[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
|
Home
/ FAQ
/ News Classifieds / Events |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer |
Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
86.2.168.92
Lights blue touch-paper and stands well back!
http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index...Id=41&blogId=1
Proven: Good Old Redbook CD Sounds the Same as the Hi-Rez Formats
Incontrovertible double-blind listening tests prove that the original 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard yields exactly the same two-channel sound quality as the SACD and DVD-A technologies.
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.
Please note that this is not just a disagreement with the cloud-cuckoo-land audiophiles but also with the highest engineering authorities, such as the formidable J. Robert Stuart of England’s Meridian Audio and others with similar credentials. That the Meyer-Moran tests leave no room for continued disagreements is an occasion for the most delicious Schadenfreude on the part of electronic soundalike advocates like yours truly. I stated my suspicions that SACD was no improvement over CD seven years ago, in my review of the first Sony SACD player, the SCD-1, in Issue No. 26 of The Audio Critic (downloadable from this website). I could hear no difference between the CD and SACD layers of the same disc when stopping the player and switching over, instant toggling between the two layers being impossible.
Now, Meyer and Moran are careful to point out that the new hi-rez formats generally sound better than standard CDs, but not because the processing technology is superior. The hi-rez discs are aimed at a more sophisticated market, and therefore the recording sessions and production techniques tend to be more sophisticated, more puristic, in terms of microphoning, compression, editing, etc. The use of a standard 16-bit/44.1-kHz processor as a “bottleneck” in the Meyer-Moran tests eliminated this concern. Comparing the CD and SACD layers of the same disc also eliminates it.
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.
Finally, let’s not confuse the Meyer-Moran tests with stereo vs. surround sound comparisons. All of the above has to do with the two channels, left and right, of stereo recordings, nothing else. The musical value of additional surround channels is something I have been wondering about lately, but that’s an altogether different subject.
—Peter Aczel
Reply With Quote
I came across this argument by accident whilst searching for something else... and I'm so bemused by it that I feel the need to ask. Am I missing something?
I would not expect to be able to hear any real difference between a good CD player and a DVD-A or SACD deck that was downsampled to 44.1/16, (beyond the vagaries of any two different pieces of audio equipment).
That is because the layers of audio information, available at hi-res, that allow for a different listening experience, would disappear in both scenarios, literally by definition.
It's like arguing that turning the colour down on an old colour TV, and then comparing it to a Black and White TV, proves that colour makes no difference! Unh? Colour is quite clearly different but you can’t see it in Black and White.
I can't stress this enough - if I've missed something just ignore me but I have gone over that piece many times looking for its purpose... and I see nothing.
There is no question in my mind that there are differences between Redbook CD and 96/24. The differences to my ears are too fundamental, obvious and all-encompassing as to offer any doubt that I would not stake my life on being able to tell the difference - given the right equipment to compare.
I don’t have anything to prove, I just know this to be true.
Furthermore, if I were to conduct tests to compare the sound quality of hi-res against CD I would not downsample the hi-res output. There is, literally, no point.
I’m still worried that I’ve missed something here...
Colin Young
See Why Audio London
I have SACD and DVD audio that doesn't come close to the LP versions of the recording.
I have some SACD and DVD audio that makes CD sound broken.
Like everything in our hobby. If the engineer didn't capture it, and the pressings do it justice, it is just noise.
I record to both Redbook and to 24/96 and the recording quality is very evident. The more samples the better the sound.
YMMV and all that other stuff.
Hi.
Unless my ears are rusted to dust, my auditions on DVD-audio vs CD-audio
on the identical music performances (e.g. Hodie AND other labels, which come with CD-audio version) show big sonic difference.
I do not mean to challenge the validity of the relevant DBTs, but I only challenge the technical methodolgy the two audio jounalists had employed, which already invalided whatever would come out of the test.
IMO, this is another burn-the-strawman scenario, superficially sounds so naive & so non-sense. But my second thought told me could there be any undisclosed agenda behind this soup opera conducted by those two audio journalists ????!!!
Imagine you have a grounder+filter seive which grounds the materials of different sizes so that all the material can go throu the filter sieve. So whatever comes out of the sieve must get the same size of the sieve pores regardless whatever original sizes of the materials.
Same analogy applies to the methology employed by the two journalists. Any music signal, be it of a live performance, or reproduced programmes from a MP3 or CD-audio or DVD-audio, once processed by a 48KHz 16bit processor must bear the same sonic signatures of a RedBook processor.
By the same reasoning, the stereo music signals from a CD-audio player would sound better if they all go a 192KHz 24bit processor when compared to a 48KHz 16bit processor. Correct??
Simple logics, right?
c-J
So liquid, tactile, dynamic, intimate, delicate, focused.... Not as immersive as surround, but profoundly more compelling.
Hi.
like I have done before/after you made such comment.
I am an owner & a great lover of many many hundreds of stereo LPs, mainluy classicals, & got your same opinion until I have auditioned this Hodie DVD-audio performacne.
Check up my post above on the same subject.
c-J
If we did not knew....
I find it funny they admit to a difference between the formats but don't explain why in a scientific way. This is all bull.
It is very easy to hear the difference between 44.1/16 bit and 192/24 bit audio. Crank it up and it is obvious. Play it low and I could not tell the difference either.
