 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
83.24.152.32
Hello,
I've found an interesting paper from AES which claims there's no audible difference in sound quality between these two formats.
"DVD-Audio versus SACD: Perceptual Discrimination of Digital Audio Coding Formats"
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12799
http://old.hfm-detmold.de/eti/projekte/diplomarbeiten/dsdvspcm/aes_paper_6086.pdf
I personally find DSD sounding a lot better than DVD-A (DVD-A is just like red book on steroids).
I'm curious what's your own experience.
Follow Ups:
Sorry, could I ask how you go about opening the file?
I'm one of those audiophile-idiots who can't even tell superiority of SACDs over RBCDs (in stereo), let alone SACDs over DVD-As. But still would be interested to read this stuff.
CD's are crap, even Jean Micheal Jarre said that in one of his latest interviews: he said that in times of high definition, we need next generation/better CD's. He said that CD promised the analogue sound, but even after 25 years from its introduction, it sounds worse than vinyl :(
As much as I strain to hear the enhancement in SACDs, my many CDs sound just as pleasant to me. It seems I am a mere peasant in this field. :)
When I pop in an SACD I often think that I hear something special initially and marvel finally at the extra resolution of this technology, but then after a while I realize many CDs sound terrific and just as good.
It's one thing having better technology, it's another how you use it. The recording and mastering of CDs and playback machines I believe have gone through so many iterations that you couldn't easily beat the best of it. My 3 cents.
However I do have many bad CDs. I do not have many bad SACDs.
It is written for people like yourself you listen in stereo.
Happy listening,
Teresa
Teresa, I've seen this list before. You sent it in earlier threads. I may be somewhat new to this hobby (certainly not a veteran or expert like many here including yourself) but don't think I'm a total beginner either! I used to have a receiver but not anymore (now a pre and power amp combo). My connections are quite straightforward for my gears (cdp into pre-amp, pre-amp into power supply, power supply into power amp, power amp into speakers). My speakers are bookshelf though but a reasonable pair (B&W805s) and is probably the weak link in my system.
I've just said what Jean Micheal Jarre said about CD, even after 25 years of improvement, CD's don't sound like vinyl, we need something better than poor old 16 bit on CD, movies are going high definition (Blu-Ray and HD downloads) so why music lovers should stay with low resolutions CD's which promised better sound than vinyl, but never delivered it.
PS additionally I think SACD has not only better quality (more detail, soundstage, air around instruments) but this quality is also cheaper to achieve as you can get great sounding SACD player for $500-1000
I think you said: "CDs are crap..." I do not agree with that! :) But I am all for anything that will improve my enjoyment of music. I agree with that aspiration. SACD (stereo) in my experience does not present as clearly superior to RBCD. Have not tried MCH SACD yet. Therefore hard to see how SACD will make much in-road into mainstream market. Blu-ray on the other hand is clearly superior to standard DVDs, and even that is having difficulty toppling DVDs.
That includes MFSL's UltraDiscs, JVC's XRCD, XRCD2 and XRCD24, Sheffield Lab's 20 bit 20+16 Ultra Matrix Digital Processing, Telarc's 20 Bit, Sony's Super Bit Mapping. etc. I have tried them all and they are all crap, regular redbook CDs are not suitable for music to my ears.
However there is one exception and only if properly decoded, that is Reference Recordings HDCD encoded CDs. However without being routed though a good HDCD D/A they are as bad as all the other CDs out there.
My first hope of actually getting enjoyable music on a digital format was when Classic Records and Chesky released their first 24 Bit 96kHz DAD DVDs, playable on any DVD Player! But the major labels were not interested in the format because it didn't have copy protection.
So in my "2 channel only" experience HDCD was vastly superior to CD, 24/96 DVD was vastly superior to HDCD. and SACD leaves all of these wannabe's in the dirt!
As I have said before the difference is gigantic between a 2 Track 15 IPS Master Tape and a pre-recorded 8 Track cartridge. The differences between CD and 2 channel SACD are orders of magnitude greater than that. If they are not in your system the sonics of SACD are not getting through and being sabotaged somewhere down line! SACD should sound so good, that you would not be able to force yourself to listen to another redbook CD again, ever!
On the other hand I've read that on screen sizes smaller than 30 inches it is impossible to see the difference between Blu-ray and standard DVDs especially on DVD players using upsampling.
Happy listening,
Teresa
Teresa, maybe best to just agree to disagree, otherwise this could snowball. I think CDs sound fantastic on my system. No way you will change my mind. I think SACDs sound great and significantly better than an average CD, but not necessarily better than well recorded CDs. Not going to change that too. I can see that you think otherwise which could be due to a number of reasons. I believe your hearing is probably superior or more discerning than mine and this may be a factor.
A quick side comparison/analogy. When I eat I tend to just eat and enjoy the food often not knowing (or caring) what went into it and not thinking (or caring) why it tasted so good, while others savor the taste/texture of the food and decipher its contents or have to see how the food was prepared and by whom, etc. I would guess you're of the latter. This is not an insult and I wish I was a connoisseur of some sort in music. And while I'm not, I do know given time what sounds good and what not and am fairly brutal/direct about the end result regardless of dressing/presentation/history/specs.
because most of them are crap, and even the best of them like Chesky CD's, MFSL CD's, APO CD's sound worse than Chesky SACD's, MFSL SACD's, APO SACD's
I was greatly suprise to see that even Jean Michael Jarre admitted that CD should die...
Regarding Blu-ray video lack of market success, I remember reading somewhere that people don't see the difference between upscaled DVD and Blu-Ray, just like in audio, where you have people who dont hear the difference between upsampled CD and true high resolution recording (SACD).
I don't mean to open another can of worms here, but, as is clear from KW13's posts, everybody's ears, equipment, and listening priorities are different. That also goes for the specific list of recordings they listen to and form conclusions from. So, what may be overwhelmingly obvious to you or Teresa, is not necessarily obvious or of concern to someone else. Put another way, you can say what floats your boat sonically, but you cannot speak for everyone else.
In my case, I am absolutely gaga over hi rez multichannel. To me, it absolutely wipes out anything in stereo, even DSD stereo. But, understandably, it's not everyone's cup of tea. Also, unfortunately, not many audiophiles have heard it. But, that's their choice.
As to this anti-Blu-ray video myth you would like to believe, again, everyone can make their choice. But, it should not be hard to find a showroom that has a particular video in both DVD and Blu-ray, and look at the differences yourself on a decent 1080p hi def set. This is just like listening to the RBCD layer vs. the DSD stereo layer of an SACD. Everyone has the right to say whatever they want about it. You can always find someone who does not see or does not want to see the difference or to declare the difference not worth it. But, I guarantee you there is a difference. Most people who take the trouble do see it and agree it's significantly better and worthwhile. Try it yourself. Like hi rez audio, hi def video is not smoke and mirrors.
Happy listening,
Teresa
Thanks Teresa.
I think the paper is excellent. Easy to follow, meticulous and logical. Although I was not familiar with numerous technical notes I found the paper very convincing.
Key (and obvious) points I observed:
* Of 145 tests: (a) 4 tests (2.76%) scored 15 or higher out of 20; (b) 6 scored 14; (c) 10 scored 13; (d) 14 scored 12; (e) 111 remaining tests scored 11 or lower. Pretty conclusive stats that almost all could not hear any difference between DSD and PCM.
* There was a slight but obvious tail on the affirmative. While not a single test scored less then 5, four tests scored 15 or higher; only four tests scored 7 versus ten tests scoring 13. That is, you don’t see a complete mirror image or perfect bell shape in the distribution of results. Indicates a very small group of people could indeed tell difference between DSD and PCM.
* Test subjects were either music students or music professionals. That is, that group was strongly biased to be able to tell the difference between DSD and PCM.
The methodology seems tight. There was clear narrative of how the recordings were made and how the tests were carried out. Ample time was provided for each person to become familiar with testing environment before initiating a test. Choice was given as to type of music/instrument in ABX tests (presumably those who specialized in an instrument chose that instrument for testing to further maximize probability).
Picture of the “mouse” used to actually select A or B was even provided together with computer screen seen by participants to make their A/B choice, which shows the interface was quite dummy proof. It seems that you could select between A, B and X anytime you wanted before making a choice. I've done many intensive blind tests myself (with back breaking cable and switching work). I think I could take this test with some ease.
