Thoughts on Meyer/Moran SACD/DVD-A vs. CD audio study? - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 204 Old 01-21-2008, 12:30 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
PolarWeasel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I just read an article that I believe others reading this forum might enjoy. Apparently there is a new study out that compares CD with DVD-A and SACD audio quality.

I haven't read the study, just an article discussing it (URL below), but apparently 2 researchers have shown using extensive double-blind testing that there's no audible difference between 44.1 Hz / 16-bit audio and the more advanced audio available from SACD and DVD-A:

http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index...Id=41&blogId=1

Apparently the study only looked at 2-channel stereo sources. Here's the first paragraph from the web page I referenced above:

"In the September 2007 issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Volume 55, Number 9), two veteran audio journalists who aren't professional engineers, E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran, present a breakthrough paper that contradicts all previous inputs by the engineering community. They prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with literally hundreds of double-blind listening tests at matched levels, conducted over a period of more than a year, that the two-channel analog output of a high-end SACD/DVD-A player undergoes no audible change when passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz A/D/A processor. That means there's no audible difference between the original CD standard (Red Book) and 24-bit/192-kHz PCM or 1-bit/2.8442-MHz DSD."

Thoughts, anyone?

-Polar Weasel
PolarWeasel is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 204 Old 01-21-2008, 01:59 PM
Member
 
B3Nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: near Madison WI
Posts: 54
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I'm not surprised by that, as 16/44.1 done properly exceeds the resolution of human hearing and is, for all practical purposes, transparent (assuming good low-level linearity in the A-D and D-A conversion stages.) However, it doesn't address the other advantages of the high-resolution formats, namely the multichannel functionality (CD is limited to stereo) nor the extra care often put into hi-res mastering (versus the deplorable lows to which CD mastering has sunk thanks to the labels and their accursed loudness war.)

So yes, 16-bit/44.1KHz can sound absolutely superb when done properly. The problem is that it seldom is these days, at least from the standpoint of major-label releases. Thus we have the ridiculous circumstance that even a vinyl copy of a new release is often much more listenable and dynamic than its CD counterpart.

I've often wondered how hi-res would fare in a double-blind trial with real-world program material...this seems to go a good way toward answering that.

Aczel's observation here is interesting (and it highlights why I record at 24-bit in ProTools) :

Quote:


It should also be pointed out that more bits and a higher sampling rate in recording are still a good thing because they permit a little bit of unavoidable sloppiness, so that you can still comfortably end up with 16-bit dynamics and 20 kHz bandwidth. Meyer and Moran do not say that 14 or 15 bits in a truncated CD are just as good as 20. What they say is that spot-on 16-bit/44.1-kHz processing is as good as it gets, audibly.

TP
B3Nut is offline  
post #3 of 204 Old 01-21-2008, 02:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ovation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Where's the "popcorn smiley" when you need it?

There are few things that come to mind for me (and I neither have "golden ears" nor I am a general believer in the more esoteric "tweaks" out there--I don't use exotic cables or power cords, for example).

One--I'd like to know what discs were used. The biggest theoretical advantage of hi-res for 2 channel, in my opinion, is the greater available dynamic range (though the audibility of that, all other things being equal, is obviously a point of contention).

Two--I suspect that much of the better quality audio in hi-res owes something to the fact that, generally, those that go to the trouble of releasing in hi-res take extra care to do it right. Far fewer instances of overwrought dynamic compression (a HUGE culprit in the last decade of redbook releases overall), fewer egregiously gross applications of unnecessary EQ, and so on. So while redbook CD MAY (I'm not concluding anything, just stipulating for discussion) be "as good", the people issuing redbook are NOT making the necessary effort for the practical result to be "as good". As such, I will continue to buy hi-res when it is an available option.

Three--and this is purely a personal preference, I buy hi-res PRIMARILY for MCH presentations. Redbook CD is not capable of providing me with that in anything other than a lossy DTS-like format and I can most certainly tell the difference between a lossy DTS-CD and a hi-res lossless presentation of the same mix (I've done a level-matched comparison). As I am a big fan of MCH (discrete) mixes, I will happily buy a lossy DTS-CD version if there is no lossless version available, but I will always privilege the lossless option.

