difference between different formats in sq - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 7 Old 07-17-2012, 08:24 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
curtiswhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: louisiana
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So I recently got a sony scd-ced595 sacd player. I have a handful of sacds now. DSOTM, good buy yellow brick road, NiN the downward spiral, John legend get lifted. Anyways in 5.1 they all sound great. In 2ch they sound great but the sq is vary similar to the cd layer. In fact I have mog radio and even at 356 kbps the 2ch sq is still vary similar . I would like to think I could tell a difference but i might be fooling myself. So after all this is there really a hole lotta difference in the overall SQ, between sacd,vinyl,cd and hi rez 192/24 if its taken from the same master.
Thanks for the read everyone

For refrence I have a onkyo tx-sr805, polk Polk Rti12s, and polk psw 125 for 2ch music

This being, that becomes;
On the arising of this, that arises.
This not being, that does not become;
On the cessation of this, that ceases.
curtiswhite is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 7 Old 07-17-2012, 08:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,166
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 321
Let''s start with SACD vs. CD. The higher resolution of SACD doesn't appear to offer any audible sound quality advantage over CD. They're better in theory, but our ears aren't good enough to tell the difference. Many SACDs do sound better than their CD counterparts, but that's because they are using different masters.

As for compressed formats, they are audibly inferior, but the higher the bitrate, the harder it becomes to hear a difference, unless you are very well trained to hear those specific differences and you are listening to some very unusual recordings. At 256 kbps (which I suspect is what you meant), I would be very surprised if the typical consumer (and I mean 99.9% of them) could hear a difference using any commercially released music recording.

Vinyl is a different kettle of fish. A vinyl record definitely sounds different from its CD counterpart, for a whole lot of reasons. But a CD copy of a vinyl record, assuming it's carefully made, will sound identical to the original vinyl.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is online now  
post #3 of 7 Old 07-17-2012, 09:24 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,230
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 871 Post(s)
Liked: 518
Take a look at this thread on DSOTM performing an analysis of the two mixes: http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #4 of 7 Old 07-17-2012, 01:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Take a look at this thread on DSOTM performing an analysis of the two mixes: http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/

The most interesting fact I see in that article is that according to the measures used, there was only an approximate 2 dB difference in terms of dynamic range between the 16 and 24 bit versions. If the use of 16 bits had limited dynamic range, one would think that a 48 dB difference in theoretical dynamic range capability would make a far larger difference than just a couple of lousy dBs.

480
arnyk is offline  
post #5 of 7 Old 07-17-2012, 03:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,166
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 321
Yes, but isn't the dynamic range greater for the CD version??? (Also, what are the odds the minimum RMS power in the right channel is identical to two decimal places?)

That the dynamic range is roughly the same shouldn't be surprising at all, since both start from the identical analog master.

While interesting, this isn't directly relevant to the OP's question, since the differences reflected in these numbers are largely the product of mastering decisions, rather than anything inherent in the formats he's asking about.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is online now  
post #6 of 7 Old 07-17-2012, 03:59 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
curtiswhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: louisiana
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
That is a good and interesting read on stereophile. I loved the conclusion '' So, when it came to the new DSotM re-release, they simply applied the standard sub-standard treatment ''. So I guess for now 2ch = cd or mog and 5.1 for sacd

This being, that becomes;
On the arising of this, that arises.
This not being, that does not become;
On the cessation of this, that ceases.
curtiswhite is offline  
post #7 of 7 Old 07-18-2012, 04:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Yes, but isn't the dynamic range greater for the CD version???

Umm, yes.

Whoda thunk?

Here's the pitch - according to Stereophile, the same recording on a so-called high resolution format has less dynamic range.
Quote:
(Also, what are the odds the minimum RMS power in the right channel is identical to two decimal places?)

Umm, its the same noise floor, and any compression happened to what was above it?
Quote:
That the dynamic range is roughly the same shouldn't be surprising at all, since both start from the identical analog master.

That suggests that the dynamic range of the CD version was *never* a problem.
Quote:
While interesting, this isn't directly relevant to the OP's question, since the differences reflected in these numbers are largely the product of mastering decisions, rather than anything inherent in the formats he's asking about.

I've been saying all along that since the CD, the technical limitations of mainstream media has never been the cause any problems with dynamic range. The program material always seems to have much less dynamic range than the limits of the media.

In this case the dynamic range of the recording seems to be about 65 dB, which is 30 dB worse than Redbook with flat dithering. Add modern shaped dither, and the music is more like 60 dB worse than what a CD can do.

The DSOTM recording is a complete studio/multitrack/mixdown job, so its dynamic range is whatever the guys who made it wanted it to be. If they wanted a recording with 100 dB dynamic range they knew how to do it then, and could still do it today.

It would be easy enough to do some downwards expansion or gain riding or remixing to obtain more dynamic range. Any good Mix-A-lot DJ could do it this afternoon.

That no audiophile label seems to have done so, sends a message that 65 dB dynamic range is what a lot of people, even almost all audiophiles actually want.
arnyk is offline  
Reply Audio theory, Setup and Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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