High definition audio formats [Archive]

Uilleann

02-19-2010, 06:32 PM

Ok, ok, I did a search on the forums here, and I didn't really find much that fit my question directly...so before I get crucified for asking *that same old question again that's already been answered a million times here before* :D if anyone can point me to a thread that answers this, I'll happily go read it. :cool:

Otherwise, I just wondered if you, my wizened brethren, could offer a quick primer on what the differences are of current high definition audio formats currently available today.

I'm aware of course of standard CDs, and I know that there are at least two other formats using higher sampling rates correct? Redbox or something like this? And SCAD or SRAD or maybe it was NORAD, or perhaps even I'MBAD. I can't remember off hand. :p Then, there are DVD's you can buy with just music - though I'm unaware if they are all recorded at a higher rate or not. Blu-ray is supposed to offer 'uncompressed' sound - or at least that's what the marketing guys would like us to believe. Is that *really* uncompressed?

And if you have a Blu-ray player, I assume you can not simply play all formats interchangeably correct? I imagine you are stuck buying some ridiculous expensive proprietary player (like what Blu-ray was a couple years ago), and that your selection of titles will be disgustingly limited (like what Blu-ray was a couple years ago), and that you'll regularly have to sell body parts to be able to afford the discs (like what Blu-ray was a couple years ago)... hehehe

Anyway, just curious as to what's out there these days, and where and how to hear it. You all is da best! Thanks for humoring me! :D:D:D

Bri~

F1nut

02-19-2010, 07:06 PM

what the differences are of current high definition audio formats currently available today.

Redbook CD is just that. It is PCM based and is not a hi-rez format, although when done right and played back on good gear can sound glorious.

SACD is a DSD based hi-rez format that is basically a niche market, but oh what glorious sound.

DVD-A is a PCM based hi-rez format that is all but dead.

DualDisc (DVD-A on one side/Redbook CD on the other) is a PCM based hi-rez (DVD-A only) format that failed miserably.

Blu-ray (audio disc only), I've heard talk about it, but I do not believe any have been released. It would be PCM based.

Then you have downloads, Flac files and all that stuff that I'll never bother with. Is it really hi-rez? Some say so, others disagree.

hearingimpared

02-19-2010, 07:46 PM

Don't forget about those big black disc recorded in analog!:D

allstock

02-19-2010, 08:09 PM

I just picked up a Tom Petty "box set", "The live anthology". Contains five cd's,two dvd's,an lp, and an audio only blu-ray. I didn't even know there was such a thing. Quote from sleeve " This disc contains all 62 tracks from The live anthology in hi-resolution 96k 24-bit pcm stereo and dts-hd master audio 5.1 surround sound. It is an audio only disc, with basic navigation and song information displayed on-screen."
Be nice to see more released this way and finally have a decent hi-rez formula that might have some staying power.
BTW, I have a dvd-audio player,,blu-ray player,cd player,multiple dvd players, a tape deck,a turntable, two laserdisc players, and god knows what else is around here.
I've been accused of being an "early adopter".

F1nut

02-19-2010, 11:10 PM

It is an audio only disc, with basic navigation and song information displayed on-screen."

Same BS as DVD-A. No thanks!

Cpyder

02-20-2010, 12:13 AM

Then you have downloads, Flac files and all that stuff that I'll never bother with. Is it really hi-rez? Some say so, others disagree.

FLAC is most certainly bit-for-bit identical to WAV or whatever lossless format it was converted from.

F1nut

02-20-2010, 12:20 AM

Keep telling yourself that when your hard drive crashes. Me? I'll be pushing play on my SACD/CD player remote while reading the liner notes and enjoying the cover art.

Cpyder

02-20-2010, 12:21 AM

Evidence if you're in disagreement:

http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr2/cpyder/Bit-Compare.png

Cpyder

02-20-2010, 12:23 AM

Keep telling yourself that when your hard drive crashes. Me? I'll be pushing play on my SACD/CD player remote while reading the liner notes and enjoying the cover art.

Are you assuming I pirate all my music and don't have the liner notes and cover art? And even if I was, any good downloads include scans of those things.

F1nut

02-20-2010, 12:26 AM

Hmmmm........"Nothing selected."

headrott

02-20-2010, 12:27 AM

Same BS as DVD-A. No thanks!

There is also Neil Young's Blu-Rays. I personally have not heard them.

http://www.amazon.com/Neil-Young-Archives-Vol-1963-1972/dp/B001B8PV4U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1266643472&sr=8-1

Greg

F1nut

02-20-2010, 12:28 AM

I was assuming no such thing, not even that your hard drive will crash.

Cpyder

02-20-2010, 12:28 AM

This I just did for my own fun: I opened up the WAV track in Audacity and changed one sample to see if Foobar would flag it. Sure did!

http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr2/cpyder/Untitled-4.png

Cpyder

02-20-2010, 12:30 AM

There is also Neil Young's Blu-Rays. I personally have not heard them.

http://www.amazon.com/Neil-Young-Archives-Vol-1963-1972/dp/B001B8PV4U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1266643472&sr=8-1

Greg

He's pretty good. Check him out. I really like his album Chrome Dreams II.

Keep telling yourself that when your hard drive crashes. Me? I'll be pushing play on my SACD/CD player remote while reading the liner notes and enjoying the cover art.

That's why you keep backups. Especially if your original CD copy gets damaged. Just burn another. What about when your albums get scratched?

headrott

02-20-2010, 12:35 AM

He's pretty good. Check him out. I really like his album Chrome Dreams II.

I've heard of Neil Young and heard his music, just not the Blu-Rays..........

F1nut

02-20-2010, 12:39 AM

F1nut

02-20-2010, 12:46 AM

That's why you keep backups. Especially if your original CD copy gets damaged. Just burn another. What about when your albums get scratched?

Yeah, I know about keeping backups. I also know that the backups can fail sitting around doing nothing. Personally, I wouldn't want to take that risk however slight.

In the 27 years that I've owned CD's, I have never scratched one. I have purchased some rare used CD's that have had a scratch or two or three on them. No problem though, they play fine.

Cpyder

02-20-2010, 01:15 AM

Yeah, I know about keeping backups. I also know that the backups can fail sitting around doing nothing. Personally, I wouldn't want to take that risk however slight.

In the 27 years that I've owned CD's, I have never scratched one. I have purchased some rare used CD's that have had a scratch or two or three on them. No problem though, they play fine.

I envy you then. I try to be gentle to my CDs, but it seems one always gets a scratch here and there. But that's probably because I take them in the car with me sometimes. Harsh environment for audio.

headrott

02-20-2010, 01:16 AM

Greg, if you haven't yet, read the 1 star reviews......a real hoot.

Yeah Jesse, let's just say I'm glad I didn't buy it.;)

Also, I will never ever buy and store my music on a hard drive in a digital format. CD/SACD/DVD/Blu-Ray is far enough into the digital real for me, I won't be going to computers and their formats for my music. In fact, I'll take my Teac X-2000R reel to reel any day over a digital source. Anyone who stores their music on a hard drive as their primary format should be happy with an i-pod and some $19.99 samsung headphones as their primary listening source.

Greg

comfortablycurt

02-20-2010, 02:00 AM

Keep telling yourself that when your hard drive crashes. Me? I'll be pushing play on my SACD/CD player remote while reading the liner notes and enjoying the cover art.

+10000

I have no desire to listen to my music on anything other than a physical medium. I have an extensive collection of CD's and I'm starting to accumulate a pretty good collection of vinyl as well.

I recently got an iPod Touch. It's a pretty neat toy.