So, this is interesting (and, perhaps, not all that surprising) but as MCH is my preference, this study's conclusions will have no bearing on my hi-res purchases.
Ovation is offline  
 
post #4 of 204 Old 01-21-2008, 04:31 PM
Newbie
 
PoeRaider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Im not surprised to see CD audio can sound identical and "as good" as SACD and DVD-A, but as others have pointed out, this is almost never the case in practice. Standard redbook CDs put out by big labels these days are just about always a disappointment to my ears, simply due to the "louder is better" nonsense in the industry. Those manufacturers simply dont care how their discs sound on a hi-res system. So I avoid them like the plague, my limited listening time is worth more to me than that.

Just about the only redbook CDs I'll buy anymore are those put out by MFSL, since I know I can expect the best possible recording on a CD from them.

If there was some kind of online archive detailing the sound dynamics of every CD release, then I might be inclined to buy more. There are some artists out there that will take the care and extra effort to release properly mastered CD material. Bob Dylan and Norah Jones come to mind, their cds mostly sound excellent. But for the vast majority of CD releases, I just wont throw $10-15 away on an overprocessed piece of garbage that my ears will reject. Heard the new Springsteen CD on a hi-res system? Boy I regret that one. Too bad cause the songs are quite good.
PoeRaider is offline  
post #5 of 204 Old 01-21-2008, 08:20 PM
Senior Member
 
gregmp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Bob Dylan has said how poor his own CD's sound verses the studio masters.

Better production, mastering, theoretical/actual 24-bit resolution, 2.0 mix and 5.1 channel mix are all reasons to like SACD and DVD-A.

They are great alternative to the poorly done CD's and MP3 files. Too bad the major record companies could give a ***** about quality.
gregmp is offline  
post #6 of 204 Old 01-22-2008, 12:23 AM
Nil
Senior Member
 
Nil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 27
I could hear a difference between CD, DTS and DVD-A for Porcupine Tree's Fear of a Blank Planet. Assuming that Steve Wilson carefully mastered all three to the best fidelity he was capable of, it doesn't explain the audible difference that were apparent even to these aged ears. And what about hybrid SACDs like Peter Gabriel's UP? The SACD layer, again, sounds superior to the redbook CD layer in my opinion.
Nil is offline  
post #7 of 204 Old 01-22-2008, 06:12 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ovation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Level matching is the key. Without that, no comparison is really valid. Even a crude level matching with an SPL is better than nothing, though it is still not sufficient for a scientific study.
Ovation is offline  
post #8 of 204 Old 01-22-2008, 07:40 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ca1ore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Stamford, CT
Posts: 1,808
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovation View Post

Where's the "popcorn smiley" when you need it?

There are few things that come to mind for me (and I neither have "golden ears" nor I am a general believer in the more esoteric "tweaks" out there--I don't use exotic cables or power cords, for example).

One--I'd like to know what discs were used. The biggest theoretical advantage of hi-res for 2 channel, in my opinion, is the greater available dynamic range (though the audibility of that, all other things being equal, is obviously a point of contention).

Two--I suspect that much of the better quality audio in hi-res owes something to the fact that, generally, those that go to the trouble of releasing in hi-res take extra care to do it right. Far fewer instances of overwrought dynamic compression (a HUGE culprit in the last decade of redbook releases overall), fewer egregiously gross applications of unnecessary EQ, and so on. So while redbook CD MAY (I'm not concluding anything, just stipulating for discussion) be "as good", the people issuing redbook are NOT making the necessary effort for the practical result to be "as good". As such, I will continue to buy hi-res when it is an available option.

Three--and this is purely a personal preference, I buy hi-res PRIMARILY for MCH presentations. Redbook CD is not capable of providing me with that in anything other than a lossy DTS-like format and I can most certainly tell the difference between a lossy DTS-CD and a hi-res lossless presentation of the same mix (I've done a level-matched comparison). As I am a big fan of MCH (discrete) mixes, I will happily buy a lossy DTS-CD version if there is no lossless version available, but I will always privilege the lossless option.

So, this is interesting (and, perhaps, not all that surprising) but as MCH is my preference, this study's conclusions will have no bearing on my hi-res purchases.

Nicely put! I agree on all points.

