

jegreenwood said:


> Given the number of members of this forum who treasure recordings reaching back to the twenties if not before, there seem to be a lot of people who would disagree with the second.


Arguable from an objective perspective? I don't think so but I suppose someone could come up with criteria that favors old crap over new technology but then is that really objective?

I think it's more about romance, not about performance.


----------



## NoCoPilot

What do you do about artists who lived in the era of early recording technology? I mentioned Fats Waller and Blind Willie McTell, but there's also Edith Piaf, Enrico Caruso, Beniamino Gigli, Nellie Melba, and so forth. You won't find any modern recordings of them.

Do you just cut them out of your world?


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> What do you do about artists who lived in the era of early recording technology? I mentioned Fats Waller and Blind Willie McTell, but there's also Edith Piaf, Enrico Caruso, Beniamino Gigli, Nellie Melba, and so forth. You won't find any modern recordings of them.
> 
> Do you just cut them out of your world?


Of course not.

They have a romance with us all.


----------



## That Guy Mick

jegreenwood said:


> What percentage were upsampled?


Sorry for the late response. That is a good question. Amir Majidimehr, owner of Madrona Digital and former Microsoft Engineer/Manager, brought this to my attention in an online conversation concerning high resolution recordings that occurred about six years ago. No percentage was mentioned, but a list of recordings was posted online. The argument is that "a few" of the SACD recordings were mastered from digital recordings in the '90's; prior to the advent of high resolution digital recordings. Most of the recordings were mastered from analog tape. The claim is that the original recordings are not truly high resolution, and certainly do not capture ultrasonic frequencies. Despite the minions claiming the superiority of the SACD recordings prior to the study, apparently there are those whose current refuge is that a comparison can only be valid, if the recording involves high resolution digital capture.


----------



## That Guy Mick

You have some nice pieces of equipment. I seriously considered buying the Klipsch Reference II series speakers several years ago for use in a home theatre setup, but have never listened to them. What a great tragedy when Oppo shuttered the business!

Performances with a multi-channel surround system are truly superior to two channel given all things equal. I still recall my first surround experience watching Apocalypse Now and The Hitcher on VHS using a Carver pre-amp and the Sonic Holography feature. No, the channels were not discrete, but it was amazing what Carver was able to accomplish with the Holography in two-channel mode with only two speakers. Add a pair of surround speakers and push in the ambient button and the soundstage took on a three dimensional quality.


----------



## eljr

That Guy Mick said:


> I still recall my first surround experience watching Apocalypse Now .


I too recall. I was in a movie theater and the helicopters came from the back of the theater to the front. It was a real "wow" moment.

But was it nothing more than a cheap thrill?


----------



## That Guy Mick

NoCoPilot said:


> What do you do about artists who lived in the era of early recording technology? I mentioned Fats Waller and Blind Willie McTell, but there's also Edith Piaf, Enrico Caruso, Beniamino Gigli, Nellie Melba, and so forth. You won't find any modern recordings of them.
> 
> Do you just cut them out of your world?


An excellent point. The ECM label is well known for outstanding audio quality on CD recordings. Of course, realistically no Classical or Jazz music enthusiast purchases only ECM recordings because it would eliminate a wealth of great performers and performances captured on other labels.

On the flip side... There are instances when I have sought out newer recordings simply to listen with modern sonics.


----------



## That Guy Mick

eljr said:


> I too recall. I was in a movie theater and the helicopters came from the back of the theater to the front. It was a real "wow" moment. But was it nothing more than a cheap thrill?


Not really. I mean Carver equipment wasn't that cheap. 

Seriously though, surround techniques create more immersion and are not distracting when properly implemented. Particularly, the soundstage is enhanced for music recordings. DSP technology used by Yamaha on two channel mode is pretty impressive too. However, the knock on the door coming from the rear channels when I am watching a movie is not what I consider immersive. Startling, distracting, or I guess a cheap thrill would work.


----------



## RobertKC

IME - for _*most *_classical recordings - the center channel delivers most of the benefit of Blu-ray's DTS-HD MA 5.1 or 5.0 audio track (and SACD's multi-channel track). I'm primarily talking about modern performances/recordings (i.e., performances recorded in the last 15 years or so) that were captured and mastered in multi-channel hi-res digital. (I'm NOT talking about DSP-generated pseudo-surround-sound gimmickry for vintage recordings.)

For most classical recordings, there is little rear channel content (mostly audience applause).

Additionally, as we've discussed before, there are some 1950s era recordings (e.g., RCA Living Stereo) that were originally recorded on 3-channel (left, center, right) analog tape. IMO, the SACD's multi-channel audio track that delivers the original 3 channels sounds better than the SACD's down-mixed stereo or mono track. IOW, the re-mastered RCA Living Stereo SACD's multi-channel audio track is more faithful to the original 3-channel recording compared with a down-mixed stereo or mono consumer deliverable (e.g., CD or LP). And, more importantly - IMO - the SACD's multi-channel audio track sounds better.

OTOH, there are a few classical recordings where the live performance involved musical instruments surrounding the audience (e.g., a pipe organ distributed in different parts (e.g., different naves) of a church). I have such a Blu-ray on order, and I'm anxious to hear it played via my various surround-sound systems.

IMO, the goal of a recording should be to create the illusion of being in the venue when the music was performed live.

IME/IMO, even for the vast majority of performances where all musical instruments are in front of the audience, Blu-ray's DTS-HD MA 5.0 or 5.1 excels at creating the illusion of being in the concert hall. Three large speakers can deliver more acoustic power than two. IME, the music sounds more "alive" via DTS-HD MA 5.0 or 5.1 (and SACD's multi-channel audio track).

Until a few years ago, I was skeptical about the value of surround-sound for classical music. (At that time, all 5 of my hi-fi systems were stereo.) I assembled a proof-of-concept surround-sound system and listened to modern SACDs and Blu-ray that feature a multi-channel audio track. Based on my satisfaction with that proof-of-concept trial, I converted one of my systems to surround-sound. After living with that surround-sound system for 6 months, I upgraded 3 more of my systems to surround-sound. IMO, that's how much better modern state-of-the-art Blu-ray and SACD that feature multi-channel audio are compared with CDs.

P.S. IME, subwoofer(s) can significantly benefit large-scale classical music. My Oppo UDP-205 (and BDP-105 and BDP-95) universal players' "bass management" feature provides a configurable cross-over that can deliver deep bass to a powered subwoofer that is connected to the Oppo via a line-level connection, whether a recording has a ".1" LFE channel, or not (i.e., 5.1 or 5.0). Hence, a subwoofer is not dependent on a surround-sound recording.


----------



## NoCoPilot

RobertKC said:


> For most classical recordings, there is little rear channel content (mostly audience applause).
> 
> OTOH, there are a few classical recordings where the live performance involved musical instruments surrounding the audience (e.g., a pipe organ distributed in different parts (e.g., different naves) of a church). I have such a Blu-ray on order, and I'm anxious to hear it played via my various surround-sound systems.
> 
> IMO, the goal of a recording should be to create the illusion of being in the venue when the music was performed live.


Well said -- *reproducing a live concert* should be the goal of any recording. It has been often said that the best seat at an orchestral performance is that of the conductor... not the third viola.

As to performances DESIGNED for surround sound -- of which there are few -- might I suggest Monteverdi's "Vespro Della Beata Vergine"? There are singers and instrumentalists off in the distant naves of the church, singing antiphonally with the main orchestra & chorus. In 5.1 the effect is quite otherworldly.


----------



## NoCoPilot

eljr said:


> I too recall. I was in a movie theater and the helicopters came from the back of the theater to the front. It was a real "wow" moment.
> 
> But was it nothing more than a cheap thrill?


Movie soundtracks and classical music are two entirely different genres. There are no helicopters in any classical music, unless you count this:


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> Well said -- reproducing a live concert should be the goal of any recording.


Why?

I ask that question *here* BTW.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> Movie soundtracks and classical music are two entirely different genres.


Horseshit.

Soundtracks which use classical music are correctly identified as the classical music genre. They may then be placed in the sub category, soundtrack.



> There are no helicopters in any classical music...


Who said there was?

Frankly, I am miffed as to why you felt it necessary to volunteer this randomness.


----------



## RobertKC

NoCoPilot said:


> Well said -- *reproducing a live concert* should be the goal of any recording. It has been often said that the best seat at an orchestral performance is that of the conductor... not the third viola.
> 
> As to performances DESIGNED for surround sound -- of which there are few -- might I suggest Monteverdi's "Vespro Della Beata Vergine"? There are singers and instrumentalists off in the distant naves of the church, singing antiphonally with the main orchestra & chorus. In 5.1 the effect is quite otherworldly.
> View attachment 163912


Thanks for the recommendation. I've ordered the Blu-ray.


----------



## NoCoPilot

eljr said:


> Frankly, I am miffed as to why you felt it necessary to volunteer this randomness.