It's also NEVER been hooked up to my stereo, and probably never will be. It's used exclusively in my car, just so I don't have to fumble around with CD's.

Blu-ray audio doesn't really seem too appealing to me. As Jesse mentioned, it sounds an awful lot like the next iteration of DVD-A, which wasn't anything to write home about.

Also, just since it got mentioned...

I love Neil Young, but I'd refuse to buy that Blu-ray set just on principle. $310!?!? I don't think so. It's not like Neil is hurtin for cash these days ya know...

hearingimpared

02-20-2010, 04:16 AM

Just for the record Neil Young took great pride and went to great lengths to ensure that his music was recorded as best as can be as well as making sure it went to the medium that way for all to enjoy. I find it hard to believe he sanctioned the blu-ray set if it sounds so bad.

hearingimpared

02-20-2010, 05:13 AM

Neil Young is a perfectionist when it comes to his music. I do not have the source, but I read in one of the audio magazines I subscribe to that Neil Young said BluRay was the only medium that could reproduce his music at the level of quality he wanted.

All the troglodytes who seem stuck in the past with CDs, and not BluRay or digital files, are just that: Troglodytes. Keep on whining how you are not going to listen to anything other than a CD. However, as the audio world passes you by, do not expect any sympathy for your idiotic views.

Why the poor reviews on the blu-ray set? I find it hard to believe that Neil Young would allow any of his music to be distributed that has not met with his "seal" of excellence. It seems to me that the reviews showed either the reviewers loved it or hated it. I have several of his LPs especially the Classic 200 gm vinyl double LP set of "Greatest Hits" and it is nothing short of astounding.

Also, do you consider us vinyl lovers Troglodytes?

Why a Troglodyte if I don't want to go through the expense of buying a music server and associated equipment, plus the time it takes to place all my music on said server, if I am satisfied with the high end TT and high end CD/SACD player that I have and am very happy to use the discs, especially LPs while reading the liner notes in hand without having to use a computer to do it?

comfortablycurt

02-20-2010, 05:17 AM

All the troglodytes who seem stuck in the past with CDs, and not BluRay or digital files, are just that: Troglodytes. Keep on whining how you are not going to listen to anything other than a CD. However, as the audio world passes you by, do not expect any sympathy for your idiotic views.

So, are you saying that Blu-ray Audio is going to surpass CD's? Maybe from a purely technoligical standpoint, but the fact remains that average joe blow music buyer doesn't give a rats ass about sound quality, and isn't going to spend the extra money on a Blu-ray Audio disc. Most people probably wouldn't even realize that it was a Blu-ray Audio disc.

People can say that CD's are obsolete all they want, but the CD is going to be the dominant musical medium for many years to come. Downloading is obviously coming into it's own, but it is BY NO MEANS the new standard. The audio world won't be passing us by any time soon. I think it's actually starting to kind of move in reverse, with the massive resurgence that tubes and vinyl have been having.

We have idiotic views for wanting to listen to a CD? Sorry.

I'm a musician. I appreciate the work and time that goes into creating music. An ALBUM is a physical thing. It's not only music, but art work, lyric sheets etc. You don't get that with downloaded files. Yes, I know that you can "get" those things with your downloaded files, but it's not the same at all. Don't even try to tell me that looking at the art work on your iPod/TV/computer etc. is the same. There is no screen out there that is going to look as convincingly real as the actual artwork, on real paper. You can have 50 billion albums on your ipod, and it's still not a collection. It's a file. A collection involves multiple things that you can pick up and look at. Not an ipod that you scroll through.

Scratched CD's? Not an issue for me. That's why they have cases. It's the idiots that leave their CD's sitting in stacks on top of their TV's that have to deal with scratches. Also, the people that use CD binders. CD's are meant to be kept in jewel cases...which is why they come packaged in them. When taken care of properly, there is no reason that a CD should ever get scratched with normal use.

What's that? Was that the sound of your hard drive crashing? Whoops, looks like you lost your entire music collection.:p

I'm gonna go fire up this ancient CD player now...I hope these things are still compatible with todays advanced electricity.:rolleyes:

hearingimpared

02-20-2010, 05:29 AM

Keep on whining. :)

Who's whining, I'm asking you legitimate questions.:confused:

comfortablycurt

02-20-2010, 05:30 AM

Keep on whining. :)

Whining? Because I feel no need to buy something that I wouldn't even use? I have no desire to use a digital media server or anything like that. I enjoy playing CD's and LP's. The ritual of brushing off my records before giving them a good spin is satisfying. What do you do with an ipod? Wipe the screen off with the back of your shirt every now and then?

I'm not being some stubborn hold out. I'm not some old man stuck in his ways...I'm only 23. I own an iPod...and it will most likely never be hooked up to my home stereo. I have enough music on hard copy to keep me busy for the next couple years. I got the ipod to use in my car...and honestly, most of the time I forget to even grab it on my way out. I generally just grab a few CD's, and forget that I even own the ipod.

In hindsight, I really wish I hadn't even bought it, and might be selling it soon. It just isn't appealing to me at all.

Is it so hard to understand that some people might just simply not be interested in digital music servers? There is a reason that most audiophiles use CD players and turntables rather than ipods.

hearingimpared

02-20-2010, 05:37 AM

Whining? Because I feel no need to buy something that I wouldn't even use? I have no desire to use a digital media server or anything like that. I enjoy playing CD's and LP's. The ritual of brushing off my records before giving them a good spin is satisfying. What do you do with an ipod? Wipe the screen off with the back of your shirt every now and then?

I'm not being some stubborn hold out. I'm not some old man stuck in his ways...I'm only 23. I own an iPod...and it will most likely never be hooked up to my home stereo. I have enough music on hard copy to keep me busy for the next couple years. I got the ipod to use in my car...and honestly, most of the time I forget to even grab it on my way out. I generally just grab a few CD's, and forget that I even own the ipod.

In hindsight, I really wish I hadn't even bought it, and might be selling it soon. It just isn't appealing to me at all.

Is it so hard to understand that some people might just simply not be interested in digital music servers? There is a reason that most audiophiles use CD players and turntables rather than ipods.

Hey now, I resemble that remark! ~Curley Howard~:D

cnh

02-20-2010, 06:11 AM

hearingimpared

02-20-2010, 06:21 AM

While I'm not going to throw out my CDs yet, and agree that SACD is the digital format of choice. And that analog is staging a comeback--at least with audiophiles--it never went away.

How can we say that a CD will sound as good as a blu-ray when the bit rate for the CD is 1.411 Mbits/Sec and bluray DTS HD Master Audio is 24.5 Mbits/Sec and claims to be fully lossless?

cnh

I'm not arguing the merits of blu-ray. I am wondering why someone is a Troglodite because we don't use a music server, computer hard drive or whatever to listen to music.

Besides, I would have to buy a blu-ray player and hope that all the music I've collected over the years, digital and analog, would be available on blu-ray not to mention the fact that I would have to spend thousands more to re-up my collection in blu-ray.

hearingimpared

02-20-2010, 06:27 AM

Personally, I get tired of all the iPod and digital file downloading bashing that occurs on this forum. If there were a valid technical reason for it then I could understand, but since there isn’t any technical reason to even imply that uncompressed iPod files or downloads are different from CD files I do not understand the hostility. The iPod bashers sound just like the cable bashers.

Maybe it is because I am an engineer and work in a field that deals with digital files, and transferring them error free, that makes it easier for me to accept alternative methods of storing, accessing, and playing digital music files. However, I appreciate the concept of having a physical backup. I have not yet downloaded a single music file for my music server (not counting my Napster days). I have only copied CDs onto it. I can honestly say that adding a music server into my system has resulted in my buying at least a thousand dollars worth of CDs over the last year just to feed this machine.