Certainty and conviction are a sure sign you don't know what you're talking about! The world is not black and white, rather shades of grey!
ca1ore is offline  
post #9 of 204 Old 01-22-2008, 08:13 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
apodaca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,221
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I am not surprised by this but as some have stated 2ch SACDs are bought by most in hopes of obtaining a better master and since in some cases this has turned out to be true I generally prefer to purchase a SACD version if available - just like a Mobile Fidelity release.

No one can dispute the audible differences in multi channel however.

The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.

-Werner Heisenberg
apodaca is offline  
post #10 of 204 Old 01-22-2008, 09:24 AM
Senior Member
 
Rich Davenport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Eastern MA
Posts: 370
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
More info on the testing:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

Member of AVS FORUM folding@home team, (team #55280)
Rich Davenport is offline  
post #11 of 204 Old 01-22-2008, 09:38 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
RBFC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Another confounding factor is that the actual listening playback was conducted differently than a "real-world" listening session. By interposing another component in the chain (the a/d/a converter), it's quite possible that the addition to the signal path caused some limitations in the sound quality. A better method would have been to have an SACD and a redbook CD of the same recordings to compare, without another "atypical" component in the electronic chain.

I also believe that you must have a system that can perform at a certain level of resolution, etc. to hear much difference.

Equipment:

B&W 801D (L,R)
B&W HTM-1D (C)
B&W CWM8180 (3, FOR 6.1 SURROUND)
Krell Evolution 403 amplifier (L,C,R)
Denon AVR4806 (preamp, processor, surround amplifiers)
Denon 3930CI
Samsung BD-P1000

I can usually identify the SACD vs. the CD on well-recorded material. Garbage recordings are much less reliable.


My two Cents' Worth,


Lee

GoldenEar Triton One speakers (6, for front, side surround, and rear surround), GoldenEar SuperCenter XXL center channel, GoldenEar HTR7000 overhead speakers (4), JL Audio F113 x 2 (subwoofers), Krell Foundation pre-pro, Krell EV403 (front 3 channels), 2 x Krell S1500/4 (one for each side's 2 surround and 2 overhead speakers), OPPO 105D (Blu-ray, SACD, DVD-A), Calyx Audio DAC24/192, MacMini w/ 2TB drive (server), Purist Audio interconnects & speaker cables, Sony XBR-75Z9D monitor.
RBFC is offline  
post #12 of 204 Old 01-22-2008, 01:22 PM
Member
 
B3Nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: near Madison WI
Posts: 54
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
From the article at BAS:

Quote:


When the subject was listening to the high-bit audio alone, whether sighted (with the display showing A) or blind (with the display showing X), our test system added the following components in series with the high-bit player’s output: (1) an ordinary RCA connecting cable 18 inches long, and (2) a switchbox comprising two RCA connectors, a total of 4 inches of hookup wire, and a reed relay with 0.2-ohm dc resistance.

There is absolutely no chance of even slight let alone significant audible degradation with this setup. Any believed degradation would only appear in a sighted test, and would be a manifestation of the placebo effect.

Moreover, comparing the SACD layer to the CD layer can often be apples/oranges, if the label used the standard redbook master for the CD layer rather than doing a 2-ch mix from the DSD master. This particular trial was more well-suited for determining whether or not the 16-bit/44.1KHz system was inferior to higher-bitrate/bit-depth audio.

An even better test would be a live music source recorded on synced DSD and standard recorders, then the comparisons made with the synchronized playbacks. Perhaps a chamber orchestra, and a solo piano with violin would be good source material.
B3Nut is offline  
post #13 of 204 Old 01-24-2008, 09:12 AM
Senior Member
 
Robonaut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'd like to hear more about the recordings they used. Were they pop recordings? Classical? Jazz? Were they from DSD masters or from PCM masters that were converted to DSD?

I certainly hear a difference in my 2.1 channel system between the SACD layer and the CD layer--and I have done demonstrations for my music-loving (but not necessarily audiophile) friends who agreed. Could it be due to different masters used for the SACD and CD layer? I'm willing to concede that. Still, the best SACDs I have still unquestionably sound better than my best CDs.
Robonaut is offline  
post #14 of 204 Old 01-24-2008, 09:28 AM
Senior Member
 
Dr. AIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 16
As the producer of recordings that are actually captured using PCM at 96 kHz/24-bits, I have a difficult time with the work done by the authors of the AES paper. It was interesting to finally have access to a partial list of source materials used in the evaluation...the original paper published in the journal didn't mention any of the recording that were used. I contacted David Moran and asked for a list of the recordings (I never received the list) back in the fall, because it is central to the issue that is raised about whether one can tell the difference between a CD and an HD Audio recording.