Feel free to sit the next couple rounds out then.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> Feel free to sit the next couple rounds out then.


Thanks! (but what does this mean?)

Is this a helicopter joke that went over my head? :devil:


----------



## NoCoPilot

eljr said:


> Is this a helicopter joke that went over my head? :devil:


Antheil used an air raid siren. You can look it up.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> Antheil used an air raid siren. You can look it up.


Thanks!

Your posts are a delight!!


----------



## Andrew Kenneth

NoCoPilot said:


> There are no helicopters in any classical music (...)


Are you sure? =>


----------



## NoCoPilot

eljr said:


> Soundtracks which use classical music are correctly identified as the classical music genre. They may then be placed in the sub category, soundtrack.


Soundtracks recorded by orchestras are correctly filed under "soundtracks." Soundtracks which use "classical music" are considered "needle drops."


eljr said:


> Frankly, I am miffed as to why you felt it necessary to volunteer this randomness.


It occurs to me you may not know the meaning of the word "miffed." Perhaps you meant the word "puzzled"?

My apologies if I misunderstood what you meant by reading what you wrote.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Andrew Kenneth said:


> Are you sure? =>


Not anymore!!! :lol:


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> Soundtracks recorded by orchestras are correctly filed under "soundtracks." Soundtracks which use "classical music" are considered "needle drops."


Would you concede that if Soundtrack is used as the genre, the sub genre can often time be labeled Classical?

Needle drops is not a genre or subgenre. It is a term that defines the practice which you did accurately describe. So you I can give you partial credit on that.



NoCoPilot said:


> It occurs to me you may not know the meaning of the word "miffed." Perhaps you meant the word "puzzled"?
> 
> My apologies if I misunderstood what you meant by reading what you wrote.


No, I meant miffed. I am not at all puzzled by your inclusion of that taunting verbiage.

Apologies not need among friends.


----------



## NoCoPilot

eljr said:


> Would you concede that if Soundtrack is used as the genre, the sub genre can often time be labeled Classical?


Sure, why not. There are many soundtracks that include classical music.

Maybe you can explain why you were upset ("miffed") that I mentioned helicopters are not likely to come flying from the back of the room to the front on any surround sound classical music recording?


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> Sure, why not. There are many soundtracks that include classical music.
> 
> Maybe you can explain why you were upset ("miffed") that I mentioned helicopters are not likely to come flying from the back of the room to the front on any surround sound classical music recording?


Come on, can't we move past this as friends?

We all know there are no helicopters in classical music so by posting that your intent was clearly to prod and elicit the reaction you received. In the vernacular of the street, in that post you were being a wise *** bitch.

Now can we step forward in harmony?

Peace


----------



## NoCoPilot

Sure, no harm no foul. I promise to behave myself in the future.


----------



## That Guy Mick

Well, well. Interesting the back-tracking from Surround sound as a superior feature of hi-rez soundtracks. The introduction of a center channel is relatively insignificant. The importance of rear channels that introduce the ability to enhance the dimensionality of the experience is a completely lost reality, apparently. Speaker off-axis performance and room dimension seems to have escaped the discussion.
DTS X... Atmos... Aura 3D... Anyone know anything about? Uh, apparently not.
Sorry to sound condescending, but I think Martin Logan Ascents powered by 200 watt Parasound Halos demonstrate something that might be considered a bit superior to Klipsch three channel in terms of soundstage and detail. lol!!!


----------



## That Guy Mick

I must say that my favorite listening involves a pair of of PSB outdoor speakers during the warm months and Polk Audios in my heated garage in the winter. Both allow me to enjoy cigars (verbotim in the house).


----------



## eljr

That Guy Mick said:


> I must say that my favorite listening involves a pair of of PSB outdoor speakers during the warm months and Polk Audios in my heated garage in the winter. Both allow me to enjoy cigars (verbotim in the house).


I bought a double window fan designed for cigar smoke for my office. I still have not auditioned it. Fortunately I have two small porches and a patio but they are valueless in the winter months.


----------



## NoCoPilot

That Guy Mick said:


> Well, well. Interesting the back-tracking from Surround sound as a superior feature of hi-rez soundtracks. The importance of rear channels that introduce the ability to enhance the dimensionality of the experience is a completely lost reality, apparently. Speaker off-axis performance and room dimension seems to have escaped the discussion.


Yes yes, it is certainly technologically POSSIBLE to have 5.1 sound. It's even possible, as you state, to "enhance the dimensionality of the experience" by adding two reverbed rear channels.

My question is-and it's a serous question-what can you put in the rear channels that "enhances the experience"? For orchestral music your choices would seem to be, 1.) audience noises, 2.) putting yourself in the middle of the orchestra instead of in the audience, or 3.) adding reverberation to simulate the sound of a poorly-designed venue. None of these seems like an "enhancement."

For non-orchestral music I can imagine special effects of instruments moving around or recordings of environments other than a concert hall. Again though, I have trouble imagining these as anything more than gimmicks. Am I wrong?


----------



## RobertKC

Of course, object-oriented audio technologies such as Dolby Atmos were first used in Hollywood movies. I'm NOT an expert in recording technology. Therefore, I found the following YouTube video about the creation of the soundtrack for the movie "Ford v Ferrari" to be very interesting:






All of the classical Blu-ray recordings that I own include a DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio track (and down-mixed stereo track). IIRC, I own one Pure Audio Blu-ray that contains a DTS-HD MA 7.1 track in addition to a DTS-HD MA 5.1 track (and stereo track).

Classical recordings that employ Dolby Atmos have recently become available, however I don't own any. Here's an interesting YouTube video about early use of Dolby Atmos for classical music:






I prefer modern hi-res multi-channel audio/video recordings of live classical concerts. Therefore, I'm non-plussed when a studio recording attempts to deliver the listening perspective of a musician in the middle of the orchestra - vs. an audience member sitting mid-hall during a live performance. For example:






If I were a movie aficionado, and I were to custom build a new house, I'd include a home theater that employs Dolby Atmos so that I could hear objects moving all around me and over my head for Hollywood movies. However, I'm not a fan of action movies, and relatively few classical recordings are currently available that feature Dolby Atmos. Therefore, Dolby Atmos isn't _currently _a priority for me.

Blu-rays' DTS-HD MA 5.1 is currently the most commonly available surround-sound technology for classical music.

IME/IMO, DTS-HD MA 5.1's center channel adds significantly to my enjoyment of classical recordings. (In most classical recordings, there is relatively little rear channel content - mostly ambient hall sounds and audience applause.) Depending on the recording and how much center channel content is in the audio mix, DTS-HD MA 5.1 can deliver more dynamic range when played via a surround-sound system equipped with a center channel speaker - assuming that the center channel speaker is capable of significant dynamic range. IOW - IME/IMO - the music can sound more "alive" via DTS-HD MA 5.1 compared with stereo.

Here's the speakers in three of my hi-fi systems that form the basis of my opinions:

Basement system (Unfinished open space. I sit approximately 10' ft from the speakers):


Main left & right speakers: Klipsch RF-7II. Each RF-7II includes a 1 ¾" titanium compression driver mated to a Tractrix horn, and two 10" woofers.
Center channel: Also, a Klipsch RF-7II. IOW, the center channel has the same frequency range and dynamic range as the main left & right speakers. And all 3 front speakers have the exact same tonal balance.
Subwoofers: SVS SB16-Ultra (16") and Klipsch R-115SW (15").
Rear channel: A single Klipsch RF-7. This is the earlier version of the RF-7II and has the same driver configuration: 1 ¾" titanium compression driver mated to a Tractrix horn, and two 10" woofers.


TV room system (12' x 13'. 8' ceiling.):


Main left & right speakers: Klipsch Palladium P-37F. Each P-37F includes a 0.75-inch horn-loaded tweeter, 4.5-inch horn-loaded midrange, and three 7-inch woofers.
Center channel: Klipsch RC-64III. This is currently Klipsch's top-of-the-line center channel speaker, and includes a Tractrix® horn with 1-3/4" titanium dome tweeter, and four 6-1/2" Cerametallic™ woofers. This center channel speaker is capable of significant dynamic range, and excels with operatic soprano.
Subwoofer: Klipsch Palladium P-312W. Three 12-inch drivers-one front-firing woofer and dual side-firing passive radiators.
Rear channel: A single Klipsch RP-502S. This is currently Klipsch's top-of-the-line rear channel speaker. Dual 90° x 90° Hybrid Cross-Section Tractrix® horns with 1" LTS (Linear Travel Suspension) titanium diaphragm tweeters, and dual 5-1/4" Cerametallic™ cone woofers with rigid voice coils. 