However, the future of music is with high-rez digital files on either BluRay or downloads, especially before they are compressed down to the CD standard. One of these days, I am going to get a better music server that can handle all file bit lengths and sampling rate, but of course that also means getting a better DAC. No matter what you do in this hobby, you end up spending money.

While playing with your album cover, or CD jewel case, might be fun the first one or two times you listen to the recording, to do it every time is borderline obsessive. Of course, there is nothing wrong with being obsessive, but I suspect it does not make the music sound better. Unless this also falls into the catch-all “Placebo effect” category.

I've never heard a music server nor have I ever bashed it. I don't see the need to go through the expense and effort needed to aquire this technology and waste my time placing the music on it that I currently have on LP, CD, and SACD when I am perfectly happy with my analog front end as well as my digital front end.

Uilleann

02-20-2010, 08:51 AM

Ooooohhhhh kaaaaaaaayyyyy...

Well, when I posted my original question, it was in NO way meant to spark any form of controversy. It was ONLY to try and grasp a better understanding of the different audio storage and reproduction methods being explored and used *today*.

I am also a musician. And I understand very well that even the most technologically advanced studio is going to alter and color and to *some* degree, lessen the sound quality of the original source. That's inevitable.

But what I was primarily interested in learning was what new formats are closer to non-compressed or truly lossless recordings. There is a long way to go I'm sure, and vinyl - when brand new - is still the closest I expect.

I am far from impressed at the *quality* of any standard CD recording. The noise floor is, to my ear anyway, quite high and there is a notable loss in dynamic range and impact when compared to say a live performance - to put it lightly. I was curious to learn if any of the newer formats such as Blu-ray or high def downloads were making progress in that arena.

Some good information has been laid down in this thread, but I would like to very respectfully ask that we refrain from the debate and silly name calling etc. I'm very interested in learning about others direct experience with these new formats for example, and how they compare against the decades old CD format today.

Thanks guys!

Brian

headrott

02-20-2010, 09:46 AM

I am also a musician. And I understand very well that even the most technologically advanced studio is going to alter and color and to *some* degree, lessen the sound quality of the original source. That's inevitable.

But what I was primarily interested in learning was what new formats are closer to non-compressed or truly lossless recordings. There is a long way to go I'm sure, and vinyl - when brand new - is still the closest I expect.
Brian

The first part of your reply that I quoted is IMO is what it's all about. ANY analog AND digital recording and playback will loose some of the information that was originally recorded when played live in the studio. However, analog will keep that information more sonically uniform and sound more pleasing to the ear than even the best digital format so far. Why??? Because music IS analog, not digital. Sound waves are not produced, travel through the air and get to your ear digitally. Sound waves are an analog medium. By that same token, the source(s) that produce those sound waves reproduce them better in an all analog format than having to convert a digital signal to an analog one. The analog signal has a less jagged sign wave than the digital format does, therefore if the audio sign wave starts out analog and remains that way (to your ear, NOT by calculations and numbers) sounds more real and pleasing, in fact because it is more real. Imagine a TT needle passing over the grooves of a record and being simply amplified compared to a laser "reading" the digital code on a CD/DVD/SACD/Blue-ray, etc. and then going through a series of conversions to make it an analog signal. Which seems more real?

Any of the digital formats will never be as good as an analog only signal (other than from a technical point of view) , but if you are going to try digital formats, you need to find the one that reproduces an analog signal the best.

headrott

02-20-2010, 10:12 AM

Ooops, in the instances I put "sign wave" I meant "sine wave" of course.

Greg

Uilleann

02-20-2010, 12:52 PM

Hehe I pick up what you were puttin down there all the same Greg. ;) and yes, I understand the difficulties of recreating an "organic" entity digitally and having remain as true to the source as possible.

More than anything, I'm curious to learn more about the newest methods of storage and transmition of digital media - specifically in disc form. I would venture out on a limb and state that I think almost any typical human ear can hear the loss in audio quality in a typical .mp3 file. I can also hear the difference very clearly between DVD and Blu-ray sources - to say nothing of the massive improvement in video quality.

So that was why I posed my original question. I'm just interested in learning more about what's out there today. And since its hardly practical to try and synch four or five analog records up with my Blu-ray video...hehe it seems that while its an understandable compromise, that a good digital source will perform well enough for my own needs.

Thanks for all the good info so far guys!

Cpyder

02-20-2010, 02:08 PM

Personally, I get tired of all the iPod and digital file downloading bashing that occurs on this forum. If there were a valid technical reason for it then I could understand, but since there isn’t any technical reason to even imply that uncompressed iPod files or downloads are different from CD files I do not understand the hostility. The iPod bashers sound just like the cable bashers.

I love my Ipod to death, but it doesn't have a place in my audio rig anymore, unless you have a way to pull pure digital lossless off of it. (Wadia 170i for example.) If you use its DAC, it's severely lacking. Now I use digital optical out of my computer into my receiver and it sounds amazing! You're right, there's nothing wrong with digital. It's no different that CDs. Playback only depends on your hardware, not the file.

I've never heard a music server nor have I ever bashed it. I don't see the need to go through the expense and effort needed to aquire this technology and waste my time placing the music on it that I currently have on LP, CD, and SACD when I am perfectly happy with my analog front end as well as my digital front end.

How is it fair to say you don't see the need and expense, and it's a waste of time, if you have no idea what a music server has to offer?

People can say that CD's are obsolete all they want, but the CD is going to be the dominant musical medium for many years to come. Downloading is obviously coming into it's own, but it is BY NO MEANS the new standard. The audio world won't be passing us by any time soon. I think it's actually starting to kind of move in reverse, with the massive resurgence that tubes and vinyl have been having.

It'll be a while before CDs get replaced, but downloading is getting a lot closer to the standard, at least for the general populace. The iTunes store sells millions of tracks and albums every year. It won't be the standard for anyone who cares about audio quality because they don't sell lossless. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I last checked they did not.)

Cpyder

02-20-2010, 02:17 PM

F1nut

02-20-2010, 02:34 PM

Neil Young is a perfectionist when it comes to his music. I do not have the source, but I read in one of the audio magazines I subscribe to that Neil Young said BluRay was the only medium that could reproduce his music at the level of quality he wanted.

He said that about DVD-A, but since that format died he had to pick another one. He should have picked SACD, but Warner doesn't support SACD, so there's the reason he picked Blu-ray.

There's also a lot of talk on the internet that Neil is whoring out his music in any format (except SACD) these days. From what I've seen, I agree.

All the troglodytes who seem stuck in the past with CDs, and not BluRay or digital files, are just that: Troglodytes. Keep on whining how you are not going to listen to anything other than a CD. However, as the audio world passes you by, do not expect any sympathy for your idiotic views.

That insult laden comment was compeletly uncalled for.

That said, you seemed to miss the fact that I enjoy SACD's as well and have been since they first came out. To my ears, nothing is better.

These are the results of a recent poll conducted by Stereophile asking what format would be your preferred choice.

And the winner is SACD!

Vinyl: 22%
CD: 17%
SACD: 28%
DVD-Audio: 5%
Download (specify format): 21%
Web Radio: 0%
Radio (FM, HD, XM, etc): 0%
Tape (specify format): 0%
Other: 3%

F1nut

02-20-2010, 02:39 PM

How is it fair to say you don't see the need and expense, and it's a waste of time, if you have no idea what a music server has to offer?