"Test subjects were either music students or music professionals. That is, that group was strongly biased to be able to tell the difference between DSD and PCM."
I think it is an unwarranted assumption that musicians (students or professionals) as a whole are more likely to discern sonic differences than ordinary people unless these differences are specifically related to their musical training. For many musicians sound is just a carrier of musical ideas. Differences of acute interest to audiophiles are often dismissed as extraneous. There are exceptions, of course—some musicians are also audiophiles or recording engineers. I base my belief on my personal experience with musician friends, including my wife.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony, I would have thought that was common sense (although I do not know any specialist musicians who could verify it). Those who choose music as their craft I thought should know more about it especially sonic qualities than an average person. I have been impressed with piano tuners, who must be able to discern what to me sound like very small differences between notes. In that group, I recall there were specialist intrumentalists as well as tonmeisters (who were the only ones to score 15 or higher). Now if you specialize in an instrument shouldn't you be better placed to tell any sonic differences between two recordings than an average person? I think a tonmeister's job is related to studio and intrumental work. So I thought the study was quiet clever in focusing on a group of test subjects that others could not then subsequently challenge as musically disinclined...
I would expect a recording engineer to be sensitive to distortion in recording equipment, including different types of A/D converters. I would expect a piano technician to be sensitive to the various kinds of sonic derangement that pianos are subject to. These are all technical details and not musical details. A musician is dealing (or should be dealing) at a higher level, where these technical details have become a means to an end.
Perhaps students and professors of recording technology would be equipped with the necessary training and experience to be good test subjects at the outset. Musicians and instrument technicians would not, IMO. About the only thing that can be said with some confidence is that all of them have at least average hearing, as measured by an audiologist. (Even though there has been at least one deaf musician...)
Prior to the Northeast blackout of 1965 my wife and I had been listening to a recording on my turntable, which had a synchronous motor. As the side played the power line frequency and hence musical pitch slowly dropped. At one point my wife, who has perfect pitch, commented that the music was now more than a half tone flat. In reply I said that if she was right the lights would be going out shortly. They did. This is about the one and only time my wife's musical abilities proved useful as an audio listener.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Thanks Tony for that recount. I was not even around at that time!
You said:
"About the only thing that can be said with some confidence is that all of them have at least average hearing, as measured by an audiologist."
That's essentially all I was trying to say too. If each member of this group had at least average hearing, then this group has superior hearing.
And what your wife could do is something that I could not. I am not aware that my friends (audiophile or not) could do that. In fact I do not even know what half tone means as measurement.
Half-tone. Also known as semi-tone.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Thanks KW13 for summing up the DSD vs DVD-A (dead) paper.
It's good that one of them - SACD - finnaly won this hi-rez audio format war
PS I'm really curious about these 4 tests, why did they hear the difference? ;)
Don't know. Good question though. Clearly they tried to chase that down but ran out of time. A pity. Two obvious reasons: (1) They had "golden" ears and could tell small differences (PCM and DSD are different afterall); (2) Recording imperfections (as alluded by authors).
I finally got around to reading the actual paper, and it seems like a very well done test. I don't find the results of the test surprising at all. I've found all the subsequent postings here rather entertaining, more than anything else. And I don't understand all the fuss.
Currently the only hi rez playback media is sacd, no matter how the material is recorded. And I don't see anything much changing in that regard for a long time.
I also don't understand all the speculation about blu ray audio. Perhaps, and I think it's a big perhaps, blu ray audio's introduction may spur another try with pop-rock hi rez for some of the music companies.
Blu ray is a video format, like dvd, and it would be surprising if it just didn't stay a video format. Nevertheless, success for blu ray audio can only be a good thing. I don't understand why some feel threatened by this. Any commercially viable hi rez music player that could play blu ray would most likely be able to play back everything else as well.
Interesting, and I am not totally surprised. So, maybe, given that DVD-A, is effectively dead, Blu-ray music is not going to be such a bad thing for all those die hard DSD fans.
I don't know of any Blu-ray discs with DSD tracks. Did you mean DVD-A, rather than DSD?
No, I mean there are many in this forum who think hi rez PCM sucks while DSD is great. But, the industry will be moving to Blu-ray music in the near future, which will only be in hi rez PCM, and which had many DSD lovers feeling that it was gonig to be inferior. Meanwhile, the papers cited at the beginning of this thread indicate the vast majority of listeners cannot hear the difference between hi rez PCM and DSD. So, there is no cause for alarm about this development.
You are right, there is no DSD on Blu-ray. Incidentally, I buy mostly SACD's now, because that's what's available. But, I have never felt that hi rez PCM via DVD-A was as bad as many in this forum have made it out to be relative to DSD. I think the two are comparable sonically now, but I expect the Blu-ray incarnation of hi rez PCM will be even better.
If you do listen to Classical music you would know why we prefer DSD over even the highest resolution PCM. There is no reason for us to take a step backwards with BluRay PCM which is just DVD-Audio with a possibility for two more channels (7.1).
I do purchase high resolution PCM both DVD-Audio and high resolution downloads when what I want is not on SACD. So far SACD is the highest resolution, most musical and relaxing digital format we have. The only improvement I see for the future is home version of double speed DSD that they using in the studios now.
Happy listening,
Teresa
I listen to classical music and I go to many, many live concerts. As I said, I prefer DSD because there is a much larger list of titles, and DVD-A has been effectively stagnant for a number of years. But, I hear no inherent sonic advantage of DSD over PCM, except that there are many more new DSD releases with the latest word in engineering. I have thoroughly enjoyable recordings in each. I also have mediocre sounding releases in each. But, if I am going to buy a disc tomorrow, chances are it'll be an SACD, because that's where the titles are.I see absolutely no basis, and the study at the beginning of this thread confirms it, to condemn Blu-ray without even having actually heard it. Like it or not, it's going to be big and it's going to kill SACD. Reason number one: the installed base of Blu-ray players is already huge compared to SACD players. It shortly will be orders of magnitude bigger than SACD. Need I go on? Within the next few years, you will even see Blu-ray music players playing surround sound in cars. So, the market is poised to introduce a large audience to their first exposure to high rez multichannel music. We, the biased early adopters and out-of the mainstream fringe listeners to hi rez today, are just going to get lost in the shuffle.
Edits: 11/29/08
SACDs from DSD and analog masters are easily sonically and musically superior to any PCM even at 192kHz.
The fact that you hear no difference between high resolution PCM and DSD does not mean I should lower my expectations to yours. It could be a difference in equipment? Could be the multi-channel experience that is masking the difference? Could be a difference in rooms? Could be a difference in ears? I don't know? But I have well documented the differences between DSD and PCM, just check my 100's of posts on the subject as I have for a long time listened to both SACD and DVD-Audio.
1) SACDs from DSD or analog masters have a very accurate midrange that no other format can touch, I have for over a decade called it the "magic" in the midrange.
2) SACDs from DSD or analog masters have a very relaxed atmosphere, the music is just more soothing and beautiful. This is not heard only by the ears, but is mostly how the music feels on you skin and inside your body.
3) SACDs from high resolution PCM masters still have edge over DVD-Audio from high resolution PCM masters they are slightly more relaxed and pleasing. I believe this is a sonic advantage of the upsampling from PCM to DSD.
When BIS switched from recording DSD to recording PCM half way through the Edvard Greig series there was a noticeable decreased in the sound quality. And why did BIS switch? Because just like you they could not hear the very real difference between DSD and high resolution PCM. The switch began with the complete Peer Gynt. And just because "some people" cannot hear the difference does not mean that difference is NOT very, very important to the rest of us that can. DSD is clearly superior to my ears, in my system, and I will always search out as my first choice DSD recorded SACDs I will not downgrade myself based on what others cannot hear!
Here is a paradox for you: Why do the Mercury Living Presence 35MM masters sound superior to the tape masters on the 180 Gram LP versions, yet on the SACD versions the tape masters sound superior to the 35MM masters?
Ansewer: Mercury Living Presence tape masters are transferred directly from analog to DSD, however because the location of the 35MM reproducing equipment does not have DSD facilities they are transferred from analog to 192kHz PCM. In the case of analog 192kHz PCM is clearly not as transparent as DSD and introduces an "edge" to the sound. That is why I am holding out hope that 384kHz can possible approach the listenability of DSD and SACD, it only a hope as I fear 384kHz won't quite approach DSD either? At any rate BluRay cannot do 384kHz so I will stick with SACD, thank you very much!