Living room system (13' x 22'. 8' ceiling.):


Main left & right speakers: Snell Type CV. Drivers: two 8" woofers, two 5" midranges, one 1" titanium-dome tweeter, one switchable rear-firing 1" tweeter.
Center channel: Klipsch RC-64III. (Same as TV room.)
Subwoofer: Klipsch Palladium P-312W. (Same as TV room.)
Rear channel: A single Klipsch RP-502S. (Same as TV room.)

In all of these systems, I employ Oppo universal players driving vintage tube amps (i.e., no AVR involved).

I'm NOT saying that these are the best hi-fi systems in the world.

I'm just saying that - in their respective listening room - each of these surround-sound hi-fi systems can deliver a near concert hall experience when playing modern Blu-ray (and SACD) multi-channel classical recordings. This is based on my listening to modern Blu-ray and SACDs - compared with CDs and LPs. My basement system started as a mono system. I then upgraded it to stereo, then 2.1, then 4.1, then 4.2. Based on that experience, I upgraded 3 of my other hi-hi systems to surround-sound. That's how much better - IMO - surround-sound is for classical music.

As I've said before:


I'm NOT saying that vintage recordings can't be enjoyable. 
I'm NOT saying that CDs and LPs can't be enjoyable. 
I'm NOT saying that music can't be enjoyed via a modest stereo (or mono) hi-fi system.
I'm saying that based on my experience with a wide variety of recordings and equipment, Blu-ray is much more enjoyable for me, because it comes closest to the live concert hall experience.
I recognize that each music lover may have different goals for their hi-fi system, and different constraints for their hi-fi system. (For example, I live in a 100-year-old 2-story house, and none of my listening rooms could easily accommodate 11.2 speakers.) 

Bottom line: IME, Blu-rays' DTS-HD MA 5.1 does a better job than stereo of creating the illusion that I'm in the concert hall - when played via a surround-sound hi-fi system that can recreate the natural timbre of orchestral instruments (that's why I prefer tube amps), and come close to the frequency range and dynamic range of a live classical performance in a world-class purpose-build symphony hall or opera house.

I don't know how much (if any) improvement object-oriented audio technologies such as Dolby Atmos will deliver for classical recordings, but I don't doubt that recording and playback technology will continue to advance.

To each their own. With that said, for anyone who hasn't heard a top-quality modern multi-channel recording of large-scale classical music (or opera) on Blu-ray (or SACD or download) played via a top-quality surround-sound hi-fi system, I suggest giving it a try.


----------



## NoCoPilot

RobertKC said:


> Of course, object-oriented audio technologies such as Dolby Atmos were first used in Hollywood movies. I'm NOT an expert in recording technology. Therefore, I found the following YouTube video about the creation of the soundtrack for the movie "Ford v Ferrari" to be very interesting.


Kinda off-topic, but the art of sound design in movies is a hugely interesting field. The examples you posted of "Ford vs. Ferrari" were okay, but not the best I've heard.

Listen on headphones to this scene from the great 1999 film "Spring Forward":




Sorry about the Greek(?) subtitles, it was the only video I could find that focused on the sound design. Listen to the wind in the trees. Listen to the birds in the trees, listen to the distant voices in the park, listen to the church bells at 1:46. Masterful.

Foley artists are geniuses in their own right:


----------



## jcofer

Had to mention this. There ARE helicopters in classical music:

Karlheinz Stockhausen: Helikopter-Streichquartett

There is even a recording; the Arditti Quartet on the Auvidis label.

Edit: Sorry, missed the earlier post mentioning this piece.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Like John Cage's 4'33, the Helicopter String Quartet subjugates all classical expectations. The four players cannot see each other, only hear each other through headphones. The noise of the helicopters overwhelms the string players. There can be no audience for the performance (aside from four pilots, who hopefully aren't paying attention).

It's as much a "thought piece" or "conceptual art" as Cage. And, one could argue, the helicopters are not "in the music" so much as an inevitable side effect.

It's not a piece your average high school orchestra will tackle.


----------



## NoCoPilot

That Guy Mick said:


> The introduction of a center channel is relatively insignificant. The importance of rear channels that introduce the ability to enhance the dimensionality of the experience is a completely lost reality, apparently.


Re-reading this I was struck with a novel thought. We don't need rear speakers behind us, putting us in the center of the performance.

What we need are speakers BEHIND our main speakers, to add depth to the listening experience. To simulate the acoustic space in which the recording was made. Maybe?


----------



## That Guy Mick

NoCoPilot said:


> Yes yes, it is certainly technologically POSSIBLE to have 5.1 sound. It's even possible, as you state, to "enhance the dimensionality of the experience" by adding two reverbed rear channels.
> 
> My question is-and it's a serous question-what can you put in the rear channels that "enhances the experience"? For orchestral music your choices would seem to be, 1.) audience noises, 2.) putting yourself in the middle of the orchestra instead of in the audience, or 3.) adding reverberation to simulate the sound of a poorly-designed venue. None of these seems like an "enhancement."
> 
> For non-orchestral music I can imagine special effects of instruments moving around or recordings of environments other than a concert hall. Again though, I have trouble imagining these as anything more than gimmicks. Am I wrong?


Everything can be placed in rear channels. It seems that you are imagining a channel dedicated to a particular instrument or group of instruments. The idea is that height and rear channels are used to excite ambience and/or enhance channel seperation, whether for a matrixed two channel experience or a discrete multi-channel surround setup. The goal is to improve the overall soundstage beyond the capabilities of a two channel, front speaker arrangement. The technology is often quite complex and involves an understanding of phasing, cancellation, and crosstalk.

Though lower bass frequencies are perceived as non-directional, there is still the potential benefit of reducing bass nulls and voids that are created by room modes. Probably not much of a realistic consideration, since most solutions involve use of multiple subwoofers placed in the front and rear of the room, and I am quite certain that this aspect is given any thought by those who engineer surround recordings.

To be sure, much thought has gone into the design of the various surround systems and many listeners enjoy the added benefits. Of course, there are those who simply write it all off as gimmickry without any personal experience or anything, but a superficial understanding. This is uniquely different than listeners who purport the ability or inability to hear improvements from ever increasing amounts of sampling rate and bit depth in their recordings.


----------



## That Guy Mick

NoCoPilot said:


> Re-reading this I was struck with a novel thought. We don't need rear speakers behind us, putting us in the center of the performance.
> 
> What we need are speakers BEHIND our main speakers, to add depth to the listening experience. To simulate the acoustic space in which the recording was made. Maybe?


Some manufacturers have installed rear firing drivers in their front speaker designs with a similar goal in mind. Definitive Technology is one such. Mirage used an omnipole design with drivers facing upwards. Bose also utilized rear and angled aiming drivers.in most of their products; before multi-channel was a thing. I purchased a couple pairs of Bose bookshelf speakers in the 1990's and used them with a Carver Integrated amp endowed with the Sonic Holography feature. The Holography feature paired with the angled drivers was quite impressive.


----------



## That Guy Mick

eljr said:


> I bought a double window fan designed for cigar smoke for my office. I still have not auditioned it. Fortunately I have two small porches and a patio but they are valueless in the winter months.


Its lamentable that we live in an era where cigar smoking in the home is considered offensive. Though I must confess that the smoke has not been very nice to my projectors. My garage not only includes an audio system, but also a motorized drop down screen with a 1080p projector, dual subwoofers, and surround sound system. Thanks to the yellowing image I am on a second projector in the last ten years. Lol!

Happy puffing to you!


----------



## NoCoPilot

That Guy Mick said:


> I purchased a couple pairs of Bose bookshelf speakers in the 1990's and used them with a Carver Integrated amp endowed with the Sonic Holography feature. The Holography feature paired with the angled drivers was quite impressive.


The Sonic Holography Generator simply put the high frequencies out of phase. It was not rocket science.

It also did not advance the goal of accurate sound reproduction.


----------



## NoCoPilot

That Guy Mick said:


> Everything can be placed in rear channels. It seems that you are imagining a channel dedicated to a particular instrument or group of instruments. The idea is that height and rear channels are used to excite ambience and/or enhance channel seperation, whether for a matrixed two channel experience or a discrete multi-channel surround setup.


Without multichannel recording, the best you can do is add reverb for the rear channels.



That Guy Mick said:


> Though lower bass frequencies are perceived as non-directional, there is still the potential benefit of reducing bass nulls and voids that are created by room modes.


Anyone who thinks low frequencies are non-directional has never heard a proper kick drum recording.


----------



## That Guy Mick

NoCoPilot said:


> The Sonic Holography Generator simply put the high frequencies out of phase. It was not rocket science.
> 
> It also did not advance the goal of accurate sound reproduction.


Totally incorrect. I suggest you read more deeply.


----------



## That Guy Mick

NoCoPilot said:


> Without multichannel recording, the best you can do is add reverb for the rear channels.
> 
> Anyone who thinks low frequencies are non-directional has never heard a proper kick drum recording.


