IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Why SACDs?
dmckean
post Sep 17 2007, 04:23
Post #76





Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 7-August 07
Member No.: 45978



QUOTE (greynol @ Sep 16 2007, 02:34) *
You forgot Remember Two Things and the live releases which have songs not found on the studio albums.

How about Dream Theater?


You're right, I guess they had an independent release before those others. It's another $4 on to the total. That's a lot of value right there for $40.

With Dream Theater I can't even come close. I ran into something similar six months ago when I bought all the Pixies albums that I didn't have. They were all at least $6. Probably wasn't as many Dream Theater albums pressed as Dave Matthews by far.

Maybe $50 for such a one disc entire catalog disc would be more in line. It would probably depend a lot on how prolific the band's catalog was. You can already pick up things like the The Doors complete collection for $80. That's six complete albums and a rarities disc. Mastering all of that to one disc would save the record companies a ton in manufactuing and distobution costs.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dekkersj
post Sep 17 2007, 11:11
Post #77





Group: Members
Posts: 126
Joined: 2-December 03
From: Steenbergen (NB)
Member No.: 10133



Hi,

It has been a while since I posted here and that has to do with me. So, don't worry.

The question: "Why SACD?" is for me very simple to answer:
* it is multichannel (5.1 format which can be seen as an optimum*)
* it gets the attention an audiophile would like, that is no loudness war or something like that

That's it. Of coarse the technique is quite different and one could talk for hours and hours about potential benefits and other stuff which occurs in the very low level amplitude domain but in practise this is not relevant. The dynamic range of a human being is something like 80 dB or somewhat more and according to this paper in the September issue of the AES (Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback), it is very questionnable wether the increased bandwidth is necessary at all. I quote:

"Conventional wisdom asserts that the wider bandwidth and dynamic range of SACD and DVD-A make them of audibly higher quality than the CD format. A carefully controlled double-blind test with many experienced listeners showed no ability to hear any differences between formats. High-resolution audio discs were still judged to be of superior quality because sound engineers have more freedom to make them that way. There is no evidence that perceived quality has anything to do with additional resolution or bandwidth."

One could debate for hours and days about this but the bottom line is that it is apperantly very hard to tell the difference. Otherwise the outcome would be different.

Regards,
Jacco

*) T. Muraoka en T. Nakazato, "Examination of Multichannel Sound-Field Recomposition Utilizing Frequency-Dependant Interaural Cross Correlation (FIACC)", J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 55 No 4, pp. 236 - 256 (April 2007).


--------------------
Logical reasoning brings you from a to b, imagination brings you everywhere.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mercurio
post Sep 17 2007, 12:07
Post #78





Group: Members
Posts: 104
Joined: 5-November 03
Member No.: 9669



QUOTE
I can't parse any of this. It would help if you didn't write in the form of a stream of consciousness narrative. Punctuation is also recommended.

I'm sorry Mike I try to do my best to write English. crying.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SebastianG
post Sep 17 2007, 19:30
Post #79





Group: Developer
Posts: 1317
Joined: 20-March 04
From: Göttingen (DE)
Member No.: 12875



QUOTE (greynol @ Sep 15 2007, 22:49) *
QUOTE (Mike Giacomelli @ Sep 15 2007, 13:41) *
QUOTE (greynol @ Sep 15 2007, 12:24) *
So 2-channel SACD has a bitrate of 5.6Mbps?
Yes.
Are you absolutely sure?

It's the rate of the uncompressed stream. But an SAVD stores a losslessly compressed version of it (DST = direct stream transfer) which reduces the rate by about 50%.

QUOTE (greynol @ Sep 15 2007, 22:49) *
A follow-up question would be, how is the information for each channel split? Everything I'm reading is extremely vague.

Uncompressed DSD is usually interleaved at a byte level. 8 bits for channel1, 8 bits for channel2, 8 bits for channel1, ... (for stereo). The proposed standard file format for DSD streams (DSDIFF) can be downloaded for free (sorry no reference at hand). DSDIFF files also support the DST compression sheme. Last time I checked the MPEG4 reference source code package included a DST->DSD decoder in its lossless subdirectory. You might want to check it out.

Grimmaudio AD1 manual>> Practice so far shows that DSD is at least as sonically transparent as 192kHz/24 bit and better than 96kHz/24bit.

Huh? "better than 96kHz/24bits"? Did I miss something? dry.gif

Grimmaudio AD1 manual>> However, one channel of DSD takes up only 2.8Mbit/s, whereas one channel of 192kHz/24bit takes up 4.6Mbit/s.

So? 384Hz/32bit has an even higher rate. You need only 8 bits/sample at a rate of 192 samples/sec (1.5MBit/s) to outperform DSD already (!)

QUOTE (krabapple) *
Careful. SACD technology changed soon after that 2001 paper --DSD Wide was introduced -- and it has been argued that its objections no longer hold.