As I said "The only improvement I see for the future is home version of double speed DSD that they using in the studios now." most definitely not another version of DVD-Audio via BluRay!!!!!!
Happy listening,
Teresa
Teresa - with all due respect, you should not be arguing with me. You should be arguing with the AES papers that are linked to at the base of this thread. Your anecdotal "evidence" and my own prove nothing. The papers are quite convincing in terms of numbers of samples, equipment used (quite impressive, IMHO), and methodology. The fact is that my own listening experiences are quite congruent with the AES papers. Yours are not, but yours are based on anything but a controlled test. You are simply on yet another of your stereotypical tirades. You do not have unbiased facts to support your opinion, unless you have some cogent critique of the papers on scientific grounds. Do you care to run your own experimental study? In any case, until you have actually heard what Blu-ray can do or cannot do, I do not find your hysteria or biases to be of any value whatsoever.
"The papers are quite convincing in terms of numbers of samples, equipment used (quite impressive, IMHO), and methodology"I found the paper quite convincing. It proved quite well that there were subjects who could hear the difference between PCM and DSD . What was written in the conclusions was nonsense, but the tests did prove that some listeners heard a difference.
In light of Teresa's comments, one might presume that she would have been another successful subject, had she participated in the test and had she managed to keep calm under the psychic pressure. (I know when I take these tests after a few trials everything sounds the same, indeed everything sounds like s__t.)
Tony Lauck"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Edits: 12/02/08
you would know I object to the methodology of this AES so-called scientific paper. Perhaps you should read the entire thread?
I am not biased, as it is just as easy for me to play a 24/96 DVD or high resolution download as an SACD. I know what I prefer and I spend my own money in that preference. I just do not want people who cannot hear a difference to make something go away, just because they cannot hear the difference! In other words I do not want my music compromised by tin ear types!
And pray tell what would the sonic difference be between 24 Bit 192kHz DVD-Audio and 24 Bit 192kHz BluRay? Especially in 2 channel Stereo? Nothing, zip, nodda! In short anyone who has heard DVD-Audio has heard what BluRay sounds like. Your suggestion that there is a difference between 24 Bit 192kHz DVD-Audio and 24 Bit 192kHz BluRay is ludicrous! On the other hand recognizing the REAL difference between 24 Bit 192kHz DVD-Audio and DSD SACD is being truthful!
As I said the music comes first, so if what I want is not on SACD, I will consider 24 Bit 96kHz or 192kHz DVD-Audio, 24 Bit 96kHz DVD or 24 Bit 96kHz high resolution downloads. And there is nothing hysterical or biased about that.
Happy listening,
Teresa
I know you object to the methodology of the paper. Your reason is it does not give the results that you want. That is what is called bias.I have no doubt that you hear what you think you hear. Possibly on your system, there is an audible difference even I could hear and identify. It could be equipment. I know you use the same Yamaha player for DSD and PCM, but even there a different circuit pathway is used for each source, since each must be processed differently. Do those different internal circuits sound identical? Maybe, maybe not. Do other players also exhibit this difference to a greater or lesser degree? We do not know, but you are staunchly generalizing from your own experience and claiming that you do know. By the way, are your comparisons level matched?
The other reason for thinking you hear a difference may get back to bias. Have you run any double blind tests with a cross section of unfamiliar recordings to prove your contention that the difference is audible at a rate that is greater than pure chance? Have you verified it on a wide sample of different machines?
Isn't claiming that the scientific tests not only of the paper in question but all science is rubbish a further example of bias?
The problem is you are so biased that you cannot see your own biases that are so glaringly obvious to everyone else.
By all means, buy and listen to what you want. But, these irrational fears you have of something new would be best put off until you had actualy heard what Blu-ray can do. In the mean time, you can hope that this whole march to Blu-ray music will be a collosal flop like DVD-A. Maybe that will be the outcome. Say your prayers.
Edits: 11/28/08
I say this with complete confidence anyone who has heard DVD-Audio has heard BluRay, as they both use the same high resolution PCM. So far most BluRay's are not 192kHz, but 48kHz!
The giant difference between high resolution PCM and DSD can be heard by ANYONE willing to turn out the lights and just enjoy the music.
Happy listening,
Teresa
I often hear magic from SACD (in multichannel, of course) and I often hear magic from DVD-A. Since you are, once again, universally generalizing from your own experience on your own equipment in your own home, I guess 97% of all those test subjects in the paper, plus a fair number of recording engineers and poor me must all be subhuman. Well, at least I am not alone.
as great as they are I have yet to hear the "magic" in the midrange which is so common to SACD in every player I have ever owned. Perhaps someday I will find that magical DVD-Audio or high resolution download, I do keep trying.
So since you refuse to answer my question, I will answer it for you!
How would 24 Bit 192kHz sound any different on BluRay than DVD-Audio?
They would sound the same 24 Bit 192kHz PCM is 24 Bit 192kHz PCM no matter what name you give the format.
Give me DSD and SACD!
Happy listening,
Teresa
Teresa - did it ever occur to you that my ears, my system and my listening priorities might be quite different from yours? That is no doubt true of countless others, as well.
For example, 100% of my hi rez listening is in multichannel, whereas 100% of yours is in stereo. Could that possibly be a major factor in our vastly different perspectives? I think so.
Are you the ultimate, god-like decider of what sounds good and what does not? I know I am not. And, frankly, I am glad you are not either.
The market, made up of millions of consumers, gets to decide these things, whether for valid sonic reasons or not. Even the AES does not decide what will succeed and what will fail. So, you and I can exchange countless point-counterpoint messages about what is good and what is bad. It's just not going to change a thing. Publish your own AES study, for heaven's sake. You will at least reach a wider and more influential audience that way. It will then be all out in the open for all to see. You might change the course of future events. Or, possibly, you will just make a laughing stock of yourself.
You said "Teresa - did it ever occur to you that my ears, my system and my listening priorities might be quite different from yours? That is no doubt true of countless others, as well."This is exactly what I have been saying from the very first post in this thread, we must TRUST OUR OWN EARS and not follow the dictates of any report, study, AES paper or even what other people hear. We are the ones who actually listen to music. I have told you what I hear and how important DSD's sonic characteristics are to me in my system. I can only speak for me and no one else. You can only speak for you and no one else. I don't know how to make myself more clear on this point!
You said "For example, 100% of my hi rez listening is in multichannel, whereas 100% of yours is in stereo. Could that possibly be a major factor in our vastly different perspectives? I think so."
I did mention this as a possible factor several posts ago.
You said "Are you the ultimate, god-like decider of what sounds good and what does not? I know I am not. And, frankly, I am glad you are not either."
No, it is this AES paper that is playing GOD not me, I firmly believe everyone should have enough faith in themselves to trust their own ears.
Finally I have to desire to do these type of studies of AES or anyone else as I feel they are anti-music.
Happy listening,
Teresa
Edits: 11/30/08
Actually, my position has not changed at all. Here is what I said in my first response to you in this thread:"I see absolutely no basis, and the study at the beginning of this thread confirms it, to condemn Blu-ray without even having actually heard it."
So, you have condemned, as is obvious from your posts, but have you actually heard it? I have not. Blu-ray, as you suggest, might sound identical to hi rez PCM via DVD-A or FLAC files, but the implementation and the equipment used will be different. So, then again, it might not sound the same as your system does now. It might even be worse, depending on what recordings and equipment you use. Better, worse or no different, I do not know, but you have been claiming you do know.
I do not see the study playing God at all. It's purely a form of experimental market research to determine listener perceptions from a large sample to suggest a probable response by the entire target population of potential consumers. It's generally similar to many scientific experiments, like drug testing, that are done all the time. It's Statistics 101, and, as far as I can see, unbiased, because it did not prejudge the outcome. I do not think it is fair to accuse experimenters of playing God. It's out there with full documentation for anyone else to critique or to run their own study refuting or confirming the results. But, this study looks pretty definitive to me in what it says about consumers in general. It may not describe your response or even my response. We are all just single individuals. Our vote does not count any more than anyone else's.
Certainly, the CEO's of Sony, Denon, Pioneer, Harmonia Mundi, Telarc, BIS, etc. might be encouraged by the study to pursue development of PCM-based Blu-ray music. But, that's something we are reading into the study. They can ignore Blu-ray music and the study, if they so choose. They can develop some other format (not likely). Like all good businessmen, consumer acceptance, sales and profits are, and should be, their ultimate motive. Incidentally, they do care about sound quality to the extent that it fosters consumer acceptance. Maybe some have a higher calling to sound quality for its own sake. But, if it's not profitable, those impulses will quickly disappear, if they want to keep their jobs.