Again, totally incorrect. There are audio attributes involved in surround sound designs that I mentioned in my previous post that you dismissed. Bass frequencies below 100Hz are non-directional in their perception regardless of the instrument. The things that I mentioned in previous posts are based upon psychoacoustic studies.


----------



## eljr

That Guy Mick said:


> Its lamentable that we live in an era where cigar smoking in the home is considered offensive.


Seems reasoned and rational to me. Just going to see a show in a cigar bar in Manhattan leaves my clothes in need of the laundry. :tiphat:


----------



## NoCoPilot

That Guy Mick said:


> Totally incorrect. I suggest you read more deeply.


I base my conclusion on lab tests I myself conducted, plus analysis of the circuitry Bob designed. Yes, it's a little more complicated than that, but that is the essential result of the SHG.

If by "reading" you're suggesting Bob's extravagantly-exaggerated press releases, I defer.


----------



## NoCoPilot

That Guy Mick said:


> Though lower bass frequencies are perceived as non-directional, there is still the potential benefit of reducing bass nulls and voids that are created by room modes. Probably not much of a realistic consideration, since most solutions involve use of multiple subwoofers placed in the front and rear of the room, and I am quite certain that this aspect is given any thought by those who engineer surround recordings.
> 
> To be sure, much thought has gone into the design of the various surround systems and many listeners enjoy the added benefits. Of course, there are those who simply write it all off as gimmickry without any personal experience or anything, but a superficial understanding. This is uniquely different than listeners who purport the ability or inability to hear improvements from ever increasing amounts of sampling rate and bit depth in their recordings.


With all due respect, this is a common misconception. Yes, on pipe organ music and recordings of a orchestral bass viol sections, non-directionality appears to be the case. There are no transients to indicate otherwise.

However, in modern drum recordings or anything with some punch, it's quite clear that subwoofer placement becomes critical.

As to room modes, standing waves from constant sources in reverberant spaces can build up "nulls" and peaks as the sound waves dissipate. However these are minimized by:
changing frequencies
reducing reflective surfaces
proper speaker placement
proper room sizing


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> With all due respect, this is a common misconception. Yes, on pipe organ music and recordings of a orchestral bass viol sections, non-directionality appears to be the case. There are no transients to indicate otherwise.
> 
> However, in modern drum recordings or anything with some punch, it's quite clear that subwoofer placement becomes critical.
> 
> As to room modes, standing waves from constant sources in reverberant spaces can build up "nulls" and peaks as the sound waves dissipate. However these are minimized by:
> changing frequencies
> reducing reflective surfaces
> proper speaker placement
> proper room sizing


I don' think you refuted what he said. He, I and you all agree that placement is essential, that is not the point of contention.

His post spoke to bass not being perceived as directional.


----------



## NoCoPilot

eljr said:


> His post spoke to bass not being perceived as directional.


High frequencies aren't "directional" then either, because cymbal hits can appear to come from a spot somewhere BETWEEN the speakers, or even OUTSIDE the speaker system.

Low frequencies have really long wavelengths (60Hz = 18.333 feet) which take a while to congeal. In a small space you're never dealing with full waves, only moving air and varying air pressures. If they sound non-directional it's probably because you have them trapped in a box and they can't get out.


----------



## progmatist

NoCoPilot said:


> Low frequencies have really long wavelengths (60Hz = 18.333 feet) which take a while to congeal.


In Navy technical school, we learned the 60 cycle wavelength is roughly 32 miles...in relation to the microwaves used in radar, which can't be carried by a cable or wire. They have to be carried by a waveguide, or rectangular tube. The size of the waveguide correlates with the length of the wave being carried. Similarly, the transmission lines which carry radio waves from the station to the broadcasting tower are odd ducks. They're 2 parallel lines with a series of square/u-shaped "jumpers," which in any other application would create a direct short circuit. The "jumpers" so to speak are spaced along the line according to the wavelength. The spacing between the parallel lines, and the size of the "jumpers" also match the wavelength of the signal being carried. If you've seen a transmission line, you know the overall scale is quite large. Mind you I'm stripping away some of the technical jargon, and translating to layman's terms.


----------



## Philidor

AFAIK, the relation between frequency f and wavelenght lambda is determined by the speed c of the wave: c = f x lambda.

In case of microwaves we are talking about (in vacuum) the speed of light, thus c = about 300.000 km/s.

In case of music we are talking about sonic speed, thus c = 330 m/s.


----------



## progmatist

Philidor said:


> AFAIK, the relation between frequency f and wavelenght lambda is determined by the speed c of the wave: c = f x lambda.
> 
> In case of microwaves we are talking about (in vacuum) the speed of light, thus c = about 300.000 km/s.
> 
> In case of music we are talking about sonic speed, thus c = 330 m/s.


Yes, the speed of sound is considerably slower than the speed of light. As it relates to music, there are open back guitar amps, but no such thing as an open back bass amp. Lower frequency sound emanating from either side of the speaker cone will cancel itself out. Also, dual subwoofers in a sound system will never be "true" stereo. It's 2 speaker mono.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Lotta _WEIRD_ wrong information floating around. Do I need to point out the facts? Or let it slide?

Oh yeah. Slide.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> High frequencies aren't "directional" then either, because cymbal hits can appear to come from a spot somewhere BETWEEN the speakers, or even OUTSIDE the speaker system.
> 
> Low frequencies have really long wavelengths (60Hz = 18.333 feet) which take a while to congeal. In a small space you're never dealing with full waves, only moving air and varying air pressures. If they sound non-directional it's probably because you have them trapped in a box and they can't get out.


Why do subwoofer manufactures claim the sound is perceived as non directional?

Why are subs or duel subs not placed as speakers which are placed for right, left differentiation?

You are not explaining yourself.

I think you may be confusing physical direction of the sound waves with perception of direction. ????

It is of no relevance that the wave forms travel directionally in home audio as they are not perceived as such.

What is important is how they interact with your room in a way that your sitting area is not in a null.

I am not an audio engineer and really could care less either way. I am however intellectually curious and have spent, as a hobbyist, 6 decades in audio. I have never heard someone make the claim you are making.

Seems to me, either the entire audio world I have been exposed to is wrong or you are not explaining yourself well. ?????

BTW, the system I keep my big subwoofers in, I have them placed right next to the towers. 
In another system I use a single sub which is placed with regard to the room, not the towers. Same with a 3rd system that uses a sub. 
In my lead system, which is dedicated to two channel, I have removed all subs. I had both a single and two subs in the system at different points. They were just not needed. IMHO, of course.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Let's take these one at a time.



eljr said:


> Why do subwoofer manufacturers claim the sound is perceived as non directional?


Coupla reasons. 1.) In subwoofer placement, particularly in home theater applications (the most common use for subwoofers) most situations dictate the sub has to be placed off in a corner somewhere. For movie sound effects this is fine. 2.) Most speaker systems are not phase coherent.



eljr said:


> Why are subs or dual subs not placed as speakers which are placed for right, left differentiation?


Because it is rare that the bass is not mixed to center channel. This practice goes back to the limitations of record cutting.



eljr said:


> I think you may be confusing physical direction of the sound waves with perception of direction. ????


Now you are confusing ME. What's the difference?



eljr said:


> What is important is how they interact with your room in a way that your sitting area is not in a null.


If you are in a room small enough and reflective enough to create nulls (cancellations from out-of-phase reflections) those nulls are going to vary their position depending on frequency. It's not going to be one null for all bass frequencies.



eljr said:


> I am not an audio engineer and really could care less either way. I am however intellectually curious and have spent, as a hobbyist, 6 decades in audio. I have never heard someone make the claim you are making. Seems to me, either the entire audio world I have been exposed to is wrong or you are not explaining yourself well.


There is an awful lot of misinformation and "common wisdom" that is wrong in the audio world. However, the truth is easily discernible with a little experimentation.


----------



## NoCoPilot

eljr said:


> In my lead system, which is dedicated to two channel, I have removed all subs. I had both a single and two subs in the system at different points. They were just not needed. IMHO, of course.


I want to pull this statement out for special attention, because it is important.

My speaker system was flat to 20Hz (free air resonance of the woofers is 16Hz) but adding a powered (150w) subwoofer flat to 15Hz made a HUGE difference. Suddenly the woofers were much more responsive and visceral, an effect commonly described as "effortless" although that's a non-scientific term so I dislike it. By freeing up the woofers (they're also crossed over higher now) their "inner detail" or mid-bass (60-120Hz) has become quite noticeably more tight and accurate.


----------



## That Guy Mick

NoCoPilot said:


> I base my conclusion on lab tests I myself conducted, plus analysis of the circuitry Bob designed. Yes, it's a little more complicated than that, but that is the essential result of the SHG.
> 
> If by "reading" you're suggesting Bob's extravagantly-exaggerated press releases, I defer.