If the source recordings were done in the era of analog tape or SD digital (which many if not most of the items on the list were), then it is not possible for them to contain any sonic information beyond the technical specs of the equipment used during the original tracking or overdubbing sessions. As the prior comment points out...virtually all commercial CD releases AND the majority of SACD/DVD-Audio releases are based on source recordings that do not contain frequencies or dynamic ranges that are the benchmarks of the new HD standards (his mention of 60-70 dB is accurate and manageable in 10-12 bits). No wonder the authors of the "study" arrived at their conclusions (I'm not going to get into the limitations of the components of their "state-of-the-art" evaluation system).

To do this sort of evaluation correctly and with some real rigor, several critical things have to happen that didn't happen in the published paper.

First, the source recordings have to be REAL HD audio recordings...meaning they must have been made using a recording chain capable of capturing digitally at 96 kHz/24-bits or better (DSD is probably OK but subject to rather artifacts as a result of the required noise shaping). No older analog tracks or SD digital tracks subjected to upsampling or HD transfer can be used. It is critically important that the source material be tested and be shown to have frequencies beyond those present on a CD (Keith Howard has evaluated many recordings that have plenty of real sound energy above 22 kHz). And the dynamic range needs to be beyond the 60-70 dB range of most recordings.

Second, the playback chain for the A-B testing MUST be completely transparent using only the finest converters (critical jitter specs), cables and amplifiers. The gear has to be able to reproduce the HD Audio. Of particular importance is the speakers, they have to be able to reproduce frequencies and dyanmics that are present in REAL HD Audio recordings. That means dynamics up to 124 dB and frequencies well beyond 22 kHz...I suggest up to 40 kHz.

I should point out that I have a stake in this argument. My little audiophile label (AIX Records) has recorded and released one of the largest collections of HD Audio recordings...and we've won numerous fans and awards for high-resolution audio. I found it interesting that David Moran hadn't used any of my recordings in his test. He told me that people brought in their favorite "high resolution" recordings and they did the test using those. In fact, he told me that he didn't compile a list during the testing period. A short-coming of their "study" that doomed it to failure.

BTW I do not master any of my tracks...they are recorded at 96 kHz/24-bits, mixed digitally without compression, EQ or artificial reverberation and then sequenced before being put on DVD-Audio discs or placed online for download. I have distributed them as DVD-Audio tracks and now make them available as HD downloads.

Our new web site, itrax.com has the same source recordings available as MP3 files, Dolby, DTS, WMA Pro, WMA LL and 96 kHz/24-bits (and in three different mixes). There is a set of free files that can be downloaded and compared for those that are interested. Listen to REAL HD Audio track as compared to a CD version and I continue to maintain that music listeners can tell the difference. The high resolution formats may have failed but it wasn't because the formats were incapable of improving the fidelity of the music.

I haven't even started talking about surround. I don't get to this forum that often...if you want to follow up please go to the community on the itrax site.
Dr. AIX is offline  
post #15 of 204 Old 01-24-2008, 10:17 AM
Senior Member
 
zoney99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You should hear what the "Saturday NIght Fever" soundtrack sounds like


..no, you really shouldn't!!!!!!!!!!!
zoney99 is offline  
post #16 of 204 Old 01-24-2008, 11:05 AM
Senior Member
 
PenteoSurround's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Piedmont, CA
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoney99 View Post

You should hear what the "Saturday NIght Fever" soundtrack sounds like


..no, you really shouldn't!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, yeah you should. It was recorded at Criteria, Jeep Harned's own technical test bed. Amazing stuff under all those Bee Gees vocals. Unfortunately, the 2-track master was only done at 15ips (I've held it in my hands.) so the transient response wasn't all that spectacular, but in other respects, it was technically exceptional.
PenteoSurround is offline  
post #17 of 204 Old 01-24-2008, 02:57 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sivadselim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Nashvegas
Posts: 17,618
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 162 Post(s)
Liked: 154
"Hirez" is better cuz the name sounds cool!