Personally, the encouraging thing to me about this development is that it might result in a much larger inventory of music releases in hi rez multichannel. We both know that SACD is not cutting it, sales-wise. It's not suddenly going to arise as a major force in the music industry. If it were hugely profitable, in addition to its considerable sonic advantages, we would see a much larger list of available titles. Thank goodness we have what we have.
Edits: 12/01/08
"I see absolutely no basis, and the study at the beginning of this thread confirms it, to condemn Blu-ray without even having actually heard it."
If the Blue Ray disks use PCM format, there is no reason to believe that there will be any systematic differences between Blue Ray and DVD audio or downloads at the same PCM parameters (number of channels, sample rate, and bit depth). Indeed, if one takes these three distribution media and loads them into memory in a computer based playback system all three carrier media will produce the same bits in stored in memory and hence the waveform going to the speakers.
Now this may not work in practice, because Blue Ray disks may come with evil copy protection that prevents them from being used in a computer playback system that buffers complete tracks in RAM. Instead one may be forced to have an integrated player or an HDMI based DAC. And so one may hear differences when playing the same material because the same bits will be produced using different equipment. And that always creates the likelihood of differences. However, these differences, should they exist, will be the property of the player(s) and not the media.
The situation is completely different with PCM vs. DSD. These are two different technologies and they each represent different technical compromises (e.g. better noise and distortion vs. better transient response). Even if the same playback equipment is used, the two formats will result in different waveforms being sent to the speakers.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I do not disagree with anything you say in concept. There should be no bit by bit differences on the disc between Blu-ray PCM and other sources of PCM at the same bit rate, etc. for the same recording using the same recording equipment, etc. But, the Blu-ray implementations of PCM will be different, at least the 7.1 chips and machines used to play it will be, in addition to being newer and, perhaps, more highly developed. Perhaps some flaws in current PCM DACS will have been improved upon, increasing their fidelity. I am just speculating that there has not been much incentive to enhance hi-rez PCM chips and circuits because the market has been so small with the flop of DVD-A. And, remember, it took quite some time from the initial introduction of CD to develop and refine RBCD chips and circuits that were acceptable to high end audiophiles. (I recall that period quite clearly.) Blu-ray might accelerate hi rez chip developmnt/enhancement, and it has a jump start because of the existing hi rez PCM technology going back a decade or more.
Also, I do not believe the Dolby True HD and DTS Master surround codecs are available for PCM material other than Blu-ray. What effect do these have on the audible result? I do not know. They are something of a mystery to me, but they are very much part of Blu-ray audio. There may also be improved 7.1 PCM gear used in the recording/mastering/editing cycle. All that and a maximum of 7.1 vs. 5.1 channels might add up to a better presentation of music in our listening rooms than the PCM we know today. (Remember, I am a hi rez surround guy.) Then, again, it might not.
PCM might therefore be "new and improved" in the Blu-ray incarnation. As to waveform differences between this new PCM and DSD/SACD, I am not sure that is relevant. The real question is will consumers find enough of a difference they can actually hear to warrant preferring SACD. Some undoubtedly will. If you believe the study at the base of this thread (I do), then most will not.
When I say consumers, I am including audiphile zealots like you, me and readers of this thread. But, we are only a small, vocal minority. I am also referring to the larger and growing number of owners of Blu-ray machines who might potentially consider using their machines for hi rez music playback as well as video playback. How big is this latter potential audience? It is not the mass market, but it may be sizeable and piggyback on the live Blu-ray video rock concert, jazz concert, classical music concert, etc. audiences. Many could evolve into buyers of Blu-ray music, as well as videos. Sonic differences aside, that's why I am hopeful about Blu-ray music. It could well increase the number of people who have been exposed to and want hi rez audio. That increased demand benefits all of us in terms of more releases, and possibly, better prices than now. Of course, SACD lovers see this a threat. Though it might kill SACD, on balance, I do not see it as a negative, because it will increase the total hi rez music market.
You can bet that Blu-ray like SACD has a pretty robust DRM copy protection scheme. (DVD-A did not have a robust one, which was one of many reasons for its failure.) I do not see the industry letting up on this. So, downloads will not be competing with the sale of Blu-ray discs and players for quite some time.
"Perhaps some flaws in current PCM DACS will have been improved upon, increasing their fidelity."
Could be. But it would be a shame to have to buy a new DAC and have it only work with a new format for which there are few disks. If I am going to buy a new DAC I want it to play all of my digital music. In any event, I seriously doubt that Blue Ray players will have the same quality DAC technology as is available on state of the art digital converters, e.g. those being used to make the original recordings.
"Also, I do not believe the Dolby True HD and DTS Master surround codecs are available for PCM material other than Blu-ray."
I am innately suspicious of the phrase "CODEC" as it is often a keyword for clever (too clever) discarding of information. It could be that the MCH on Blue Ray is better than the MCH on DVD-A because of the additional bits available on the storage medium. However, I have absolutely zero interest in multi-channel. I have no space where I live for a proper multi channel setup and, at least until I can experience it, it will remain a gimmick, much like Quad was. I am interested in music, not aural sound effects.
By the same token, I am innately suspicious of anything labeled "Dolby" as it was just another clever encoding trick that helped ruin recorded fidelity. The classic stereo recordings were made without Dolby or any other compression technology. I have long believed that the introduction of Dolby-A was the beginning of the end of high-fidelity music for the mass market.
"The real question is will consumers find enough of a difference they can actually hear to warrant preferring SACD."
Mass market consumers will buy anything they are duped into believing is good. They do so without the slightest regard for sound quality, as documented by high volume purchase of square wave pop recordings. These mass market consumers are not going to be buying Blue Ray or SACD for sound quality. They may purchase Blue Ray for video, but it would not surprise me to see Blue Ray be another flop.
"You can bet that Blu-ray like SACD has a pretty robust DRM copy protection scheme. (DVD-A did not have a robust one, which was one of many reasons for its failure.) I do not see the industry letting up on this."
Blue-ray has a very sophisticated DRM system with the ability to track back infringement to the player and selective destruction of the offending player. This mechanism will lead to interesting service problems, as was seen already with HD-DVD, which has a slightly less sophisticated scheme. In my opinion, the distrust of customers which underlies DRM technology is part of a process that will eventually destroy the record "industry". Rather than block the development of downloads, this will be a factor that promotes artists delivering their music directly to customers.
I do not wish to own any equipment that is illegal, nor equipment that it is illegal for me to reverse engineer. This means I do not wish to own any equipment that will play DRM encoded material so long as fascist laws such as the DMCA are in force. Obviously, without any of this equipment, DRM encoded Blue Ray disks are of little use, so I will not be buying them, at least until it is clear that some are being made without DRM and at such time as inexpensive computer drives are available that enable me to extract the bits from the disks reliably and legally.
I want to spend my money on music or on audio equipment that will play many types of media well. Given the present circumstances, I consider the purchase of a Blue Ray player for audio to be a total waste of money.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I think I meant to say DAC CHIPS might be improved, because I do not foresee many separate, stand-alone, high end DAC boxes for Blu-ray, just like there are not many for SACD. For almost everybody, the digital to analog conversion will take place in the player or in the AV processor bitstreamed via HDMI transmission from the player. HDMI bitstreaming is what I use now for hi rez. So, buying an expensive new DAC should not be an issue for most. Hook up the Blu-ray player (now starting under $200) and you are good to go.
I do not claim to understand the new hi-rez Blu-ray codecs, but both are heavily billed as “lossless”. It is possible that the codecs are basically about the manner of encoding multichannel material, so that the disk is compatible with stereo, 5.1 channel lossy surround and 7.1 channel lossless playback options. So, maybe, they change the signal in no way. That’s about all I know. I don’t think what Dolby did for cassette tapes is relevant to what they are doing in hi rez. In hi rez, it’s pointless to play games with the frequency response to get a higher signal to noise ratio, as Dolby-A tried to do.