I have experience with a server, which I have talked with Joe about, so he has an idea of what it's about.

Uilleann

02-20-2010, 03:39 PM

F1nut

02-20-2010, 03:43 PM

SACD is a competely lossless, true hi-rez format.

Uilleann

02-20-2010, 04:27 PM

Is Blu-ray also lossless? Perhaps I heard or read wrong. I thought that was the case with the newer encodings. I've been wrong before though.

On a different note, a truly lossless digital format would seem an absolute boon to recording artists. Why would anyone still use CD? In my own limited opinion, DVD appears poised to be shut out by Blu-ray in a few years time...but who knows what might happen there. Is it that there's a corner on the market for over-priced players needed to properly decode SACDs? I'm just left scratching my noggin over it is all...

F1nut

02-20-2010, 05:13 PM

On a different note, a truly lossless digital format would seem an absolute boon to recording artists. Why would anyone still use CD?

Huh? Redbook CD is a lossless format.

Is it that there's a corner on the market for over-priced players needed to properly decode SACDs?

Huh again? There's plently of cheap SACD capable players on the market.

shack

02-20-2010, 05:50 PM

You can pick up a decent SACD player for around $100. I bought a refurbed Sony DVP-NS755V for $59. Sounds pretty good with SACD right out of the box...but I bought it to send to Matt Anker to work his SACDmod magic...just haven't gotten around to it.

I think there is a place for digital music servers...but some on the forum think that is the "be all...end all" and that is their recommendation for everything. Again, I don't have a problem with that system being recommended, but when some one is comes on looking for a "decent CDP for $300 ±" the Wadia + iPod + DAC is not the thing to recommend. Cost of admission for that system to compete with a good entry level player like a Cambridge Audio 340C, NAD C515BEE or a Marantz CD 5003 is $1,000 + by the time you get all of the components necessary to assemble that rig. Then again, it is only competing with a redbook CDP...NOT HI-REZ. You have to get into HDCD, SACD or DVD-A to get into that realm and that isn't happening with an iPod. Lossless redbook is still just redbook.

I have an iPod Classic that holds 80G worth of music...and I use it regularly. But I also have hundreds (into the thousands) of CDs, LPs and SACDs. No one source is MY ONLY SOURCE. All have their pros and cons and all have a place in my audio world.

hearingimpared

02-20-2010, 06:14 PM

I've never heard a music server nor have I ever bashed it. I don't see the need to go through the expense and effort needed to aquire this technology and waste my time placing the music on it that I currently have on LP, CD, and SACD when I am perfectly happy with my analog front end as well as my digital front end.

How is it fair to say you don't see the need and expense, and it's a waste of time, if you have no idea what a music server has to offer?

Read my post again slowly, without your back up. I think you'll get my answer there. Plus, I never said it was a waste of time because of the music server's attitributes. Chill out man, don't take things so personally. I didn't call your baby ugly.

hearingimpared

02-20-2010, 06:28 PM

I have experience with a server, which I have talked with Joe about, so he has an idea of what it's about.

Not mention the fact that I've read many, many articles in Stereophile and TAS about music servers and have a pretty good idea about what it's all about. I might add that the reviewers in most cases liked them. That doesn't mean I am willing to go out and buy one, and transfer the thousands of LP, CDs and SACDs to it just to have the "latest technology." As I said, I'm happy with what I have.

Uilleann

02-20-2010, 07:21 PM

So if I'm understanding correctly - I DO in fact have to buy some high priced proprietary player *specifically* in order to play any SACD. Correct? Even though the Blu-ray player I already have is capable of the same sort of "lossless" playback of audio. We're just waiting for titles to appear on Blu-ray now as opposed to any other format. Is that close to the reality of things?

I really am trying to grasp this here - and not trying to bead a dead horse. But it *appears* from what's been said here that there are *several* digital formats. All of which are claiming to be "lossless". I would then be left with the choice of the format that would play on equipment already owned.

Although I have a feeling I'm not really getting the true or whole picture here...

F1nut

02-20-2010, 07:30 PM

I DO in fact have to buy some high priced proprietary player *specifically* in order to play any SACD. Correct?

That would be incorrect.

See post #45.

shack

02-20-2010, 07:52 PM

Although I have a feeling I'm not really getting the true or whole picture here...

Lossless and High Definition/High Resoulution really have nothing to do with each other.

Lossless simply means that a digitial file (music in this case) is being stored and reproduced in exactly the same form as it was originally recorded/stored. There is no compression of the file...it is the exactly the same. You can have a poorly recorded music file that sounds like crap and you can have a lossless copy of that file and play it in it's lossless form and it will sound exactly like the crappy original.

High definition/resolution has to do with the format with which something is recorded. Redbook is the standard by which normal audio CDs are recorded. Search the internet if you want the technical specifications of what that means. High resolution (Hi-Rez) formats such as SACD, DVD-A, HDCD, and yes Blue Ray Audio means that much more information is recorded and stored on the storage medium compared to redbook...therefore imparting a much greater spectrum of audio information to be replayed. Analog recordings such as vinyl and tape tend to cover a broader spectrum of the audio information whereas redbook CD allowed for a certain amount of compression of the information and then allowing the player to sample and interpolate what that resuting audio should sound like. The Hi-rez formats take more of the sampling out of the equation and allow more of the actual audio to be recorded and played back.

Bottom line...don't try to equate lossless to hi-rez. They are different. Spend a little time researching the difference between redbook and hi-rez formats. There is lots of info...and it will get as technical as you want...if you want.

Uilleann

02-20-2010, 08:06 PM

I get what you're saying. I apologize as I am well aware of the difference in lossless and actual high resolution recording formats. I incorrectly used the term synonymously. That's MY bad! And I humbly stand corrected. ;)

As for the issue of which formats truly offer the best possible resolution - hoping to use the correct term here - it sounds as if I'm stick either buying yet more expensive equipment for an SACD player, or hoping the same recording is available on Blu-ray (in my particular case). While I'm sure there are plenty of fans of the SACD players and format - it does represent a cost I'm unwilling to pay at present for what is still a highly limited format it appears. To say nothing of the joy I find in fewer components to our current system. ;)

I'll leave it all at that, and thank everyone for the informative and *lively* discussion! :)

All the best!

Brian

shack

02-20-2010, 08:19 PM

Here is a thread to read.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48540

The entry into SACD as far as a SACD capable machine is relatively small. As I stated earlier you can find a decent player for $100±. The cost of the actual SACDs is where the cost comes in. You have to want to explore the format to justify the cost of entry.

DVD-A is dead. HDCD, XRCD and other hi-rez are niche formats.

There is talk within the industry that Blu-ray audio will be the equal or better of SACD but in my opinion they will have to make the committment to record in that hi-rez format and then there will have to be a significant demand for hi-rez music to justify that committment of time and money for it to survive. I am betting it won't since it is well documented that the mainstream music buying public could give a rats ass about hi-rez audio.

Cpyder

02-20-2010, 11:21 PM

Read my post again slowly, without your back up. I think you'll get my answer there. Plus, I never said it was a waste of time because of the music server's attitributes. Chill out man, don't take things so personally. I didn't call your baby ugly.

Sorry, I read your post, "I've never heard of a music server."

Cpyder

02-20-2010, 11:25 PM

So am I missing something here? Isn't the Blu-ray format supposed to be closer to a truly lossless format as opposed to the SACD?