I just bought a universal DVD player, receiver and speakers for my sister in law to replace a 20 year old $99 system. I spent $585 bucks total, all internet prices (speakers new, but open box on eBay). She is amazed at the sound quality of DVD audio compared to CD audio (although the CD's sound good), and will only buy hi res formats going forward.
As a computer programmer I find it completely laughable that people still don't understand digital audio. The correct test for this is as follows:
Record a source at 192/24 bits. Make sure you get a good solid recording, preferably voice, drums, acoustic instruments, and play them loud. Use the best mic you can afford.
Now take that 192/24 bit file and process it to the following formats (these can be done with no more signal processing than integer and floating point math, a technology that was perfected about 40 years ago, I can provide the algorithms if you want): 192/16, 96/24, 96/16, 48/24, 48/16. Now 48/16 is not quite RED book audio, it is close enough and we don't have to do any audio processing to get it. We just remove samples and do multiplication to reduce it from 24 bit to 16. Now play these files back. According to the article they will all sound the same. I doubt that!
Now to check out The Resolution Project
Bruce
Of running a highres disk though a bottleneck? It seems to me that the bottleneck is the weekest link in this test. We buy highres to use highres D\A converters not 16\44.1K.
Why not AB the same content with the intended D\A converters and see what's best?
I didn't read the artical but I'm smart enought to play music on equipment that matches the format and makes best use of the sample rate.
Scott
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
It's been beaten to death on Propheads.
.
!
.
Howdy
References to this article are coming up almost daily.
-Ted
First, WE ALL HAVE BIAS. They have put forth scientific data. Either dispute the data, or the methodology. OR, do your own testing showing otherwise. DBT that is. The truth is that audio memory is SO SHORT, (as to be nearly useless) that claims of persons that this CD player allows longer decay time for the music than that CD or SACD player fly in the face of neurology. We don't mentally store decay time to compare, so if the sources are not instantly AB switched, such claims are witchcraft. We express our musical preferences, and hopes ("these sound better than those". IF hi-rez sounded appreciably better someone would have proven such and used it to sell hardware!!! But since Sony, nor Warners nor anybody else put out such a study, despite the $$ value, claims of superiority should be treated with suspicion, if not downright distrust.
And, saying that, I listen almost exclusively to hi-rez. Why? Don't know, don't care.
Howdy
The only reason bias was brought up was that when people expect a certain answer they don't necessarily take care to design a fair test that might invalidate their expectations. It's precisely when tests show something unexpected that real progress is made.
In this case (among other problems) for a portion of the experiment (and not separated in the data) they used equipment that has a noise floor higher than that representable by Redbook: so one wouldn't expect to hear the additional resolution from hi-res.
Their responses to questions also indicate that the care that most audiophiles might take wasn't really considered.
When they found out that if you turned up the volume a little you could hear a difference between hi-res and hi-res trimmed back to CD resolution they changed equipment.
Their bias also shows up in the claim that this test shows something about CD players when (at best) it may show something about comparing hi-res to lower res (with a particular algo), but it doesn't address at all problems with playing CDs with real players: e.g. error handling, jitter handling, filtering with any different algo than they tested...
They even admitted that there is a difference in practice, but they attributed it to mastering differences with no supporting evidence. We know from long history here that there is little reason to believe that that is the biggest difference and we know of a lot of counterexamples: not the least of which are the many SACDs who's Redbook layer is mechanically derived from the DSD layer and hence are clearly mastered the same.
-Ted
Stu
One of the most important things that jj pointed out for double blind tests, is that the people who are taking the tests must be trained as to what to listen for. I know of no consumer magazine who has bothered to train the people who are taking the tests.
"When they found out that if you turned up the volume a little you could hear a difference between hi-res and hi-res trimmed back to CD resolution they changed equipment."
Anyone with a basic practical knowledge understands that if you wish to reproduce digital audio to what it is capable of you will need, quiet electronics, quiet rooms, and speakers with very good low level linearity.
But hey, why cloud the issues with facts?
d.b.
if you turned up the volume a little you could hear a difference between hi-res and hi-res trimmed back to CD. Then not the same. Not its a matter of which is better? But there is an audible difference. Maybe ebcaue of increasd sn you need louder volumes to hear the diffeence.
.
Howdy
But you'll sure find a cadre of people with conflicting opinions on Prop Heads :)
-Ted
Thx Ted.
I'm just setting up a NAS with a view to streaming the audio data across my home LAN.
Problem for me is that I use an external DAC and have just realised that my DVD player only transmits a max of 48KHz - don't know the sample size!
So - although I thought I was listening to HiRes - not by much!
Thinking of getting a slim devices Transporter - which can directly handle 9624.
As always I'll trust my ears - if I can ever get to listen to HiRes!
M
Howdy
I got caught by the 48k limit myself when I first got some DADs :)
-Ted
Yep, Ted is right on. Similar happened to me until I started editing 24/96 session masters, and recently 24/176 session masters; absolutely night and day better than 16/ 44.1 or 16/ 48.
If its not easy to connect your DAW to your stereo system pick up a later Denon, Marantz or Pioneer DVD player that will also play DVD-Audio. Then use DVD solo (see link) to author a DVD-Audio disc which will play on any DVD player with the DVD audio emblem on it.
best
JOhn
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]