Blu-ray will be, I expect, the major mass market item for video. Blu-ray/DVD players will replace DVD-only players on virtually all store shelves within a year or two. As, I said, though, the market for high rez Blu –ray music will not be a mass market. It will appeal only to those who appreciate better musical sound than CD, or, as you suggest, those who do not care about sound quality but are going with the market flow, whether they were duped or not. Blu-ray music may still be a gamble, though.
What is important is that the installed base of hi rez audio capable Blu–ray machines will be orders of magnitude bigger than it is now for SACD. The proportion of people who use this capability for music might be small, but the potential market will be dramatically larger than it is now with SACD or DVD-A capable machines. Widescale marketing and production of Blu-ray music has not even begun.
I believe you about not, yourself, violating copyrights on digital material. But, the industry, artists included, has suffered huge losses as the result of piracy. You see DRM as destroying the record industry, but I think the record producers see it as saving the business. The problem is when a video or audio release is sold, they have no way of knowing whether it’s being sold to nice boys like you or to some scumbag who is going to reproduce and resell it on a large scale. So, anti-copy schemes are one of those facts of life we have to put up with. It’s like locks on our doors, passwords on our computers or PIN’s on our ATM cards. Life would be simpler and freer without them. But, because of the tiny numbers of evil doers and the extent of damage they can do, we just have no choice. The fact that DVD’s anti-copy scheme was hacked almost immediately is, I think, a key reason why DVD-A did not attract much music to its catalog. For hi rez, more record producers turned to SACD , which does not have the same anti-copy problem. I do not think sound quality had much to do with it. The resulting lack of releases in DVD-A is why it flopped.
There was no similar choice of media copy protection for movies. There was no going back to VHS tape. Hollywood had to persist with DVD. Until now, that is. They are strongly behind Blu-ray because, in part, they are better protected from piracy than they have ever been. I think they, allied with many electronics manufacturers, are quite determined to make sure that Blu-ray succeeds. The success of Blu-ray as a music medium is less assured, though.
"Of course, SACD lovers see this a threat. Though it might kill SACD, on balance, I do not see it as a negative, because it will increase the total hi rez music market."it might kill SACD? LMAO you have almost 6000 SACD's and one blu-ray audio disc, thank you both blu-ray audio and dvd audio for increasing total hi-rez music market :-)
Blu-ray audio is dead, even if we're going to see 10 more titles in 2009(100th reissue of Kind of Blue and Madonna on blu-ray audio lol) it will never take off on mass market just like dvd-a, the blu-ray audio discs are copy protected and people don't want that, you have to buy blu-ray player to play the discs, it's nice fantasy people are going blu-ray audio but it's just that - a fantasy.
when it comes to physical media the only two which will survive are vinyl and super audio cd IMHO
Edits: 12/03/08
I guess we are not on the same wavelength. You are talking about the present. I am talking about the future, which, admitedly involves some speculation on my part. Of couse Blu-ray music appears dead now. That is because it hardly has begun, except for the two "maverick" discs from far outside the industry mainstream. There has been no organized marketing or anything of the kind. It will take time. One, two or three years from now, there will begin to be decent information to better decide its future. SACD has a ways to go, probably at least 5 years before Blu-ray begins to take its toll. Even at that, I am speculating that Blu-ray will succeed. Maybe it will fail. I just think it stands a better than 50/50 chance. I do not think I implied that the game was over and that SACD's demise was imminent.
I also read the posts at SA-CD.net and check the new releases every single day. Most week days there are 1 or 2 new releases, when I went there today there were 5 new SACDs that were not there yesterday. If one loves classical music, as I do, you could go broke just trying to keep up with all new great new stuff coming out.
Jazz is not coming out as much as it used to. And Rock now is just occasional bursts of full catalogs of classic rockers. Not much in Pop/Rock from the 1990's forward on SACD anymore. So I can understand peoples frustrations in regard to these other types of music.
Since I used to listen to all types of music I have to say with just a couple of rare exceptions most Rock and Pop is very poorly recorded, especially newer recordings. Some are so poor that possible even MP3 would be good enough to capture all their resolution. Indeed some current performers are proud of their low fidelity!
Plus the major labels non-classical recordings and some of their classical recordings are not recorded so well anymore that many of these may not benefit from high resolution treatment.
What I am asking in short, could it be the reason so many new SACD releases are classical is because classical uses the type of acoustic real venues that bring out the best in SACD? I mentioned there are exceptions just as the famous Alison Krauss live SACD.
Sorry I got sidetracked I agree 10 BluRay music releases for 2009 is terrible!
There is another problem with BluRay acceptance that of the majority who have smaller screen TVs, I have read that especially with the upsampling of DVDs in modern players that screens smaller than 30 inches would not see the difference between DVD and BluRay, as screen sizes go up the differences become more profound. Of course the sound of movies would be much better with 96kHz versus lossy Dolby Digital and DTS.
I have a 24" flatscreen analog TV, so I would not see a visual difference but I would hear an audible difference but to me it would not be worth it just for movies only. And I can't get that excited about PCM music, although I have a lot of high resolution PCM music in my home. Plus I wonder if there is any problems watching BluRay on an analog TV. A year ago I tried to sell my TV on eBay but got no takers, and since I refuse to throw anything away that still works I will be using this TV until it dies or someone buys it. At that point I will get HDTV and possible BluRay, but that could be 20 years from now. Oh, well.
Yes I am one who sees anything that can kill SACD a big, big threat! High resolution PCM is fine when DSD is not available, but I prefer DSD and SACD. And would consider it too much of a compromise to be stuck with only high resolution PCM. So in some ways I hope BluRay does die and the perhaps Super DVD will take it's place, in was invented by the same person who invented DSD Dr. Yoshio Yamasaki’s and uses double speed DSD for Audio 5,644,800 samples per second versus SACDs 2,822,400 samples per second plus it uses superior DSD technology for the Video as well. Mark Levinson states in the now spiked article that DSD is easier on the eyes than PCM in long term viewing. Sony chickened out big time they should have went with their inventor Dr. Yoshio Yamasaki and his Super DVD system. We were cheated out of Super DVD!
Happy listening,
Teresa
You said. "Teresa - did it ever occur to you that my ears, my system and my listening priorities might be quite different from yours? That is no doubt true of countless others, as well.As I said in the last post this has always been my position since day one.
For example, 100% of my hi rez listening is in multichannel, whereas 100% of yours is in stereo. Could that possibly be a major factor in our vastly different perspectives? I think so."
I listed this as a possible reason that you may not hear a distinct sonic advantage of DSD over high resolution PCM.
As I have already said agree with both of these and from these two statements I implied you were now willing to let peoples ears decide what sounds best to them instead of believing in stupid tests that you seem to believe to be some divine pronouncement. Studies are not GODs, one can only listen with one's ears. You also claim that studies are not gods but your other statements prove to me you do indeed believe studies to be gods. Otherwise you would not object so someone who clearly prefers the superior sound quality of DSD. I thought there was hope for you based on your last message but you are reverting to your doctoral ways.
One can only trust ones own ears! I have told you in detail what mine tell me, and this is will be what guides my future purchases. To pursue any other course is cheating oneself.
DSD and SACD lives forever in my home!
Happy listening,
Teresa
Edits: 12/01/08
Teresa - this has been fun, but you are missing a few rather large things in your blind spot:
1. My position has not changed one iota.
2. I said from the get-go that people needed to actually listen to Blu-ray before making up their minds - remember? Do you want me to give you the link? Have you listened?
3. The test in no way diminishes any individual's right NOT to buy into PCM in whatever incarnation - Blu-ray, dvd-a, etc., etc.
4. Many people deciding with their (not your) own ears was precisely what the test was all about; that's exactly what the test subjects did (please reread the paper).
5. Nobody but you perceives the test to be a Divine pronouncement . It’s just a good test that’s hard to refute, though you may be upset by its empirical conclusions.
6. Studies are not God or even gods: where have I or anybody else said so or even implied so?
7. Where, on scientific grounds, is the study methodology incorrect ?
8. There is hope for me; think about how patient I am being with you .
9. You should trust your ears for your own buying decisions, but understand that your perceptions in your room with your equipment and your recordings are not eternal, universal truths. You pay frequent lip service to this notion, but then you declare the difference is audible to “ANYONE” (your caps). Do you want the link?
10. By all means, buy and listen to what you want. Others, including me, will do the same.
Boy was I wrong. You said this test PROVES there is no difference between PCM and high resolution DSD and this is 100% wrong when one actually listens to music! So you mean you are still not willing accept that DSD is superior to those who find it superior?You said 1. "My position has not changed one iota."