Apologies - I'm on my mobile and its a little difficult to go back and read pages of the prev posts. I'll go back and double check what's been said when I get back this evening. :)

Yes. Blu-ray audio (referring to TrueHD or DTS-HD) should sound "better" if mixed properly, compared to SACD. I say "better" because it has a higher maximum bit rate of 18 Mbits/s. Whether you can tell the difference is a debatable topic. But it can definitely carry more data, which can more closely represent the audio.

F1nut

02-21-2010, 02:13 AM

Blu-ray audio (referring to TrueHD or DTS-HD) should sound "better" if mixed properly, compared to SACD.

Really?

Note that high-resolution PCM (DVD-Audio, HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc) and DSD (SACD) may still differ in terms of fidelity at high-frequencies since DSD, owing to its high sampling frequency, does not show the ringing effects that PCM shows with certain types of signals when sharp reconstruction filters are employed.

esowden

02-21-2010, 11:28 AM

Hillbilly61

02-21-2010, 07:35 PM

I think the OP was ambiguous. For movies I prefer THX or Dolby 5.1 HD. There are other formats that I prefer for 2ch. The OP did not state what his/her sound genre was ... at least as far I could tell.

Uilleann

02-22-2010, 04:51 PM

Ambiguous? Really? I thought I made it clear that I was interested in: "current high definition audio formats" in particular. Apologies if I wasn't in any way clear enough.

So - at the end of the day here, I *DO* have to buy a special machine at an increased cost to play anything other than standard CD, DVD or Blu-ray formats. (And no, I don't think I'd trust a cheaper $59 SACD player, after reading the opinions in the thread Shack references here: http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48540 It sounds as though one needs to spend considerably more in order to make an appreciable difference.)

And to add to the difficulty, it doesn't appear that there are many titles that are available in the higher sample rates anyway - at least not as it relates to any sort of a standard in mass produced/released music widely available on the market today. Or perhaps more precisely - not currently in titles or artists that I would readily be interested in purchasing en masse.

Movies and their corresponding soundtracks are what they are - and it seems that, at least for the present, Blu-ray is offering a highly viable option for both picture and sound that is becoming quite accessible to the general public both in terms of affordability and title selection.

Thanks once more for the information - and conversation one and all!

Brian~

F1nut

02-22-2010, 05:37 PM

So - at the end of the day here, I *DO* have to buy a special machine at an increased cost to play anything other than standard CD, DVD or Blu-ray formats.

Hello, you have to buy a special machine to playback any video or audio format. Just because the one you bought doesn't include SACD, don't think that it's not a "standard" format. There are tons of players that include SACD playback on the market today.

Blu-ray is offering a highly viable option for both picture and sound that is becoming quite accessible to the general public both in terms of affordability and title selection.

For video, so it would seem. For music, not even close.

Danny Tse

02-22-2010, 05:39 PM

The entry into SACD as far as a SACD capable machine is relatively small. As I stated earlier you can find a decent player for $100±. The cost of the actual SACDs is where the cost comes in. You have to want to explore the format to justify the cost of entry.

New Sony Blu-ray players with SACD are now available starting at $180.00 with DSD digital output thru their HDMI outputs.

Uilleann

02-22-2010, 07:12 PM

Hello, you have to buy a special machine to playback any video or audio format. Just because the one you bought doesn't include SACD, don't think that it's not a "standard" format. There are tons of players that include SACD playback on the market today.

For video, so it would seem. For music, not even close.

Interesting. It seems the jury is still out on overall SCAD quality then? Is it in some form vastly superior to Blu-ray audio tracks or even Redbook assuming the source recording sample was of a suitable high quality? And is that quality detectable to the average human ear on a modest home stereo or theater system I wonder?

It sounds like there's a high amount of subjectivity here regarding what may or may not actually be the best format for transferring the highest possibly quality sound, in particular, relating to music. There are certainly those here I'm sure I'm just cheesing off incessantly with my lack of a grasp of the details. I thank you sincerely for your patience with my questions. :)

Just trying to dig through the opinions and find some sort of general consensus. Perhaps that's a holy grail not worth seeking? ;):p

shack

02-22-2010, 08:06 PM

Interesting. It seems the jury is still out on overall SCAD quality then?

Not really. It IS considered to be a high quality/high resolution format.

Is it in some form vastly superior to Blu-ray audio tracks or even Redbook assuming the source recording sample was of a suitable high quality?

Yes

And is that quality detectable to the average human ear on a modest home stereo or theater system I wonder?

Yes.

It sounds like there's a high amount of subjectivity here regarding what may or may not actually be the best format for transferring the highest possibly quality sound, in particular, relating to music.

That is audio in a nutshell. Some are constantly striving to improve the SQ of recordings past, present and future. It is constantly evolving. For now SACD is probably as good as it gets. There may be something better down the road...only time will tell.

Just trying to dig through the opinions and find some sort of general consensus. Perhaps that's a holy grail not worth seeking? ;):p

Only you can decide if it is worth the time, effort and expense.

I stand by my statement that a $100 ± player "CAN" reproduce a SACD recording with SQ far superior to a standard redbook CD. Again there are excellent redbook CDs that can come close to the sound of SACD on a superior system. To achieve that it must be a superior recording on a much better than average system. There are also poorly mastered SACDs that won't sound particuarly good, regardless of the rig they are played on.

SACD is worth the effort IMO. It would be nice if it were a universal format...but as has been stated many times...the average joe could care less about hi-rez recordings. Crappy MP3 works just fine for them. Because of that, hi-rez (including hi-rez blu-ray) will never be a mainstream format.

If one is interested there are 6272 SACD discs...some are out of print and costly to find. Lots of jazz, classical and blues...unfortunately not enought rock (again think of the market segment and the average buyer/listener)

www.sa-cd.net will give you the complete list.

Uilleann

02-22-2010, 08:22 PM

Cool - alright. My understanding was incorrect then. Thanks very very much Shack for the help. I have done a lot of looking over the stuff at the SACD site, and you're absolutely right - not nearly enough rock! ;) Apart from the other genre's I enjoy. Can you believe it - not a single decent uilleann bagpiping disc in high res format?! The audacity of it all! LOL

I will keep searching for a good quality player then - at a reasonable cost. Are there features in the build I should be looking for - things like any particular brand or model that really outperforms another in output? I'm more confused now than ever, as it seemed the tone of much of the before referenced thread on SACD players seemed to indicate "Don't waste your time and money on a player unless you can really spend a good deal to make it worth it!" I know that this is just an 'opinion' of some, and it's highly dangerous to only listen to one side of an argument for or against. If you're saying a less expensive player will do the same thing to my admittedly untrained ear (concerning high resolution audio), then I'm all for trying. Perhaps buying from a store with a great return policy. :)

And my entry for 'dumb question of the year': Does one generally use an HDMI cable to connect an SACD player to their AVR? Or perhaps an optical?

Cpyder

02-22-2010, 08:44 PM

Interesting. It seems the jury is still out on overall SCAD quality then? Is it in some form vastly superior to Blu-ray audio tracks or even Redbook assuming the source recording sample was of a suitable high quality? And is that quality detectable to the average human ear on a modest home stereo or theater system I wonder?

It sounds like there's a high amount of subjectivity here regarding what may or may not actually be the best format for transferring the highest possibly quality sound, in particular, relating to music. There are certainly those here I'm sure I'm just cheesing off incessantly with my lack of a grasp of the details. I thank you sincerely for your patience with my questions. :)

Just trying to dig through the opinions and find some sort of general consensus. Perhaps that's a holy grail not worth seeking? ;):p

Shack, I'm not really liking your answers you gave when you quoted this post.