More research on Sonic Holography would have been easier and led to an actual accurate understanding of the technology. Cancellation and crosstalk and delay are important variables that you failed to note. Left channel signals are applied to the right channel with 180 degree phasing and vice versa resulting in cancellation of crosstalk; greater channel separation. A horizontal improvement that is improved by the added implementation of delay in the channel mixing. A 3D sound is the end result. Further enhanced by use of rear channel speakers with the Ambient processor setting.


----------



## That Guy Mick

NoCoPilot said:


> With all due respect, this is a common misconception. Yes, on pipe organ music and recordings of a orchestral bass viol sections, non-directionality appears to be the case. There are no transients to indicate otherwise.
> 
> However, in modern drum recordings or anything with some punch, it's quite clear that subwoofer placement becomes critical.
> 
> As to room modes, standing waves from constant sources in reverberant spaces can build up "nulls" and peaks as the sound waves dissipate. However these are minimized by:
> changing frequencies
> reducing reflective surfaces
> proper speaker placement
> proper room sizing


Multiple subwoofers offer an additional improvement for flatter bass response. Actually, a better response than absorption and equalization, if power is a consideration (and it invariably is for the lowest frequencies in home audio reproduction). Absorption robs power. Attempting to increase decibels with EQ to overcome nulls requires exponentially higher amounts of power. Remember that increased SPL is a logarithmic function. A 3 dB increase requires a doubling of power. Four powered subwoofers pack more SPL into the space without the power robbing and power demanding pitfalls. Rudimentary.


----------



## NoCoPilot

That Guy Mick said:


> More research on Sonic Holography would have been easier and led to an actual accurate understanding of the technology. Left channel signals are applied to the right channel *with 180 degree phasing and vice versa*


Ummm, yeah. I believe that's what I said: "puts the high frequencies out-of-phase."

In my Audacity software there's a plug-in called Channel Mixer, which allows you to assign any percentage of either channel to either channel. 50% left and 50% right, to both channels, gives you *mono*. 100% left to the left channel and 100% right to right makes *normal stereo*. 100% left to the right channel and 100% right to the left channel makes *reverse stereo*. Rudimentary, right?

There are also presets. One called* "Widen Stereo"* is: Right channel = 100% right MINUS 100% left. Left channel = 100% left MINUS 100% right. What this does is remove_ any center channel information_; anything common to both channels is totally mixed out.

This is what the SHG does for high frequencies -- except Bob went one step further, putting both the normal left and right HF out of phase from the rest of the mix. Therefore, not only is all your stereo mix (center) information lost, but also now the high frequencies are reverse phase from the mids and woofers. This makes, to an untrained ear, the highs "stand out" from the rest of the mix because they're no longer in the same phase.

Bob－marketing genius that he is－coined the term "sonic holography" for this.


----------



## NoCoPilot

That Guy Mick said:


> Four powered subwoofers pack more SPL into the space without the power robbing and power demanding pitfalls.


Remind me not to eat anything before previewing your stereo. :lol:


----------



## That Guy Mick

NoCoPilot said:


> Ummm, yeah. I believe that's what I said: "puts the high frequencies out-of-phase."


No, what you wrote is not the same just because you mentioned "out-of-phase." Sorry that I can't go along with your fantasy. But wait... Equipment that is out of phase is really just sonic holography? You are really trying to say that? Lol!!!


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> Let's take these one at a time.
> 
> Coupla reasons. 1.) In subwoofer placement, particularly in home theater applications (the most common use for subwoofers) most situations dictate the sub has to be placed off in a corner somewhere. For movie sound effects this is fine. 2.) Most speaker systems are not phase coherent.
> 
> Because it is rare that the bass is not mixed to center channel. This practice goes back to the limitations of record cutting.
> 
> Now you are confusing ME. What's the difference?
> 
> If you are in a room small enough and reflective enough to create nulls (cancellations from out-of-phase reflections) those nulls are going to vary their position depending on frequency. It's not going to be one null for all bass frequencies.
> 
> There is an awful lot of misinformation and "common wisdom" that is wrong in the audio world. However, the truth is easily discernible with a little experimentation.


With all respect, you are dancing, not answering directly. Answering on tangents.

I don't know if this is purposeful or not. It may that you just can't explain what you know?????

Yes, lots of misinformation.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> I want to pull this statement out for special attention, because it is important.
> 
> My speaker system was flat to 20Hz (free air resonance of the woofers is 16Hz) but adding a powered (150w) subwoofer flat to 15Hz made a HUGE difference. Suddenly the woofers were much more responsive and visceral, an effect commonly described as "effortless" although that's a non-scientific term so I dislike it. By freeing up the woofers (they're also crossed over higher now) their "inner detail" or mid-bass (60-120Hz) has become quite noticeably more tight and accurate.


This is a non issue with better equipment, properly powered. Isn't it?

Like I said, I had two subs in my lead system before I removed them. 1,000 watts each, peak 3,600 each. They were not needed for a "much more responsive and visceral" response from my speakers. No matter where I crossed them.


----------



## NoCoPilot

eljr said:


> I don't know if this is purposeful or not. It may that you just can't explain what you know?????


Or possibly, I was unclear in what I wrote, for which I apologize. Much of what you have written appears to have been gleaned from reading trade journals rather than experimenting on your own, and so many of your conclusions parrot "common wisdom" that just happens to be wrong.


----------



## NoCoPilot

eljr said:


> This is a non issue with better equipment, properly powered. Isn't it?
> 
> Like I said, I had two subs in my lead system before I removed them. 1,000 watts each, peak 3,600 each. They were not needed for a "much more responsive and visceral" response from my speakers. No matter where I crossed them.


For instance, when I wrote about "a much more responsive and visceral" response, I was writing about my WOOFERS... not my sub-woofer. Perhaps you missed that.

When I wrote about nulls in the listening room, I pointed out that they're caused by reflections inside the listening room, reflections that are out of phase with the original signal and thus cancel it out... causing a null. I mentioned that nulls will be in different places for different frequencies, and can thus be alleviated by damping the reflections, repositioning the speakers, or repositioning your listening chair. Adding more subs is NOT the answer. Adding more power is NOT the answer.


----------



## NoCoPilot

eljr said:


> I am not an audio engineer and really couldn't care less either way. I am however intellectually curious and have spent, as a hobbyist, 6 decades in audio. I have never heard someone make the claim you are making. Seems to me, either the entire audio world I have been exposed to is wrong or you are not explaining yourself well.


I'll give you this. My conclusions are not widely shared, and as I've stated, there is A LOT of misinformation in the audio world. I can back up everything I say however.


----------



## NoCoPilot

eljr said:


> 1,000 watts each, peak 3,600 each.





NoCoPilot said:


> Adding more power is NOT the answer.


This illustrates another common misconception. More power does not equal louder sound, or necessarily less distortion.

You know that audio power is logarithmic, right? A 1,000 watt amplifier will go twice as loud as a 100 watt amplifier, not a hundred times louder.

But nobody plays music at max volume all the time. Most amplifiers operate at an output of 5 or 10 watts, most of the time. Only the PEAKS call on additional power, in order to output waves that aren't clipped by the rail voltages. So very rarely would a 1,000 watt amp operate at anywhere near its maximum capacity.

Then there's the other end of the equation. What's the maximum power handling capability of your speakers? 3,600 watts? I doubt it. It might be 3-500 watts, if you're into professional-grade gear.

So yes, higher power is an advantage in principle, but in actual use it very rarely-if ever-gets utilized.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Much more important to an amplifier's performance is its THD, not its power.


----------



## Malx

I once heard that the ability of an amplifier to shift current was in some respects more important than loads more power - something to do transient with response maybe.
Please don't ask me anything more about this as I am not heavily into hifi but I'd be interested to hear if it has any basis in reality, or indeed in theory.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Watts is the measure of current (volts is power). Power and current are determined by resistance...

So yes, current is important but even MORE important is distortion. You can have oodles of power & current but if your amp is crap the sound will be crap.


----------



## Malx

So is low THD the be all and end all of good sound? I sense it is a bit more complicated than that. I hasten to add I do appreciate you are not necessarily saying thats the case.
I have listened in the past to amplifiers with very low distortion figures that sounded flat, cold, with no soul (yes I know that is hardly a measurable parameter) I also accept other things do come in to play in arriving at the total sound.
Thankfully I can live with what my ears consider 'pleasing' sound - it may not represent, in the final analysis the best set of technical specs but if sounds 'musical' to me then I'm happy.

This thread has made interesting reading even if I don't understand a lot of what I'm reading :tiphat:


----------



## NoCoPilot

Malx said:


> I have listened in the past to amplifiers with very low distortion figures that sounded flat, cold, with no soul


Well, at some point you begin to get into _preferences_ rather than science.... Some people like the "warm" nearly 10% distortion of a sloppy tube amplifier... the sound meets with their previous experience and gives them a warm nostalgic glow inside.:lol:

It's okay to like that sound, if that's what you like.