From your statement I thought you were ready to accept what other people hear with their own ears, and not rely on tests and AES papers that prove nothing at all except EVERYTHING UNDER TO SUN SOUNDS IDENTICAL! This is how these tests always come out. Better to trust you ears instead of trusting poorly conducted tests!
Your position that DSD and 176/4 PCM sounds the same, yet for some mysterious reason 192kHz PCM from DVD-Audio sounds different than 192kHz PCM from BluRay is lubricious! 192kHz PCM is 192kHz PCM.
You said 4. "Many people deciding with their (not your) own ears was precisely what the test was all about; that's exactly what the test subjects did (please reread the paper).
NO you reread the paper! The test conditions made this IMPOSSIBLE for all but those with a high tolerance for pain to actually be able to pick whither A sounds like X, or B sounds like X when they know A and B sound different. NO, NO, NO that is not enough to know they sound different! They must now decide with one sounds like X. This is an experiment in EARS SHUTTING DOWN so everything sounds terrible. The results are thus null and void!!! Not only that, they were not allowed to use there own equipment, Nor were they given a couple of months to listen to idiosyncrasies of the music that was recorded for evaluation. As I have said it is better than most, but it is still a very bad test!
Let people listen with their own ears to their own systems, in their own homes to music they know and love. Only then will they be able to make a quality judgement between the two!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You said 5. Nobody but you perceives the test to be a Divine pronouncement . It’s just a good test that’s hard to refute, though you may be upset by its empirical conclusions.
Wrong! I don't but that is how you have described with your own words as proof that DSD and PCM sound the same, sounds like a Divine pronouncement to me based on a poorly done test which you prefer over people actually listening to music they love and enjoy.
You said 7. Where, on scientific grounds, is the study methodology incorrect ?
See my answer to question No. 4 above, plus if you read the whole thread I gave about 15 other problems with the test as well. I can hear a GIANT difference between DSD and PCM but I would fail this test because it is impossible for me to compare three things at one to one and other. I can compare two at a time but not three, I don't believe many other people can either. The 2.7% that were able to justify the difference they heard between A and B by comparing them to X are the few that had the listening stamina to do so. The 97.3% couldn't because there ears shut down and everything started to sound the same. I am sure most heard the difference between A and B but could not quality it with X, it's too damn hard. As I said with this test I could not tell the difference between a consumer 8 track cartridge and a 2 Track 15 IPS master tape as my ears would shut down and everything would sound poor.
You said 9. You should trust your ears for your own buying decisions, but understand that your perceptions in your room with your equipment and your recordings are not eternal, universal truths. You pay frequent lip service to this notion, but then you declare the difference is audible to “ANYONE” (your caps). Do you want the link?
I have been saying this all along every one should listen for themselves with their own ears. However in doing so they could not fail to see the differences between high resolution PCM and DSD especially in the mid frequencies. But ultimately when they identify the difference I cannot say whither they will like DSD or high resolution PCM better, that is an individual decision. The differences are clearly there. There are people that have heard the difference and prefer high resolution PCM over DSD and I have no problem with that. I prefer DSD though but I would NEVER expect everyone else to.
Happy listening,
Teresa
Edits: 12/01/08
Teresa - I think I understand exactly what you are saying, though I disagree with some of it. You do not, no matter how much I try, appear to understand what I am saying. So, I am not going to go through your latest post point by point. It clearly will not do any good, particularly when you put words in my mouth I never said. You attribute invented ideas to me that I never expressed.
So, let's focus on one essential idea we do agree on:
"I have been saying this all along every one should listen for themselves
with their own ears. However in do so they could not fail to see the
differences between high resolution PCM and DSD especially in the mid
frequencies. But ultimately when they identify the difference I cannot
say whither they will like DSD or high resolution PCM better, that is an
individual decision. The differences are clearly there. There are people
that have heard the difference and prefer high resolution PCM over DSD and
have no problem with that. I prefer DSD though and I would NEVER expect
everyone else too."
To that I say, Amen!
Fitzcaraldo215,
do you think Blu-Ray Audio sounds better than SACD?
Personaly, as I have said several times before, I have no idea. I have not heard Blu-ray yet as a music source. Have you? I cannot make a final judgment on it sonically until I have actually heard it for myself. I encourage others to do the same. Based on what many others who have heard it have said, it sounds pretty good. At this point, it is just a potentially promising new music source. I really do believe it has considerable promise. Whether it is sonically equal to SACD or not, I believe it will have significant impact on the music business. All the above is no more or no less than I have said before.
I don't have a blu-ray player, so unfortunately I won't be able to check it... but I don't regret it at all, SACD offers 120dB dynamic range, up to 50kHz of frequency response, it's really analogue sounding... and great new titles are coming in 2009 (for example 50 Blue Note SACD's, 25 Impulse SACD's)...really don't see any need to buy blu-ray player, sorry.
PS I doubt that blu-ray audio will have any impact on music business, the 2 titles are already available so the technology is ready for use, but I don't see major record labels are going all audiophile :) music business is currently preparing new mp3 downloads, new slot music, and new, louder than ever sounding CD's, people are happy with that quality.
*currently listening to Curzon/Britten Mozart Piano Concertos (SACD)*
I don't have a Blu-ray player yet either. So, I cannot definitively say whether it's good, bad or indifferent from my own personal experience. It will take several more months before Oppo releases its Blu-ray machine, which is the one I want.
I like SACD myself. I just got two Fry String Quartet Isomike releases on sale, and they are very good so far. I think the sound is very good, but so are most of the Praga Digitals releases for chamber music. I need more listening time to assess Isomike. I also ordered quite a few of the Telarc Mch SACD's on sale. Not here yet, though. I still find the Philadelphia Orchestra SACD's on Ondine to be among the best recordings I have ever heard, except, perhaps, for the Bartok Concerto for Orchestra, which was the first in the series. I am highly biased, however. I am a Philorch subscriber and I was there when several of these releases were recorded. 100% of my listening is in multichannel, by the way.
As to the success or failure of music on Blu-ray, we shall see what happens. The recession could have a major effect. I still think Blu-ray will have a big impact on the quality end of the music market. It's not going to change the mass market stuff. Yes, there are only a few releases at this moment. It will take a few years to see what develops. We do not really know the plans of major and minor music companies, but there are rumblings. I know of none in the classical music sphere, except for tiny AIX records. They are about the last of the active DVD-A producers, and they have done an excellent job, but they will be switching to Blu-ray next year with a small list of pop and classical. Finalization of Blu-ray 3.0, the music spec, may be what many are waiting for.
I just wait for more SACD titles, Blue Note DSD reissues, Impulse SACD's, MFSL SACD's Pentatone, BIS, DECCA Esoteric, Channel Classics, Harmonia Mundi etc.
Couple facts you have to understand before you claim all.....
1) in your Hi-Re experiences (indeed for most of all here), all your brain was trained under commercial discs (SACDs vs DVD-A). In other words, you probably never had a chance to listen two identical discs made on SACD and DVD-A, respectively. Therefore, you have no evidence to claim a fact that there is an audible diff between two due to pure formats.
2) the paper clearly has proven that majority people CANNOT hear diff between them if all other things made identical.
So conclusion would be that all the claims you stated a diff between commercial SACD and DVD-A are NOT due to pure formats per se. There are likely due to the recroding, mastering, etc.
The methodology is poor as I have already described in these pages, any listener allowed to spend 5 or 6 months listening and enjoying music with both SACD and DVD-Audio and then knowing what to listen for could hear the difference clear as a bell! These so-called scientists are phony as a three dollar bill as has been proven over many decades!They are NEVER to be trusted where music is concerned! I will not have them destroy SACD because they cannot hear and create test conditions making it hard for others to describe the differences they hear.
Happy listening,
Teresa
Edits: 11/28/08
..
IMHO the one who does not believe what he or she clearly hears with his or her own ears and trusts phony so-called scientific papers instead needs the help. Why do you need other people to tell you what you can and cannot hear? Why give them that much power over you?
You should learn to trust your own hearing and that is where you need help.
Happy listening,
Teresa
"the industry will be moving to Blu-ray music in the near future"
I don't think so, even Blu Ray video isn't that successful, its future on mass market is unclear, and blu-ray audio:/ it just won't happen, hi-resolution audio is niche market it's not for the masses, Sony's Slot Music (mp3) has greater probability of success on the market IMHO...