You have NO evidence to say SACD is vastly superior to Blu-ray. If anything, I'd argue the opposite:

1. Blu-ray audio (TrueHD and DTS-HD) is newer. I'd hope the developer could improve upon an audio format introduced 11 years ago using today's technology.
2. SACD can stream data at 5.6 Mbit/s. TrueHD can stream at 18 Mbit/s. I'd hope having a bitrate 3.2 times that of SACD would help the format in some form. I don't believe someone said, "Hey, let's make a new audio format with 3 times the bitrate of SACD, but let's make it inferior. That's data efficiency!" In my opinion, Blu-ray's potential is far greater. Is the potential being used at the moment? I'm not sure, but it's there.

Also, saying that the quality difference between SACD and Redbook audio is detectable by the average human on a modest home stereo. That's pretty funny to say. There's no real world evidence that humans can detect the quality difference. If you can find this evidence, link me to it.

I really think you need to re-quote him and answer with more honest opinions, possibly supported by at least some facts.

And please don't answer with, "Real-world evidence? I can tell a difference and that's all that matters." You may be able to tell a difference, but to say that, you're also saying that you have some of the finest ears in the world. If you can truly hear a difference, call up Stereophile, for example, and prove to them you can hear a difference. You'd make a fortune!

Cpyder

02-22-2010, 08:51 PM

Also, one more thing:

"TrueHD is capable of delivering audio that is bit-for-bit identical to the studio master. Utilizing up to 7.1 channels of audio information, the format supports 100 percent lossless audio, encoded up to 24-bit/96 kHz at a maximum bitrate of 18 Mbps. In raw technical terms, that easily outperforms any other audio format currently on the market, including Dolby Digital-Plus, and is about as close as you're going to get to a cinema-level experience outside of buying your own multiplex."

Taken from: http://www.highdefdigest.com/feature_introducingdolbytruehd.html

Can SACD do that? Bit-for-bit the same as the studio master? If it can't, I'm throwing in the towel for SACD and declaring Blu-ray the winner in terms of audio quality.

shack

02-22-2010, 08:53 PM

I will keep searching for a good quality player then - at a reasonable cost. Are there features in the build I should be looking for - things like any particular brand or model that really outperforms another in output?

I have no first hand knowledge of this player...but folks (including so called pro reviewers) rave about Oppo...both as a video player and about it's audio capabilities (especially SACD).

http://www.oppodigital.com/blu-ray-bdp-80/

If it lives up to it's reputation, its is certainly a reasonably priced "multi-format" player. CD, DVD, SACD, DVD-A, Blu-ray. If you ended up with a player such as this and decide you do not care for SACD, you still have a highly regarded DVD/Blu-ray player.

And my entry for 'dumb question of the year': Does one generally use an HDMI cable to connect an SACD player to their AVR? Or perhaps an optical?

Definitely not optical. I believe there are a couple of AVRs that claim to be able to decode SACD via HDMI...but for the most part one must use analog interconnects between the player and the AVR or pre/amp.

shack

02-22-2010, 08:58 PM

I really think you need to re-quote him and answer with more honest opinions, possibly supported by at least some facts.

I stand by my responses, whether you like or agree with them. They are based on real world first hand experience by myself as well as other people with similar experiences that I am familiar with.

BTW...Who the hell are you to question my honesty?

treitz3

02-22-2010, 08:58 PM

Damn. You know, it sure would be nice if an actual discussion took place on a great topic such as this. Instead of the typical "My di(k is bigger than your di(k" arguments.

Listen man, you like Blu-Ray and want to declare it the winner. Fine. You couldn't be more correct and happy listening.

If folks around here would like to actually travel down their audio journey to a better place closer to the bottom of the rainbow, they may want to sit back and listen instead of argue.

That said, I'm out of this thread. Post #2 nailed it and that's all that really needs to be said. Y'all have fun now...

F1nut

02-22-2010, 08:59 PM

Ugh!

Shack is 100% on the money.

1. Blu-ray audio (TrueHD and DTS-HD) is newer. I'd hope the developer could improve upon an audio format introduced 11 years ago using today's technology.

Shows how much you know. Blu-ray audio is exactly the same as that 11 year old DVD-A technology, exactly.

Can SACD do that? Bit-for-bit the same as the studio master?

Yep.

Cpyder

02-23-2010, 01:18 AM

Ugh!

Shack is 100% on the money.

I want your next post to read word for word: "SACD is vastly superior to Blu-ray audio."

You should have no objection to this since he is 100% on the money.

Oh, and make sure you don't forget the word "vastly".

shack

02-23-2010, 09:30 AM

I want your next post to read word for word: "SACD is vastly superior to Blu-ray audio."

You should have no objection to this since he is 100% on the money.

Oh, and make sure you don't forget the word "vastly".

Maybe you should improve your reading comprehension skills before you start questioning someone's honesty.

The actual question VERBATIM was:

Is it in some form vastly superior to Blu-ray audio tracks or even Redbook assuming the source recording sample was of a suitable high quality?

Given that question, "yes" is an appropriate answer.

Bye.

Uilleann

02-23-2010, 10:52 AM

shack

02-23-2010, 11:49 AM

So is stirring the hornet's nest just a given when talking about audio? Being new to all this I simply am not aware of the etiquette or prose appropriate for these discussions. I apologize if anyone's feelings are getting hurt. Perhaps it was selfish of me to ask the original question to try and learn for myself? (Truth be told - I'm still highly uncertain as to the reality of things with so many strong opinions being given back and forth.)

At any rate, apologies.

Brian~

No apologies necessary. There are those that have experiences and then convey an opinion based on those experiences. Then there are those that think that everything is measurable in audio and numbers always tell the tale.

IMO audio is subjective. What you hear may be different from what I hear for a multitude of reasons. My best advice is ask questions if you like, take everything you hear with a grain of salt...THEN...find out for yourself firsthand by doing, trying, listening, etc.

If that seems like too much effort...then maybe you are where you need to be as far as audio or A/V is concerned.

Again, everyone treats this hobby differently. Only you can determine what works or is right for you. Good luck.

concealer404

02-23-2010, 12:04 PM

Just ask yourself... do you like to listen? Or do you like to read about listening?

Pretty easy to identify which pieces of info are relevant to yourself after you identify which "type" of audiophile you are. :)

Danny Tse

02-23-2010, 12:42 PM

So is stirring the hornet's nest just a given when talking about audio?

Haha! Yes....sort of like Chevy vs. Ford....Leno vs. Conan vs. Letterman....less filling vs. taste great :D

cheddar

02-23-2010, 12:58 PM

So is stirring the hornet's nest just a given when talking about audio?

As shack pointed out, unfortunately, with people's listening preferences, equipment, knowledge, and experience varying so greatly, you will get a lot of opinions stated as fact. That's probably where most of the dust up above comes from. In all things audio, it's usually best to use your own ears to listen and make up your mind for yourself. Many of the posts above come from people listening to their own set-ups and offering opinions. I find this personal experience to be the most valuable, since technical specs cut and pasted from an article or just assumed because something is new and something is old can't tell you personally if you could even hear or appreciate any audible differences between formats. But making broad generalizations will usually end in a pretty heated discussion eventually. Even if people are being completely truthful in their own listening critiques, chances are you don't have their equipment, so you're going to have to do your own listening tests at some point. It seems you want some sort of final objective word on the matter. And I just don't think it exists given the reasons above. So seeking a 'final word' probably isn't the best strategy to go around asking questions with.