----------



## progmatist

NoCoPilot said:


> Well, at some point you begin to get into _preferences_ rather than science.... Some people like the "warm" nearly 10% distortion of a sloppy tube amplifier... the sound meets with their previous experience and gives them a warm nostalgic glow inside.:lol:
> 
> It's okay to like that sound, if that's what you like.


Downlsampling recordings to 16/44.1 for CD production requires dithering. The intentional injection of noise. Otherwise, they sound too sterile.


----------



## NoCoPilot

progmatist said:


> Downlsampling recordings to 16/44.1 for CD production requires dithering. The intentional injection of noise. Otherwise, they sound too sterile.


Okay, maybe I'll learn something here. Please correct me if I get any of this wrong.

1. The noise floor (quietest sound reproducible) in 16 bit resolution is -96dBFS (decibels full-scale, where 0dBFS is the loudest sound that can be recorded).

2. The dynamic range on a CD is 90 dB (versus about 70 for an LP).

3. Therefore, the range between -90dbFS and -96dBFS (or, 6dB) is cut off by Red Book standards.

4. How loud is -90dB? Decibels are a _RATIO_ between two sound levels, not an absolute measure, but you can get an idea of the exponential scale, where every 10dB is a doubling in loudness, by looking at scale of relative loudnesses. If we figure a jet airplane taking off is 100dB -- and make that a benchmark for the loudest sound our microphone & recorder will capture, then *90dB below that* is the level of the sound of breathing, the "barely audible" on this chart. -96 dBFS, the theoretical limit of 16-bit recording, would be 6db below that, or almost ten times quieter.

5. Dithering noise is added to make quantization distortion anharmonic near the noise floor (-96dBFS for 16-bit), without which signals that tail off (like reverbs and echoes) will go into harmonic distortion as they reach the noise floor (6dB beyond the dynamic range of a CD).

6. Dithering has no effect above the noise floor.

7. Therefore, my conclusion is, if you can hear echo or reverb distortion that is TEN TIMES below the level of audibility, your hearing must be better than mine.

But hey, I might have this whole dithering thing upside down.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> For instance, when I wrote about "a much more responsive and visceral" response, I was writing about my WOOFERS... not my sub-woofer. Perhaps you missed that.


No, I understood.



NoCoPilot said:


> When I wrote about nulls in the listening room, I pointed out that they're caused by reflections inside the listening room, reflections that are out of phase with the original signal and thus cancel it out... causing a null. I mentioned that nulls will be in different places for different frequencies, and can thus be alleviated by damping the reflections, repositioning the speakers, or repositioning your listening chair. .


You post is correct so far.



NoCoPilot said:


> Adding more subs is NOT the answer.


It certainly can be.



> Adding more power is NOT the answer.


Correct.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> This illustrates another common misconception. More power does not equal louder sound, or necessarily less distortion.
> 
> You know that audio power is logarithmic, right? A 1,000 watt amplifier will go twice as loud as a 100 watt amplifier, not a hundred times louder.
> 
> But nobody plays music at max volume all the time. Most amplifiers operate at an output of 5 or 10 watts, most of the time. Only the PEAKS call on additional power, in order to output waves that aren't clipped by the rail voltages. So very rarely would a 1,000 watt amp operate at anywhere near its maximum capacity.
> 
> Then there's the other end of the equation. What's the maximum power handling capability of your speakers? 3,600 watts? I doubt it. It might be 3-500 watts, if you're into professional-grade gear.
> 
> So yes, higher power is an advantage in principle, but in actual use it very rarely-if ever-gets utilized.


It is a fallacy to erroneously state another persons position just to counter it.

It is insulting that you think someone who has enjoyed audio for 60 years does not know what you appear to be "teaching" in this post.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> Watts is the measure of current (volts is power). Power and current are determined by resistance...
> 
> So yes, current is important but even MORE important is distortion. You can have oodles of power & current but if your amp is crap the sound will be crap.


Some folks love distortion. Look at all the tube enthusiasts.


----------



## NoCoPilot

eljr said:


> It certainly can be.


More subwoofers would only be a solution to nulls if bass was not directional.

I guess I must not have proved that point to anyone's satisfaction ... beyond a reasonable doubt. :lol:

Putting more subs in an enclosed space is similar to moving the existing speakers around, to move the null points so your listening chair isn't in the middle of one of them. "Overpowering the problem," as it were.


----------



## eljr

NoCoPilot said:


> More subwoofers would only be a solution to nulls if bass was not directional.
> 
> I guess I must not have proved that point to anyone's satisfaction ... beyond a reasonable doubt. :lol:
> 
> Putting more subs in an enclosed space is similar to moving the existing speakers around, to move the null points so your listening chair isn't in the middle of one of them. "Overpowering the problem," as it were.


There is more than one listening position in a room in most cases.

Moving your chair helps only your chair not the other chairs. Adding a sub can potentially.


----------



## NoCoPilot

I guess I wouldn't disagree with that.


----------



## progmatist

NoCoPilot said:


> Okay, maybe I'll learn something here. Please correct me if I get any of this wrong.
> 
> 1. The noise floor (quietest sound reproducible) in 16 bit resolution is -96dBFS (decibels full-scale, where 0dBFS is the loudest sound that can be recorded).
> 
> 2. The dynamic range on a CD is 90 dB (versus about 70 for an LP).
> 
> 3. Therefore, the range between -90dbFS and -96dBFS (or, 6dB) is cut off by Red Book standards.
> 
> 4. How loud is -90dB? Decibels are a _RATIO_ between two sound levels, not an absolute measure, but you can get an idea of the exponential scale, where every 10dB is a doubling in loudness, by looking at scale of relative loudnesses. If we figure a jet airplane taking off is 100dB -- and make that a benchmark for the loudest sound our microphone & recorder will capture, then *90dB below that* is the level of the sound of breathing, the "barely audible" on this chart. -96 dBFS, the theoretical limit of 16-bit recording, would be 6db below that, or almost ten times quieter.
> 
> 5. Dithering noise is added to make quantization distortion anharmonic near the noise floor (-96dBFS for 16-bit), without which signals that tail off (like reverbs and echoes) will go into harmonic distortion as they reach the noise floor (6dB beyond the dynamic range of a CD).
> 
> 6. Dithering has no effect above the noise floor.
> 
> 7. Therefore, my conclusion is, if you can hear echo or reverb distortion that is TEN TIMES below the level of audibility, your hearing must be better than mine.
> 
> But hey, I might have this whole dithering thing upside down.


The purpose of dithering is to make it "sound" more natural. From a purely technical standpoint, it would be antithetical.


----------



## NoCoPilot

The article I linked in point #5 explains why adding random noise makes the distortion enharmonic as it crosses the resolution limit of digital sampling. It's not "antithetical," it's science.

There's a YouTube video out there, which I did not link, which uses 2- and 4-bit sampling to illustrate the point. It makes the effect pretty understandable. Of course with 16-bit or 24-bit or 32-bit sampling the resolution limit is inaudible, so much harder to explain.


----------



## NoCoPilot




----------



## NoCoPilot

It seems to me -- though I've never seen this mentioned anywhere -- that dithering in digital audio performs approximately the same function as the AC bias voltage to the record head in analog tape recorders:
*Analog:*


> The record head is a small electromagnet pressed against the tape. If a current is applied, it magnetises the oxide particles on the tape. the stronger the current, the more magnetic domains are re-aligned and the stronger the signal recorded.
> 
> However, a very tiny current will have no effect on the tape at all. This would mean that weak signals would end up distorted (as *only the peaks would be recorded). Even weaker signals would not be recorded at all.*
> 
> Adding a high-frequency bias ensures that there is always enough magnetic field to magnetise the tape. However, the frequency is higher than the tape is capable of recording [usually 40 to 150kHz], so it doesn't affect the result.


https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/190119/ac-bias-in-tape-heads-could-someone-explain

*Digital:*


> When we try to measure an infinitely variable analog source (our audio) using a finite number of digital values (those ones and zeros), there are bound to be some errors. Sometimes the analog level will be a little above the closest digital value, while other times it will be below. In digital audio, this rounding error is known as quantization distortion.
> 
> Without going into too much detail, this is because the number of bits dictates how many discrete values you have to store levels at. Every time you add a bit, you double how accurately you can measure. Going the other way, this means that every time you lose a bit, you double the potential rounding error.
> 1kHz sine wave at 16 bits, no dither [at -96dBFS, the theoretical limit of 16-bit]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes! What's going on here?! Two things: First, *only the very peaks* of the sine wave were high enough in level to get rounded up to *the smallest value a 16-bit file can represent* (i.e. -96dBFS], while the rest were rounded down to zero. Second, depending on where the peak of the sine wave fell in relation to the sample timing, either one or two samples were rounded up.
> 
> Clearly, this won't do. Dither to the rescue! Back in the early days of digital audio, some clever engineers realized they could use a random noise signal to their advantage. By mixing it with the signal being quantized, they could add enough variation that the original signal could be preserved.


https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/what-is-dithering-in-audio.html


----------



## That Guy Mick

NoCoPilot said:


> For instance, when I wrote about "a much more responsive and visceral" response, I was writing about my WOOFERS... not my sub-woofer. Perhaps you missed that.
> 
> When I wrote about nulls in the listening room, I pointed out that they're caused by reflections inside the listening room, reflections that are out of phase with the original signal and thus cancel it out... causing a null. I mentioned that nulls will be in different places for different frequencies, and can thus be alleviated by damping the reflections, repositioning the speakers, or repositioning your listening chair. Adding more subs is NOT the answer. Adding more power is NOT the answer.