Hi-res market has already chosen its format, SA-CD, there's no reason to switch to dvd-audio or bluray-audio.
Well, we disagree about prospects for Blu-ray music. Please see my other post linked below. If the market could speak once and for all time, we would still be listening to Edison cylinders. Believe it or not, and this was before your time, there was resistance by many audiophiles in the 50's to stereo over mono. I know. I was there. Change is never easy or accepted by those already entrenched. The SACD market is just too small to survive and the annual number of new releases is declining, not growing, according to a study I saw, based on sa-cd.net data.
I am not talking about a single mass market replacement for iPods, downloads, etc. or even CD's. Those media will go on for those so inclined. I am talking about serious listening media. Only time will tell. My crystal ball is no better than yours, but I remain optimistic in spite of the recession, which is dragging down all consumer electronics. Hopefully, we will be out of it in a year, when we will have a clearer view.
SACD market is small, I agree, but the titles that are coming are top notch performance and quality wise, just look at new Blue Note Analogue Productions SACD series or Impulse SACD series, or DECCA Estoric SACD series...
and when it comes to Bluray-Audio you have only 1 or 2 titles and no one is checking for them, mass market is waiting for Slot Music, and for cheaper CDs or downloads not blu ray audio, audiophiles already chose SACD over DVD-A and since blu-ray audio is basically the same they shouldn't care either...
I love SACD multichannel. It is a sonic breakthrough of huge proportions that does not get enough attention in the world of hi end audio. I think, personally, that its sonic superiority has more to do with multichannel than with hi rez DSD, but that's my opinion. If, hypothetically, had there been an RBCD multichannel, I think I would have been more of a fan of that than of SACD stereo. That's just to give you a sense of my biases. But, the fact that I have both multichannel and hi rez in the same disc is a life changing miracle for me. It is truly awesome, and beyond anything I could have hoped for in over 50 years as a high end audiophile and classical music lover.That said, let's take a look at the big picture and the economic/commercial realities, something that has been my specialty for quite some time. As you conceded, there is plenty of data to support the conclusion that SACD is not going anywhere. It's a tiny niche. Though there are over 5,000 titles, that is not enough of a critical mass to attract sufficient market interest to buy the players to turn it into someting signifcant, demand wise. Personally, after extensive research on sa-cd.net, Classics Today, Audiophile Audition, Absolute Sound, Stereophile, etc., I cannot see myself buying more than 100-200 SACD titles from all those available. Meanwhile, I have much more than 10 times that number of CD's and even more vinyl, though I deem them sonically inferior.
On the other hand, we have Blu-ray, which is being pulled into homes at a rate that is significantly greater by orders of magnitude than SACD players, recessions notwithstanding. We are talking futures now, not about the handful of current BR- music releases. Of course, that adoption rate is based on video performance, where Blu-ray is demonstrably far superior to its predecessor, DVD. It happens also to be sonically superior to DVD. In fact, audio-wise, it is fully hi rez, unlike DVD. So, in terms of installed base of players, Blu-ray is big and getting bigger, even recession adjusted. SACD isn't. Putting a player into the home is the number 1 hurdle to market acceptance. So, Mr. music producer, where are you going to want to place your bet? If it were me, I would prefer to take the gamble on the growth market with the large installed base rather than the small, established, slow growth SACD market. SACD has had, what, over 10 years, and it has not taken off. Meanwhile, there have been many announcements from the pop/rock world of impending releases as BR-music. I do not listen to that stuff, but that's what we need. That's what we do not have in SACD, for the most part. But, the expansion of classical titles I seek can and will ride on the coattails of the big seller pop market.
We are quite early in our speculations. Blu-ray was anointed the one and only video standard in February of this year. Electronics manufacturers have been frantically been trying to keep pace on the video side. Full-featured players up-to-date with current standards have been scarce. But, the industry is right now developing a new Blu-ray 3.0 standard, the music standard (guestimated finalization before mid 2009), which will make it possible to deploy BR-music players on a wider scale for music only, e.g., in cars.
So, I am extrapolating from these early data points a commitment to make this work on a wide scale for video and for music. Billions are invested in Blu-ray by electronics makers, Hollywood studios, etc. This dwarfs the investment to date in SACD/DVD-A. So, I do not think market failure is acceptable for Blu-ray. Video is number 1, but music is an important second tier pathway into homes, cars and possibly other venues. Do not forget that content owners - movie studios, recording artists and the like - really want the superior Digital Rights Management capabilities inherent in Blu-ray, preventing widespread, uncontrolled distribution that hurts their revenues.
That's my sense at this early jucture in Blu-ray's existence. Note that all this has little to do wth sound quality, as business decisions often are. But, I am gratified by the studies you cited that hi rez Blu-ray PCM will be at least indistinguishable from the SACD's we have now. I find the AES studies rather convincing in this regard.
Edits: 11/28/08
first of all, don't don't believe in everything you read in AES papers, not so long ago they published a study which stated that there IS NO DIFFERENCE between 16 bit CD and high resolution music :) as it later turned out, they were doing their tests on 99$ Yamaha DVD-S1500 :)) AES papers can be really funny;)
secondly even if someone doesn't hear the difference between SACD and DVD-A, that's another good point to stay with SACD and not moving to Blu-Ray audio, if there's no difference why I should buy blu ray player :/
no thank you, if there's no difference I'm staying with SACD.
PS blu-ray audio won't take off, people are moving to payable downloads and want CD's, louder CD's! that will play louder when converted to mp3 :) no one is waiting for Blu-ray audio and is willing to pay extra money for such recordings. And judging from DVD-Audio lack of any success on the market, I doubt that any Record label will want to try again;)
I do not believe every AES paper, but not all of them are garbage, either. If you look at the methodology of those that you cited, they look pretty bullet proof to me. There were no $99 players. In fact, the equipment used was super top notch. So, unless you can find an actual flaw in these specific papers, I think we have to accept their conclusions until we get to hear Blu-ray music for ourselves. I have not heard it either, by the way.
No doubt downloads are hurting disc sales everywhere. But, there will still be a market for many who prefer discs. I know I do. As far as I know, DSD is not currently downloadable. 2L, the Norwegian recording company that produced the first BR music release and which produces SACDs, offers downloads but in FLAC PCM. Several other hi rez recording companies do as well, but not in DSD. It's going to take a long while for hi rez downloads to amount to anything because there is a major problem: bandwidth. Most homes in the US do not have enough bandwidth to cope with the 1 GB or more that a hi rez album download requires. It typically takes hours and hours to do so. This is not at all like low res iPod downloading. It will take years for the communications infrastructure to offer enough bandwidth to enough homes to make it possibly even worth considering for hi rez. As for DSD, there is also the DRM issue to prevent piracy. I do not think the industry is going to let up on this. Blu-ray will be the same. So, I see the hi rez market pretty much being disc driven for quite some time.
Just because the mass market is into iPods, downloads or CD's does not preclude the existence of a potentially lucrative, quality market for hi rez. That has not been the case for SACD principally because of the getting-the-player-into-the-home hurdle. Blu-ray stands a much better chance of overcoming this. Meanwhile, DVD-A was an ill-timed marketing fiasco. Not that Blu-ray could not repeat the same blunders, but I do not think the industry is that stupid. Time will tell.
I, myself, will be buying the new Oppo Blu-ray player when it appears in a few months. It will play SACD, CD (both definitely) and DVD-A (probably), as well as top notch DVD-V and Blu-ray video and audio. I do allow myself to watch the occasional film. So, for $500, $600 or $700, whatever final pricing is, I am sure I will get my money's worth out of it, and I will be ready to enjoy the, hopefully, brave new world of Blu-ray music. I am excited about the possibility.
"Most homes in the US do not have enough bandwidth to cope with the 1 GB or more that a hi rez album download requires. It typically takes hours and hours to do so."
It takes me a little over 30 minutes to download a 1 GB hires album, and I live in rural Vermont. With the HDtracks.com download manager, one click starts the download and you can forget about it until it is done.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
As I said, it would take hours and hours for a Blu-ray movie to download. They typically take 30-40 gigabytes. So, if you are typical, it would take 15-20 hours. Actually, you may be lucky to be in rural Vermont (A great state. I love it there.) Here in Philadelphia, broadband networks can get congested with the traffic from many concurrent users, and Comcast, my cable ISP, is limiting throughput on large downloads. So, it could take even longer for many.