"All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it."
sivadselim is offline  
post #18 of 204 Old 01-24-2008, 03:03 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 29,491
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 673 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

"Hirez" is better cuz the name sounds cool!

I thought Hirez was a root beer.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round

Kal Rubinson is online now  
post #19 of 204 Old 01-24-2008, 09:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,831
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Liked: 198
I've always felt the problems with CDs isn't the frequency response limitation, but the sample resolution. Had we had 24bit/44.1khz CDs from the start, I believe there would be no need for hi-rez audio except for multichannel recordings. I've found that 16bit recordings have a slight harshness or slight un-organic edginess to them. 24bit and DSD recordings are slightly smoother, more natural, and a little richer...granted the difference is subtle.
RWetmore is offline  
post #20 of 204 Old 01-24-2008, 10:15 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sivadselim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Nashvegas
Posts: 17,618
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 162 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

I thought Hirez was a root beer.

Mmmm. If only I had some root beer AND some 'nilla I scream. Sadly, I have neither in the house at the time.

Sadist!

"All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it."
sivadselim is offline  
post #21 of 204 Old 01-25-2008, 07:54 AM
Senior Member
 
gregmp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. AIX View Post

As the producer of recordings that are actually captured using PCM at 96 kHz/24-bits, I have a difficult time with the work done by the authors of the AES paper. It was interesting to finally have access to a partial list of source materials used in the evaluation...the original paper published in the journal didn't mention any of the recording that were used. I contacted David Moran and asked for a list of the recordings (I never received the list) back in the fall, because it is central to the issue that is raised about whether one can tell the difference between a CD and an HD Audio recording.

If the source recordings were done in the era of analog tape or SD digital (which many if not most of the items on the list were), then it is not possible for them to contain any sonic information beyond the technical specs of the equipment used during the original tracking or overdubbing sessions. As the prior comment points out...virtually all commercial CD releases AND the majority of SACD/DVD-Audio releases are based on source recordings that do not contain frequencies or dynamic ranges that are the benchmarks of the new HD standards (his mention of 60-70 dB is accurate and manageable in 10-12 bits). No wonder the authors of the "study" arrived at their conclusions (I'm not going to get into the limitations of the components of their "state-of-the-art" evaluation system).

To do this sort of evaluation correctly and with some real rigor, several critical things have to happen that didn't happen in the published paper.

First, the source recordings have to be REAL HD audio recordings...meaning they must have been made using a recording chain capable of capturing digitally at 96 kHz/24-bits or better (DSD is probably OK but subject to rather artifacts as a result of the required noise shaping). No older analog tracks or SD digital tracks subjected to upsampling or HD transfer can be used. It is critically important that the source material be tested and be shown to have frequencies beyond those present on a CD (Keith Howard has evaluated many recordings that have plenty of real sound energy above 22 kHz). And the dynamic range needs to be beyond the 60-70 dB range of most recordings.

Second, the playback chain for the A-B testing MUST be completely transparent using only the finest converters (critical jitter specs), cables and amplifiers. The gear has to be able to reproduce the HD Audio. Of particular importance is the speakers, they have to be able to reproduce frequencies and dyanmics that are present in REAL HD Audio recordings. That means dynamics up to 124 dB and frequencies well beyond 22 kHz...I suggest up to 40 kHz.

I should point out that I have a stake in this argument. My little audiophile label (AIX Records) has recorded and released one of the largest collections of HD Audio recordings...and we've won numerous fans and awards for high-resolution audio. I found it interesting that David Moran hadn't used any of my recordings in his test. He told me that people brought in their favorite "high resolution" recordings and they did the test using those. In fact, he told me that he didn't compile a list during the testing period. A short-coming of their "study" that doomed it to failure.

BTW I do not master any of my tracks...they are recorded at 96 kHz/24-bits, mixed digitally without compression, EQ or artificial reverberation and then sequenced before being put on DVD-Audio discs or placed online for download. I have distributed them as DVD-Audio tracks and now make them available as HD downloads.

Our new web site, itrax.com has the same source recordings available as MP3 files, Dolby, DTS, WMA Pro, WMA LL and 96 kHz/24-bits (and in three different mixes). There is a set of free files that can be downloaded and compared for those that are interested. Listen to REAL HD Audio track as compared to a CD version and I continue to maintain that music listeners can tell the difference. The high resolution formats may have failed but it wasn't because the formats were incapable of improving the fidelity of the music.