A flatter frequency response acheived by simply adding more subwoofers is well documented. The bass measurement charts in the link below provide an excellent example. It is quite clear that the single subwoofer drops off severely around 40Hz (SPL in the low 70's) with +/- 18dB response. The four sub setup is +/- 7dB with low SPL at 85dB. That is a HUUUGGEE difference.

https://hometheaterreview.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-multiple-subwoofers/









EQ can be used to alleviate excessive peaks, but it cannot overcome the nulls caused by room cancellation and the anemic single sub output. On the other hand, EQ can elevate the minor dips when used in conjunction with four subs.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Yup, that graph perfectly illustrates the concept of "overpowering" the problem of nulls. If we listened to constant sine waves that would be the solution of choice for sure!


----------



## NoCoPilot

Compact Discs filter out any signal above 20,000 Hz because human hearing tops out at about 18K for youngsters under 20. Analog recording decks also had to limit the upper end because the tape head bias frequency could be as low as 30K. Playing a track (recorded at double speed) at normal speed could make the bias frequency audible.

Audio circuitry also invariably limits the top end, to prevent ultrasonic feedback loops which are easy to stumble into if you don't limit the range.

At the other end of the frequency range, most modern CD players will reproduce down to 0Hz (DC) and some amplifiers will reproduce it. Modern powered subwoofers will do 15 Hz at volume, which is FELT rather than heard.

LPs of course are intentionally rolled off below 50 Hz to get more music on a side, and this practice was carried across in the digital age until around 2010. Very few digital masters prior to a decade ago contained significant signal under 40 Hz. Old habits die hard.

And a minority of consumers could hear the difference anyway.


----------



## progmatist

NoCoPilot said:


> Compact Discs filter out any signal above 20,000 Hz because human hearing tops out at about 18K for youngsters under 20. Analog recording decks also had to limit the upper end because the tape head bias frequency could be as low as 30K. Playing a track (recorded at double speed) at normal speed could make the bias frequency audible.
> 
> Audio circuitry also invariably limits the top end, to prevent ultrasonic feedback loops which are easy to stumble into if you don't limit the range.
> 
> At the other end of the frequency range, most modern CD players will reproduce down to 0Hz (DC) and some amplifiers will reproduce it. Modern powered subwoofers will do 15 Hz at volume, which is FELT rather than heard.
> 
> LPs of course are intentionally rolled off below 50 Hz to get more music on a side, and this practice was carried across in the digital age until around 2010. Very few digital masters prior to a decade ago contained significant signal under 40 Hz. Old habits die hard.
> 
> And a minority of consumers could hear the difference anyway.


If I downsample a Hi-Res file to CD quality, using nothing but a resampling algorithm and dithering, what goes missing more than anything is the low end. The polar opposite of conventional wisdom Hi-Res sound quality is all about ultra-sonic frequencies. Drums in particular sound more like cardboard boxes, and the acoustic and/or electric bass takes on more of a dull, thumpy tone. This sound is dominant in early CD transfers of older analog recordings. The same thing happens when a slightly out of alignment tape head is brought back into alignment. It doesn't only restore the brilliance of the cymbals and vocal sibilance. It makes the bass sound deeper and fuller. That's also the source of analog=warmer conventional wisdom.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Do you have any examples you can point us to, Progmatist? As you say, this is counter to conventional wisdom, counter to common sense, counter to science, and counter to my experience. Convince me.


----------



## progmatist

NoCoPilot said:


> Do you have any examples you can point us to, Progmatist? As you say, this is counter to conventional wisdom, counter to common sense, counter to science, and counter to my experience. Convince me.


One thing I know that is very difficult to dispute: if I listen to a vinyl record with a quality cartridge through quality analog equipment, it sounds rich, full and well balanced. If I record that same record through that same equipment in CD quality digital, it suddenly sounds like it's in desperate need of a remastering. I would point to all these decades of remaster after remaster after remaster. Was it because artists and labels had nothing better to do with their time? Or was it in fact evolving digital tech allowing better and better compensation for the shortcomings of 16bit digital?

Below is part of my hypothesis why analog and Hi-Res actually do sound better. And I quote:

I'll start with a bold statement: Hi-Res sound quality is _NOT_ about frequency. The fact Hi-Res happens to be "capable" of ultrasonic frequencies is neither here nor there. Analog tape running at 15 or 30 inches per second is also "capable" of ultrasonic frequencies. But that never crossed anyone's mind. I myself balk at "Hi-Res" headphones as a marketing gimmick. To qualify as "Hi-Res," headphones must reproduce up to 30KHz, making them needlessly expensive.

The laser focus on frequency is based on one assumption: the shortest wavelength blips on the carrier audio waveform exclusively represent the highest frequencies. And humans are incapable of hearing anything above 20KHz, ergo it's humanly impossible to hear sound improvement in sampling rates above 44.1KHz. I beg to differ. I submit those blips also represent quick transitions from one instrument to the next, one effect to the next, from an instrument to an effect, or vice versa. Perhaps more so than the highest audio frequencies. Those lines of separation between instruments and effects are far more susceptible to digital truncation than actual audio frequencies. When those lines get blurred by digital truncation, the audible separation between them, and the completeness of their individual sound also get blurred. Notice I said "blurred" and not "obliterated." I'll concede "obliterated" would be a gross exaggeration.

I would compare it to the way the screen was drawn on old CRT TVs and computer monitors. The beam from the "electron gun" did not draw the blue sky in its entirety. Then clouds in their entirety. Then a tree on one side of the screen in its entirety. Then another tree on the other side of the screen in its entirety. The cathode ray scanned horizontal lines from top to bottom. On interlaced screens, it would scan every other line. Then on a second pass, fill in every other line skipped by the first pass. When the beam hit a portion of the screen where there was sky, the beam would turn blue. When it hit a tree, it would turn whatever shade of green was appropriate for the light and shadow of particular leaves. And so on.

Likewise, the carrier audio waveform doesn't sound the lead guitar in its entirety. Then the bass (guitar) in its entirety. Then the snare drum in its entirety, et cetera, et cetera. Through a complete cycle of the carrier waveform, it repeatedly cycles through every instrument and effect many times. Every time it does, there's a quick transition between them. That of course is a massive oversimplification, for illustrative purposes only. The audio waveform in reality is quite complex.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Well, that's certainly an _interesting_ take on how digital audio works... but what I asked for was illustrative examples of how what "goes missing more than anything is the low end." Verbal descriptions and theories of operation are not as convincing as concrete examples.


----------



## progmatist

NoCoPilot said:


> Well, that's certainly an _interesting_ take on how digital audio works... but what I asked for was illustrative examples of how what "goes missing more than anything is the low end." Verbal descriptions and theories of operation are not as convincing as concrete examples.


I believe I answered that in the first paragraph of my response. Later remasters of early CD transfers were made to sound boomier, in order to compensate for the thinner sound of the low end. Particularly the "cardboard box" drum sound. Any remaster of an early CD transfer is a concrete example. If there wasn't a fundamental difference in the way 16bit digital makes music sound, there would've been no need for anyone to waste any time remastering anything.

And BTW: 80s recordings pre-compensated, or more accurately overcompensated by making drums sound huge. Up to and including gated reverb. That hugeness remains in what we expect to hear in drums to this day.


----------



## NoCoPilot

progmatist said:


> Any remaster of an early CD transfer is a concrete example.


 Give me a "for instance." That has not been my experience.


----------



## progmatist

NoCoPilot said:


> Give me a "for instance." That has not been my experience.


How can I pick just one out of the whole lot? Either drums sound like cardboard boxes to you or they don't. My experience must be quite common, otherwise why go through the massive exercise of remaster after remaster after remaster? The turning point when music started sounding radically different coincides with the introduction of the Compact Disc. There must be something radically different about the CD format to cause such a paradigm shift.

Digital recording predates the CD by a few years. A digitally sourced vinyl record, before any means of digital distribution sounds very much like any other contemporaneous vinyl record. After the CD, even the vinyl version started sounding radically different. Most notably they sound soaking wet with reverb, more so than even their CD counterpart. That's because the application of reverb required by the CD format is radically different. They didn't bother with different mastering for the 2 formats like they do today. Incidentally, a modern Hi-Res download will typically be the exact source used for any vinyl version.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Thanks for your reply.