Verizon's FIOS or similar fiberoptic broadband should make it much quicker, but it's going to take many years before it is widespread. There is a lot of fiberoptic cable to lay into a lot of homes. Here in Philly, there is talk of its taking the better part of a decade to wire up the bulk of the City. By that time, there might be a "Super Blu-Ray" with even greater storage requirements. So, again, I am highly skeptical of claims that Blu-ray downloading will become a big thing any time soon. Actually, I do not give much of a hoot about movies. I do not buy them, and I would not download them. Netflix by mail is my thing for the occasional movie. There are probably a lot of people like me.
Music would take much less time, of course. So, downloading might become an issue for Blu-ray music, if it ever gets going. A couple of questions though. What kind of internet connection are you using - cable, DSL, etc.? Are your downloads stereo or multichannel? I think I heard somewhere that a typical 2 hour (approx.)lossless 7.1 movie soundtrack might take 6-7 gig. So, an album could require half that. Note also though that blank Blu-ray media and burners are pricey, probably artificially so, to help destroy the economic incentives for copying or downloading.
Personally, I have little interest in downloading. It's too slow and too techie for me, and I was a computer tech guru for many years, now semi-retired and doing other things. I'd rather spend my time on the sofa listening to the music with cover art and liner notes. I do not see myself ever going the media server route. I would rather invest the money in better sounding equipment and buying more music.
I don't have space in my home for multi-channel, let alone the necessary equipment. So I am not interested in MCH. The typical album in stereo at 96/24 is a little over 1 GB and will download at twice the speed it takes to play it. Given my present DSL bandwidth, 192/24 would be marginal for a download, it would be an "overnight" proposition. It would still be much faster than driving to the nearest record store (2 hours round trip). I don't have a DAC that goes at 192 at present, so I haven't concerned myself with speeds higher than 96 kHz.
I agree with your comments regarding bandwidth for hi-res video. However, it is only a matter of time before this eventually changes, so while it may not be practical to download Blue-Ray video today, limited bandwidth does not assure any security against illicit transmission, especially considering the present absurd duration of Copyright.
I got into computer audio when I decided to help some friends with their archive and music operations, starting with extracting sound clips from CDs to load on a web site and then doing digital transfers of archival material and cassettes. This led into the nice discovery that a cheap external USB DAC produced better CD sound after ripping then my older high end CD player and I began to rip my CDs. One weekend after carrying heavy boxes of CDs to a meditation retreat to help sell albums I concluded that the entire process of stamping or burning media and transporting it around in vehicles and by muscles is just plain stupid and very 20th century. This led to the investigation of download sites in the Fall of 2007 and the implementation of a download service in November 2007. For my personal purchase of music, I have been 100% downloads for the past 12 months. (If I lived in a large city, this would probably be different.)
There can be a steep learning curve getting into computer audio, but once it has been overcome the result is a great deal of convenience as well as excellent sound.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I buy all my albums online currently. A little searching on sa-cd.net, Amazon, etc. and a few clicks and I get it in less than a week at a good price, minimal shipping cost and no sales tax, thanks to Amazon's affiliated merchants. It works just fine for me.
I am intrigued by the notion that playback from a hard drive improves the sound, particularly of RBCD's. Many of my friends swear by it. I hardly listen to RBCD any more, but do you have any experience with this on hi rez?
happy listening, Tony.
"I am intrigued by the notion that playback from a hard drive improves the sound, particularly of RBCD's. Many of my friends swear by it. I hardly listen to RBCD any more, but do you have any experience with this on hi rez?"
I only play hi-res through my computer, so I can't give any relative comparisons. I assume the same factors (e.g. jitter effects) apply with hi-res as with RBCD. See the Computer Audio Asylum for more info.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Accept their conclusions? AES states that there is no difference between low resolution and high resolution audio, and was doing their "scientific" tests on $99 player (the study I'm talking about was published by AES in 2007).And regarding their findings on DVD-A vs SACD, if there's no difference between these formats, SACD is still my choice, as it has largest catalog of titles, Blu-Ray audio has 2 titles and in SACD I have almost 6000 to choose from...
DVD-A is dead, blu-ray audio is dead....IMHO the only reasonable choice when it comes to high resolution music is Super Audio CD
Edits: 11/29/08 11/29/08
First, the AES has not said "there is no difference between low resolution and hi resolution audio". They have merely published a paper or two whose authors said that. They have also published many other papers reaching a wide range of conclusions for peer review, like a good scientific organization should. Some of these are valid and beneficial to all of us, some are crap. That's the way good science works. So, you cannot condemn the whole organization for airing different points of view. Like you and I, scientists often disagree, and that disagreement should be aired, not selectively censored to present only a single "party line".
SACD is still my choice, too, for all the reasons I cited previously.
As to Blu-ray music being dead, it has not even begun. We are both speculating about the future. I am eager to see what it can do. I am hopeful that it will add a much needed shot in the arm to the available hi rez recorded repertoire. Once again, I say we should let our own ears be the judges when we have actually heard it for ourselves. We should not condemn it, because it is going to happen no matter what you or I say or do. Give it a chance, for heaven's sake. As I said to Teresa, maybe it will flop. Say your prayers.
It is depressing that there is such nonsense in AES papers. As always, one would have to questions their methodology.
On my shelves there are media of every kind including SACD and DVD-A. In my house over this past many decades my goal has always been to make the performance in my living room sound like the live performance that's been reproduced.
When these formats first arrived I bought both in equal proportion. They both exhibit a fine sonic clarity, but there's something about the SACD sound that results in more of a feeling of, "being there", at least to my ears. Since those early days of experimenting with both formats I've since been buying SACDs almost exclusively.
Let me get this straight. The paper concludes that there was no significant differences between DSD and PCM at 176.4 hHz 24 bits. Yet four listeners achieved significance at the 2% level and one got 20 out of 20 double blind identifications correct. In other words, some listeners heard differences. Even BassNut would agree. The paper went on to explain that there were different "glitch" transients at the beginning of the playback that might account for the differences.
This is a typical establishment double blind test. No positive results are allowed, and if they are found they are dismissed as inaccurate or irrelevant. If these people were real scientists they would get a hold of the four test subjects and have them repeat the tests, after fixing their experimental test setup. If I had been a referee (and I don't belong to the AES so this could never happen) I would have rejected the paper on the basis of conclusions that are not supported by the data and faulty test procedures.
Another thing lacking from the test would be calibration. Each listener should have been calibrated as to which PCM formats they could discriminate. They should have included a variety of formats going down to where 50% of all the subjects can discriminate. And they should have prequalification threshold to discard all subjects who do not pass this test. (This has to be done with different test runs from those that are used to reach conclusions, so the statistics aren't biased.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Hard to do proper eval. Need same title on both formats and play in a Universal player and then the weakness or strength of the finished product comes into play. IMHO, DAD's and true DVD-A's (using MLP) sound slightly better than SACD in the same machine, Marantz DV9500.
"E pur si muove...And yet it moves"
I have recorded the analogue stream of SACD's to my hard drive at 24/96 and 24/192unsing a Lynx l22 pro soundcard and Wavelab software. I would be very hard pressed to determine the difference. Maybe with effort the two could be distinguished. My conclusion is that there is no practical difference.
Excellent DVD-A's from AIX and Classic Records.
Excellent 24/96 DVDs from HDTT (High Definition Tape Transfers), Chesky and Classic Records.
But and it is a big but PURE DSD SACDs from Telarc and others are to my ears sonically superior to even 192kHz DVD-Audio especially the intricate details in the high frequencies, warmer more relaxing sound and what I call the "magic" in the midrange.
I would question the testing parameters of this AES paper.
Happy listening,
Teresa
Both are hi-rez formats capable of superb performance.
But the testers normally don't have associated equipment to tell differences.
Like Grandma testing the latest Formula One tires on her Hyundi - what chance would she have to make any worthwhile comments or feedback to the tire engineers?
Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)
The tifosi shall return ...
Mike
Good post Allen. Kind of says it all.
OK, but I find SACD's much easier to enjoy on my various systems, especially multi-channel disks. Most of my DVD-A disks are not pop in and play.
A simple pop in and play where the user could setup the player to automatically play whatever layer as default would have been nice.
Anyway, I didnt like the format when it first came out, although I do have a few DVDA that sound excellent.
Much preferred the DVD music discs DADs or whatever they were called.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