Since you seem to want something more objective, I'll try and provide you some sort of framework to do your own listening in. But remember, these are only technical specs, they don't really tell you if you can hear a difference or even if the original recording is even capable of taking full advantage of a format's potential. You can have a horrible source recording and no matter what upsampling you do with it and what format you use, it will still sound like garbage.

CDs, DVD-A, and lossless blu-ray all use something called pulse code modulation or PCM. The problem always is how to turn the analog medium of sound into something that can be digitally recorded using 0s and 1s. PCM is one standard that samples the sound value at a given point in time. But since it can't sample all sounds at all times, there are going to be gaps in what can be recorded and reproduced. This has led many to prefer the sound of old analog LPs to their digital counterparts.

Don't get bogged down with TrueHD or DTS-HD MA as some newfangled lossless formats. IIRC, TrueHD even has its roots in compression used for DVD-A. They are somewhat new compression formats that just make a PCM file smaller so it doesn't take up as much space on the disk. They offer NO SOUND IMPROVEMENTS to the file. They just make it smaller. Whatever PCM file existed before is what you get when you uncompress (decode) it to make it the large file again. That's why they call it lossless. But remember, it's garbage in, garbage out. So if they recorded the track well and mastered it well, it will sound stellar. But TrueHD or DTS-HD MA guarantee nothing about the quality of the final experience.

That said, the differences between CDs, DVD-A, and blu-ray lossless really depend on how much space is available on the disk and how much bandwidth is available over the interconnect between the player and AVR. More space means a higher sample rate is possible, leading to a larger file, that has to be transmitted over a higher bandwidth connection. So CDs have a 700MB capacity, DVDs over 7GB, and blu-ray 50GB. And HDMI can handle more information than optical or coax digital connections.

This means more channels and higher bit-depth/sample rates (CDs - stereo at 16-bit/44.1 kHz, DVD-A - stereo at 24-bit/192Khz or lower if using more channels, and blu-ray LPCM - 7.1 at 24-bit/192Khz) are possible. But music has to first be recorded and mastered at the highest rates. And there are only a handful of audio only blu-rays that exist mastered at blu-ray's highest potential. A blu-ray movie that is only 16-bit/48Khz in 5.1 isn't using the full potential of the blu-ray medium. So you can see there can be a lot of apples to oranges comparisons going on when the original source recording and preserving the quality of the source all the way up the chain are so important. And stereo vs. surround tracks is a whole other can of worms. But at least all other things being equal, you can see how blu-ray can be superior to a CD in quality because of the sharp increase in amount of information transmission possible, eventhough the underlying digital 'language' is the same.

SACD doesn't use PCM. Instead it uses something called Direct Stream Digital (DSD). It is 1-bit DSD at 2822.4 kHz. So right from the start, comparing SACD to the other formats is an apples to oranges effort. And saying one is superior to another becomes problematic. I think it's safest to say that SACD, DVD-A, and blu-ray LPCM can all sound absolutely stellar given a properly mastered source recording. SACD has the best selection of titles after the decline of DVD-A. But if blu-ray audio only disks take off, they will be a viable alternative to the SACD format and IMHO, anything that encourages the release of more high resolution recordings in either format is good for audiophiles.

Cpyder

02-23-2010, 05:53 PM

Maybe you should improve your reading comprehension skills before you start questioning someone's honesty.

The actual question VERBATIM was:

"Is it in some form vastly superior to Blu-ray audio tracks or even Redbook audio assuming the source recording sample was of a suitable high quality?" - Uilleann

Given that question, "yes" is an appropriate answer.

Bye.

Perhaps you should realize what an ambiguous answer is. "Yes" was not an appropriate answer if you are only referring to Redbook audio. Saying "yes" leaves it open to interpretation as to whether you are saying SACD is vastly superior to Blu-ray audio, Redbook audio, or both. A better answer would be, "Yes, SACD is superior to Redbook audio because..."

"I really think you need to re-quote him and answer with more honest opinions, possibly supported by at least some facts." -Cpyder

I stand by my responses, whether you like or agree with them. They are based on real world first hand experience by myself as well as other people with similar experiences that I am familiar with.

BTW...Who the hell are you to question my honesty?

You're right. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used the word "honest." That was not the correct word choice because (see above why this is bolded) you weren't trying to be dishonest. I'm sure your intentions were honest and good. What I meant was that the answers you gave (which I commented on), were ambiguous, did not state any facts, and probably served to confuse the OP. Since you did not comment on any point I made, I'm assuming you don't disagree with them.

Cpyder

02-23-2010, 05:54 PM

As shack pointed out, unfortunately, with people's listening preferences, equipment, knowledge, and experience varying so greatly, you will get a lot of opinions stated as fact. That's probably where most of the dust up above comes from. In all things audio, it's usually best to use your own ears to listen and make up your mind for yourself. Many of the posts above come from people listening to their own set-ups and offering opinions. I find this personal experience to be the most valuable, since technical specs cut and pasted from an article or just assumed because something is new and something is old can't tell you personally if you could even hear or appreciate any audible differences between formats. But making broad generalizations will usually end in a pretty heated discussion eventually. Even if people are being completely truthful in their own listening critiques, chances are you don't have their equipment, so you're going to have to do your own listening tests at some point. It seems you want some sort of final objective word on the matter. And I just don't think it exists given the reasons above. So seeking a 'final word' probably isn't the best strategy to go around asking questions with.

Since you seem to want something more objective, I'll try and provide you some sort of framework to do your own listening in. But remember, these are only technical specs, they don't really tell you if you can hear a difference or even if the original recording is even capable of taking full advantage of a format's potential. You can have a horrible source recording and no matter what upsampling you do with it and what format you use, it will still sound like garbage.

CDs, DVD-A, and lossless blu-ray all use something called pulse code modulation or PCM. The problem always is how to turn the analog medium of sound into something that can be digitally recorded using 0s and 1s. PCM is one standard that samples the sound value at a given point in time. But since it can't sample all sounds at all times, there are going to be gaps in what can be recorded and reproduced. This has led many to prefer the sound of old analog LPs to their digital counterparts.

Don't get bogged down with TrueHD or DTS-HD MA as some newfangled lossless formats. IIRC, TrueHD even has its roots in compression used for DVD-A. They are somewhat new compression formats that just make a PCM file smaller so it doesn't take up as much space on the disk. They offer NO SOUND IMPROVEMENTS to the file. They just make it smaller. Whatever PCM file existed before is what you get when you uncompress (decode) it to make it the large file again. That's why they call it lossless. But remember, it's garbage in, garbage out. So if they recorded the track well and mastered it well, it will sound stellar. But TrueHD or DTS-HD MA guarantee nothing about the quality of the final experience.

That said, the differences between CDs, DVD-A, and blu-ray lossless really depend on how much space is available on the disk and how much bandwidth is available over the interconnect between the player and AVR. More space means a higher sample rate is possible, leading to a larger file, that has to be transmitted over a higher bandwidth connection. So CDs have a 700MB capacity, DVDs over 7GB, and blu-ray 50GB. And HDMI can handle more information than optical or coax digital connections.

This means more channels and higher bit-depth/sample rates (CDs - stereo at 16-bit/44.1 kHz, DVD-A - stereo at 24-bit/192Khz or lower if using more channels, and blu-ray LPCM - 7.1 at 24-bit/192Khz) are possible. But music has to first be recorded and mastered at the highest rates. And there are only a handful of audio only blu-rays that exist mastered at blu-ray's highest potential. A blu-ray movie that is only 16-bit/48Khz in 5.1 isn't using the full potential of the blu-ray medium. So you can see there can be a lot of apples to oranges comparisons going on when the original source recording and preserving the quality of the source all the way up the chain are so important. And stereo vs. surround tracks is a whole other can of worms. But at least all other things being equal, you can see how blu-ray can be superior to a CD in quality because of the sharp increase in amount of information transmission possible, eventhough the underlying digital 'language' is the same.