I'm familiar with the "drums that sound like cardboard boxes" effect; it's caused by normal LP mastering which rolls off the bass very steeply below 50Hz (or even higher). A good number of CDs－most, in fact－in my experience have been made from the same masters, or at least mastered with the same philosophy.

Every now and then however you run across a CD which was not LF limited, and those can show the real difference in capabilities between LPs and CDs. I'll give you one example, Patrick Moraz & Bill Bruford, "Music for Piano and Drums" (1983). I made a CD-R of it in the early '90s, the best sound I could get out of my LP of it. When the official CD of it *finally* came out in 2004 there was a whole new octave to Bill's drums; the kick drum finally kicked, and they no longer sounded like cardboard boxes.

Regarding digitally-sourced LPs, yes digital recording began in 1971 and became commonplace by the mid-1980s. CDs (with the Redbook 16/44.1 standard) started coming out in October 1983. I have collected as many of these pre-Redbook digital productions as I have been able to find, and _MOST _of them are pretty damn impressive. Even in the low end. The LPs sounded dramatically cleaner, clearer, less distorted and more "live" to my ears, and when these recordings became available on CD the effect was even moreso. I did not find that they "sounded like any other contemporaneous vinyl record," quite the contrary. They sounded like the direct-to-disc productions (if you remember them? Sheffield Labs et al) and to a lesser extent, the DMM direct-metal-mastered and Mobile Fidelity half-speed-mastered LPs, all of which were attempts to overcome the inherent limitations of the LP format.

When you say recordings started sounding "different" after 1984, with more reverb, I can't think of a single example. If anything, early CD productions tended to be a lot "dryer" with LESS reverb, and it took until the early '90s for engineers to get comfortable with the incredible detail and demands of digital recording. For instance, Madonna's "Like A Virgin" (1984), Herbie Hancock's "Sound System" (1984) and Ry Cooder's "Bop Till You Drop" (1979) are very sterile sounding, and incidentally have no bass below 50Hz. Yes's "90125" (1983) has some very obvious (& artificial) reverb added, but the recording itself is very clean and brittle-sounding. Again, there is no bass below 50. All these productions were "mastered for LP."

I'd say one of the earliest digital productions to give us natural sound was Aaron Copland's "Appalachian Spring" (chamber version, with piano) by the St. Paul Chamber Orchestra (Pro-Arte 1984, recorded 1978 on a prototype 3M digital recorder laid out on a tabletop and held together with binder clips). The instruments are clear without being brittle, and the bass is unrestricted. There is no sign of artificial reverb anywhere.

By the mid-'90s engineers had figured out how to get natural sound in digital, and productions like Copland's "The Music of America" (Telarc 1997) and Jennifer Higdon's "City Scape" (Telarc 2004) were very realistic.

I have not made a study of remasterings, but I know that several albums have been remastered more than once. The only example that comes to mind is "Dark Side of the Moon," of which I have the original 1983 Japanese CD (basically, the LP master tapes transferred to CD), the 1992 James Guthrie remaster (where it sounds like he took the LP master tapes and gated some of the tape hiss out of the quieter portions, and compressed it a bit) and the 2003 SACD remaster by James Guthrie where he apparently went back to the multi-tracks and noise-gated each track separately, and restored the original dynamics. All of these remasters－and there were more－were done to address the audible tape hiss of Abbey Road's 8-track. The 2003 has the lowest bass of the bunch, probably because it wasn't sourced from an LP pre-master.

So... if you can explain what you mean, with examples hopefully, by "the CD format requires more reverb" and "CD remasters make the drums sound like cardboard boxes" I'd be forever in your debt.


----------



## AndorFoldes

There is no reason to believe that low end is lost when a hi-res file is downsampled to CD quality. 

CD was not a mature format in the early 1980s and had several shortcomings. Much progress has happened since then. So to claim that CD from the early 1980s are representative of the CD format as a whole is misleading.

Unfortunately a lot of transfers of classical music to CD were done in the 1980s, and many of them don't sound good. Thus the need for new transfers and remasterings. I wish labels like DG had done more of this.

As I have mentioned before, it's not the format that makes a difference. It's everything else from when the music is recorded until it reaches your ears.


----------



## NoCoPilot

It's not that the "CD was not a mature format in the early 1980s" -- the format hasn't changed at all since introduction. What HAS changed is how engineers prepare digital masters for CDs.

Initially, the record labels thought of CDs as "just another format" and delighted in making CDs from old out-of-print LP master tapes. Yay, *new life for old catalog! * Unfortunately, these tapes had been frequency limited, dynamic range limited, and in some(!) cases even encoded with the RIAA curve. When carried across into the digital realm the resulting CDs sounded no better than LPs, and in some cases sounded considerably worse because the CD input on your amp does not decode the RIAA encoding.

By the early-1980s ('83-4) some DDD productions began appearing, and by the end of the decade that became the norm due to their obvious superiority. Record companies however continued to milk their back catalogs by resurrecting old analog recordings, but they learned that a "digital remaster" could bring back some of the lost fidelity, by using gating on the hiss, unlimiting the bass & dynamics, and adding compression. Initially remasters were done from the mixed analog master tapes. Eventually engineers (with automated mixing boards) got brave enough to venture into remastering the individual tracks on the original multi-track reels, then re-creating the released mix on their automated boards. (Or not.) Unfortunately there's nothing you can do to undistort a crappy recording, or bring out frequencies that weren't recorded, or remaster a mix if the multi-tracks weren't preserved. That's a lot more common that you'd think, because a reel of 2" tape can cost hundreds of dollars. It was standard practice to erase and re-use them once the band had signed off on the mix.


----------



## progmatist

NoCoPilot said:


> It's not that the "CD was not a mature format in the early 1980s" -- the format hasn't changed at all since introduction. What HAS changed is how engineers prepare digital masters for CDs.


My point exactly. The fact CDs require different mastering indicates there's something fundamentally different about the format itself.


----------



## AndorFoldes

progmatist said:


> My point exactly. The fact CDs require different mastering indicates there's something fundamentally different about the format itself.


What it indicates is that the technology back in the early 1980s was not fully developed, and the engineers lacked experience with the new format. Yes, the CD standard itself is the same, everything else has been improved. Obviously it's different from vinyl.


----------



## NoCoPilot

progmatist said:


> My point exactly. The fact CDs require different mastering indicates there's something fundamentally different about the format itself.


Yes indeed, an extra two octaves in the bass and fourfold increase in dynamic range capability. Not to mention longer time, inaudible noise floor, and unmeasurable distortion... at a fraction of the cost of an equivalent LP playback.


----------



## progmatist

AndorFoldes said:


> What it indicates is that the technology back in the early 1980s was not fully developed, and the engineers lacked experience with the new format. Yes, the CD standard itself is the same, everything else has been improved. Obviously it's different from vinyl.


To this day a vinyl master will transfer directly to Hi-Res digital, and it still sounds great.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Have not followed this discussion but I will say that, with the exception of vinyl vs digital there is not much difference between various formats in stereo and the vast majority of sound quality comes from the recording, mixing, and mastering process. The one major advantage SACDs and DVDs/blu-rays have over everything else is multi-channel, and multi-channel matters because not only are you getting additional spacial cues as you would in a live performance, you're also getting more direct sound so there's less tonal coloration than there is with stereo. Nothing beats well-recorded multi-channel audio. Most claims of "remastering" and rereleases in "hi-def formats" are scams made to try to get people to buy the same products they already own again. You have to understand that from a label's perspective it's much safer to rerelease a popular recording than it is to pay for and try to sell a new recording, and I'd wager that at least 50% of the classical music market is for older recordings, which is even more incentive for labels to focus on "the path of least resistance." I'm not saying that 100% of remasters make no audible difference, but the vast majority of them do, and I'm highly skeptical of claims to the contrary. Most major labels don't even put the time/care into their releases compared to small, independent labels (like Pristine Classical, or Divina Records... and even with them there's controversy because any digital editing to "improve sound" is hugely subjective) that actually try damn hard to get the best possible sound quality out of classic releases.


----------



## NoCoPilot

All correct. Add to this two additional factors.

1. Classical is a tiny market, around 1% of all musical sales. Therefore investment in new talent and new recordings is pretty risky. It's much cheaper to remaster something from the '50s, something with a proven sales record and no production costs.

2. Physical product (CDs, LPs, BRDs, DVDs) are a tiny fraction of overall music sales. Therefore any investment is likely to be exceedingly risky. Is there even such a thing as classical digital downloads or streaming or DSD files? If there is, do they sell more than ten of them a year?


----------



## NoCoPilot

That Guy Mick said:


> Bass frequencies below 100Hz are non-directional in their perception regardless of the instrument.


----------