Still, SACDs store DSD only.

Cheers!
SG
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eevan
post Sep 17 2007, 20:28
Post #80





Group: Members
Posts: 535
Joined: 9-April 07
From: Belgrade, Serbia
Member No.: 42357



QUOTE (SebastianG @ Sep 17 2007, 20:30) *
It's the rate of the uncompressed stream. But an SAVD stores a losslessly compressed version of it (DST = direct stream transfer) which reduces the rate by about 50%.

Multichannel SACDs employ DST for both 5.1 and stereo tracks, but it's optional for discs with 2-channel track only.

QUOTE (SebastianG @ Sep 17 2007, 20:30) *
Uncompressed DSD is usually interleaved at a byte level. 8 bits for channel1, 8 bits for channel2, 8 bits for channel1, ... (for stereo). The proposed standard file format for DSD streams (DSDIFF) can be downloaded for free (sorry no reference at hand). DSDIFF files also support the DST compression sheme. Last time I checked the MPEG4 reference source code package included a DST->DSD decoder in its lossless subdirectory. You might want to check it out.

Just to help, here is the link for the DSDIFF spec: http://www.sonicstudio.com/pdf/dsd/DSDIFF_1.5_Spec.pdf
and usage recomendations: http://www.sonicstudio.com/pdf/dsd/DSDIFF_...mendedUsage.pdf

QUOTE (SebastianG @ Sep 17 2007, 20:30) *
QUOTE (krabapple) *

Careful. SACD technology changed soon after that 2001 paper --DSD Wide was introduced -- and it has been argued that its objections no longer hold.

Still, SACDs store DSD only.

You're right. DSD Wide is used in processing stage to make DSD manipulation easier. It is downconverted to regular 1-bit DSD for SACD mastering.


--------------------
If age or weaknes doe prohibyte bloudletting you must use boxing
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ron Jones
post Sep 17 2007, 21:29
Post #81





Group: Members
Posts: 412
Joined: 9-August 07
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 46048



QUOTE (Mercurio @ Sep 14 2007, 12:38) *
QUOTE (Ron Jones @ Sep 14 2007, 12:05) *

As for the original question: why SACDs? My answer to that would be: why not?

They and the equipment you need are more expensive, even to produce, and they are harder to rip than CD, with all their DRM.

This is all true, but when viewing SACD as an alternative format, and not as a primary format, these issues are less critical. I feel the same way about DVD-Audio. Both have failed to achieve wide-market appeal, but both are reasonably 'good' formats. Nine times out of ten, I'd prefer a DVD-Audio release over a SACD release, but I see little inherently wrong with SACD. The players are expensive, absolutely, but this is intended to be an 'audiophile'-grade format, and as such, the cost of entry is a bit prohibitive. I'm also not truly sold on 1-bit DSD/PDM, at least not from a theoretical perspective (rhetorical: it can't capture certain waveforms as accurately as 24-bit/192 kHz PCM -- but does it sound better or worse with real program material?).

We might be getting hit in the wallet a bit, but an SACD-capable system is really quite an optional endeavor. Odds are that, if you know what it's all about, you can likely afford both the hardware and 'software', and even if you don't, you're not really missing a whole hell of a lot. So, hey, alternative formats not impacting the primary formats -- why not?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Sep 17 2007, 22:06
Post #82





Group: Members
Posts: 2160
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (eevan @ Sep 17 2007, 15:28) *
QUOTE (SebastianG @ Sep 17 2007, 20:30) *

QUOTE (krabapple) *

Careful. SACD technology changed soon after that 2001 paper --DSD Wide was introduced -- and it has been argued that its objections no longer hold.

Still, SACDs store DSD only.

You're right. DSD Wide is used in processing stage to make DSD manipulation easier. It is downconverted to regular 1-bit DSD for SACD mastering.



Well allrighty then

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital


QUOTE
There has been much controversy between proponents of DSD and PCM over which encoding system is superior. Professors Stanley Lipshitz and John Vanderkooy from the University of Waterloo, in Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper 5395 (2001), stated that 1-bit converters (as employed by DSD) are unsuitable for high-end applications due to their high distortion. Even 8-bit, four-times-oversampled PCM with noise shaping, proper dithering and half data rate of DSD has better noise floor and frequency response. However, in 2002, Philips published a convention paper arguing against this in Convention Paper 5616. Lipshitz and Vanderkooy's paper has been criticized in detail by Professor James Angus at an Audio Engineering Society presentation Convention Paper 5619. Lipshitz and Vanderkooy responded in Convention Paper 5620.



QUOTE (Ron Jones @ Sep 17 2007, 16:29) *
I see little inherently wrong with SACD. The players are expensive, absolutely,


Not at all absolutely. There are SACD players on the market for <$200 (e.g. from Oppo).

This post has been edited by krabapple: Sep 17 2007, 22:07
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2014 - 02:02