I haven't even started talking about surround. I don't get to this forum that often...if you want to follow up please go to the community on the itrax site.

Thank you Dr. AIX,

I'm sick of CD lovers and HiRez bashers who have never heard stuff for themselves on a good sysytem, that quote a study that proves their point.

First point is the recording has to be up to certain standard before the difference is noticed. I have found this to be true. You can't have lack of control in this are and have a valid study. The same recording should have been used for all people.

greg
gregmp is offline  
post #22 of 204 Old 01-25-2008, 08:02 AM
Senior Member
 
gregmp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post

I've always felt the problems with CDs isn't the frequency response limitation, but the sample resolution. Had we had 24bit/44.1khz CDs from the start, I believe there would be no need for hi-rez audio except for multichannel recordings. I've found that 16bit recordings have a slight harshness or slight un-organic edginess to them. 24bit and DSD recordings are slightly smoother, more natural, and a little richer...granted the difference is subtle.

I've found the same exact thing. Back in the day, lots of CD were released that sounded worse than their LP counterpart. This was due to poor mastering, or using the LP master for the CD. The same poor transfer and mastering can hurt a SACD/DVD-A recording.

The best test would be to get the producers and artists in a room where the recordings were mixed and masterd and see if they can tell a difference between the master, Hi-Rez copy and CD copy.
gregmp is offline  
post #23 of 204 Old 01-25-2008, 08:26 AM
Senior Member
 
Feirstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Steve Hoffman, for fun, took a master tape and produced a 45 rpm laquer disk, a high quality 16 bit PCM reproduction and a DSD reproduction. What was preserved on the 45 rpm disk and the DSD reproduction was the ambiance, the decaying echo. This was not preserved on the 16 bit reproduction. Perhaps this non-scientific comparison tells us more than the E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran "study".

Richard.
Feirstein is offline  
post #24 of 204 Old 01-25-2008, 09:21 AM
Senior Member
 
Dr. AIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 16
The problem with Steve's non-rigorous test is that the source is still an analog tape. Depending on the vintage of the master, the dynamic range would be between 60-72 dB. Even properly done 16-bits can do better.

In my opinion, the only valid comparison is to have recordings that were made in high resolution PCM (96 kHz/24-bits or better) AND at 44.1 Khz/16-bits from the same microphone feeds. Identical equipment throughout the production chain. No processing or unnecessary conversions.
Dr. AIX is offline  
post #25 of 204 Old 01-25-2008, 12:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ovation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. AIX View Post

The problem with Steve's non-rigorous test is that the source is still an analog tape. Depending on the vintage of the master, the dynamic range would be between 60-72 dB. Even properly done 16-bits can do better.

In my opinion, the only valid comparison is to have recordings that were made in high resolution PCM (96 kHz/24-bits or better) AND at 44.1 Khz/16-bits from the same microphone feeds. Identical equipment throughout the production chain. No processing or unnecessary conversions.

This would be ideal, but it would not advance an "agenda". I am very happy to have sites like these for information (I would never have learned of your recording company, for example, without visiting A/V fora) but I've also come to be tired of the "golden ears esoterica" crowd and their polar opposites (the study in question comes to mind). While I tend to sympathize with the sceptics for things like suspending interconnects and using "magical green markers", it almost seems like there is a gleeful urge to debunk something just for the sake of debunking it. If they were serious, they would have adopted the methodology you described--but then it might not show what they intended. I cope with similar attitudes in my field (I'm an historian, not an electrical engineer) and it is equally tiresome. One should follow the evidence, not arrange the evidence to fit a pre-conceived conclusion. It seems to me the "study" referenced above had a clear agenda and did not take many pains to avoid biasing the result. Even IF their conclusions are correct, the method they used to arrive at them is suspect. And, in the end, as I've noted elsewhere, I'm into hi-res primarily (90% or so of my hi-res discs) for MCH audio.

P.S. I have several AIX discs and they sound fantastic. I've no doubt they would be great in 16bit/44.1khz if they were released that way, but I would not want to go without the MCH (the classical solo harp disc sounds so much better in MCH--even a single instrument benefits immensely from MCH done properly) and I especially appreciate your company's inclusion of "on-stage" mixes.
Ovation is offline  
post #26 of 204 Old 01-26-2008, 10:01 AM
Member
 
tom_c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
There's a simpler answer to all this: If there is no difference in audio quality between Redbook CD's and Hi-Rez audio, why did the studios go through all the trouble of copy protecting the hi-rez audio and not CD's?

Anyway, I don't claim to have golden ears, far from it, but in my own listening test which are just as valid it seems as the M&M study, I do hear a difference in audio quality, even if the Redbook CD was a recorded very well.
tom_c is offline  
post #27 of 204 Old 01-27-2008, 09:29 PM
Member
 
yourgrandma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rockford, MN
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm always amused by people's downright hatred of DVD-a and SACD. Nobody forces you to listento it. It's not some proprietary format pushed on you by the man. I like my modest collection. Even if there is no real difference in SQ, I like multichanel, and even in stereo, some discs do sound different than the CD counterparts. I think that may be because the masters were different. There are some sounds that were changed entirely, not just by multi channel, so i imagine they were EQ'd differently to sound brighter.

I love the arguments against multi channel, though. I read one guy's rant (in all caps) that we only have two ears, so the Led Zeppelin library should never be mixed for multichannel. Personally, since I know Mr. Page likes to take good care of the Band's music, I really would love to hear Zeppelin in multichannel.

Onkyo TX SR805 | DVD-1920 | Optoma HD70 | PlayStation 3 | Definitive Technology ProTower 400 | Pro Center C2 | BP2x | Pro Monitor 100 | Klipsch RSW-10
yourgrandma is offline  
post #28 of 204 Old 01-27-2008, 11:25 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sivadselim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Nashvegas
Posts: 17,618
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 162 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by yourgrandma View Post

I'm always amused by people's downright hatred of DVD-a and SACD.

It's called "jealousy".

"All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it."
sivadselim is offline  
post #29 of 204 Old 01-28-2008, 08:40 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ovation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by yourgrandma View Post


I love the arguments against multi channel, though. I read one guy's rant (in all caps) that we only have two ears, so the Led Zeppelin library should never be mixed for multichannel. Personally, since I know Mr. Page likes to take good care of the Band's music, I really would love to hear Zeppelin in multichannel.

Ask the ranter if he lives in a flat, 2 dimensional world where ALL sound comes from directly in front of him. Then explain to him that stereo means 3-D, not 2 channel (original stereo recordings were THREE channel--it was the limitation of playback devices, not the "original intention" that led to 2 channel stereo). TWO speakers create an illusion of depth to suggest a 3-D soundscape but, by all means, if he wants to limit his options because he has only 2 ears--let him. (also ask him how he accounts for seeing depth with only TWO eyes).

(my rant is over)

As to the study cited in the OP, I think the methodology of the study is flawed (the head of AIX proposed a much sounder method to test the proposition). But, even IF the study's conclusion is correct (in spite of its methodological flaws), the practical result is that if we want a "better" copy, we often must default to the hi-res option because they are usually made with greater care AND those of us who are fans of MCH audio (and more specifically, discrete MCH) have few other viable options when it comes to getting the best sound available.
Ovation is offline  
post #30 of 204 Old 01-28-2008, 06:11 PM
Member
 
tom_c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I guess we also have to disregard the fact that CD's are recorded using a 16 bit depth to DVD-A's 24 bit because we ALL know that wouldn't matter, or would the higher sampling rate. I guess even the higher dynamic range of hd material wouldn't make a difference.

Give me a break, we're comparing apples to car tires.

INMO: Most people listen to music while cleaning the house, cooking dinner, washing the car or some other activity. These are the people that couldn't tell or couldn't care to tell the difference between MP3's and CD's, then there are others that think they have a decent system and listen to it a little less casually than the first group, they probably couldn't tell the difference between a well recorded CD and a HD disc. Then there's the rest that listen to music like a meditation, we listen to every nuance, we listen to the room acoustics, the ambiance. everything that makes up the recording and we can't get enough of it. Those are the ones that can tell the difference between a very well recorded CD and a HD recording. yea, I agree that some of it may be mastering but until all those variables are removed, don't tell me there is no difference between them.
tom_c is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Surround Music Formats



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off