SACD doesn't use PCM. Instead it uses something called Direct Stream Digital (DSD). It is 1-bit DSD at 2822.4 kHz. So right from the start, comparing SACD to the other formats is an apples to oranges effort. And saying one is superior to another becomes problematic. I think it's safest to say that SACD, DVD-A, and blu-ray LPCM can all sound absolutely stellar given a properly mastered source recording. SACD has the best selection of titles after the decline of DVD-A. But if blu-ray audio only disks take off, they will be a viable alternative to the SACD format and IMHO, anything that encourages the release of more high resolution recordings in either format is good for audiophiles.

Very nice write up. If there was a rep system, I'd give you +1. This description was very detailed and used a neutral tone. I believe it will help the OP. You also did not try to present your opinions as facts. A+

shack

02-23-2010, 05:59 PM

Since you did not comment on any point I made, I'm assuming you don't disagree with them.

Assume what you will. I have no intention on commenting on ANY point you make now or in the future. Bye.

Uilleann

02-23-2010, 06:06 PM

Thanks Cheddar! That truly does help to clear the air for me. I sincerely appreciate your time in such as well written reply. :) Your next pint's on me! Cheers!

Brian~

F1nut

02-23-2010, 06:07 PM

1. Blu-ray audio (TrueHD and DTS-HD) is newer. I'd hope the developer could improve upon an audio format introduced 11 years ago using today's technology.

Shows how much you know. Blu-ray audio is exactly the same as that 11 year old DVD-A technology, exactly.

Still waiting on you to address your mistake on this one. I want you to say, F1nut is right, I don't know what I'm talking about. Say it, HARRRRRR!

Cpyder

02-23-2010, 06:32 PM

Shows how much you know. Blu-ray audio is exactly the same as that 11 year old DVD-A technology, exactly.

Still waiting on you to address your mistake on this one. I want you to say, F1nut is right, I don't know what I'm talking about. Say it, HARRRRRR!

I was referring to SACD vs. Blu-ray audio, but F1 is right: both DVD-A and TrueHD use packed pulse-code modulation. The word choice of "exactly" was probably not a great choice because there ARE differences between the two.

1. DVD-A only supports 192kHz/24-bit audio for up to 2.0 channels. TrueHD supports 192kHz/24-bit audio for up to 5.1 channels. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe DVD-A does not support bit-for-bit identical playback of the studio master in 5.1 channel surround.)

2. TrueHD more than doubles the maximum bit rate of DVD-A.

3. TrueHD allows for up to 14 separate channels. Current hardware only supports up to 8 channels however. DVD-A allows for 6 separate channels.

4. TrueHD allows more options for stereo support than DVD-A. Rather than downmixing channels, TrueHD allows for a separate "artists" stereo mix.

5. TrueHD allows for expanded metadata to include dialogue normalization and dynamic range control.

shack

02-23-2010, 06:45 PM

Brian, good luck in your audio adventure...whichever path you take...

F1nut

02-23-2010, 06:46 PM

1. DVD-A only supports 192kHz/24-bit audio for up to 2.0 channels. TrueHD supports 192kHz/24-bit audio for up to 5.1 channels.

2. TrueHD more than doubles the maximum bit rate of DVD-A.

Ok, you're going to have to explain to me how TrueHD more than doubles the maximum bitrate of DVD-A when both have a maximum bitrate of 24.

3. TrueHD allows for up to 14 separate channels. Current hardware only supports up to 8 channels however. DVD-A allows for 6 separate channels.

That does not equate to better sound.

4. TrueHD allows more options for stereo support than DVD-A. Rather than downmixing channels, TrueHD allows for a separate "artists" stereo mix.

I'm not understanding this one. Stereo is only two channels, why would it need to be downmixed?

5. TrueHD allows for expanded metadata to include dialogue normalization and dynamic range control.

Seems like DSP and compression, neither of which result in better sound, IMO.

TroyD

02-23-2010, 07:25 PM

No apologies necessary. There are those that have experiences and then convey an opinion based on those experiences. Then there are those that think that everything is measurable in audio and numbers always tell the tale.

IMO audio is subjective. What you hear may be different from what I hear for a multitude of reasons. My best advice is ask questions if you like, take everything you hear with a grain of salt...THEN...find out for yourself firsthand by doing, trying, listening, etc.

If that seems like too much effort...then maybe you are where you need to be as far as audio or A/V is concerned.

Again, everyone treats this hobby differently. Only you can determine what works or is right for you. Good luck.

Game, set, match....

Jesus, Joesph and doggy-style Mary....this is like who is stronger, Captain Marvel or Superman?

BDT

F1nut

02-23-2010, 07:27 PM

I'll take Superman for a grand.

treitz3

02-23-2010, 07:33 PM

I'll match that but I'm picking Captain Marvel. :D

Uilleann

02-23-2010, 07:35 PM

I was always partial to Wonder Woman - oh and the pink bug girl from the Bugaloos. Am I too off topic here? Or worse - do my past super-hero tastes require me to give up my quest for super cool audio today? I mean.....am I really cool enough now that *THAT* dirty laundry's been aired? ;)

F1nut

02-23-2010, 07:42 PM

I'll match that but I'm picking Captain Marvel. :D

Eh, Superman gets to do Lois. Who does CM get to do, Sona? Ron?

shack

02-23-2010, 07:42 PM

I still like Popeye, Mighty Mouse and Underdog...the superheros of MY YOUTH.

F1nut

02-23-2010, 07:43 PM

I mean.....am I really cool enough now that *THAT* dirty laundry's been aired?

Wonder Woman......yeah, you're cool enough.

shack

02-23-2010, 07:47 PM

Eh, Superman gets to do Lois. Who does CM get to do, Sona? Ron?

Whatever...:rolleyes:

Popeye had Olive Oyl

Mighty Mouse had Pearl Pureheart and Mitzi (he was a playa)

Underdog had Sweet Polly Purebred

Babes all!

treitz3

02-23-2010, 07:51 PM

Eh, Superman gets to do Lois. Who does CM get to do, Sona? Ron?Hmmm, got me there.

If he wants to "do" somebody, lets let it be Ron, k?

cheddar

02-23-2010, 07:52 PM

Thanks Cheddar! That truly does help to clear the air for me. I sincerely appreciate your time in such as well written reply. :) Your next pint's on me! Cheers!

Brian~

No Problem. And ain't nobody beating WW after she wraps them up in her Golden Lasso thingy...

TroyD

02-23-2010, 07:52 PM

No and No.

As long as you didn't want to dress up like WW...you are ok.

It's further ok to pursue audio in whatever format floats your marshmallow. I mean, F1 is one of my closest friends and he despises vinyl....and we STILL manage to be civil to each other. Like what you want....it's REALLY ok.

BDT

treitz3

02-23-2010, 07:54 PM

F1 is one of my closest friends and he despises vinyl....and we STILL manage to be civil to each other.Well Troy, everybody has their deficiencies...:p

:D ;)

TroyD

02-23-2010, 07:57 PM

It amazes me though....man, someone doesn't agree....F*CK, grab the torches and pitchforks!!!

The more people don't like vinyl, the happier I am. Used vinyl prices are now OBSCENE.

BDT

shack

02-23-2010, 08:08 PM

It's further ok to pursue audio in whatever format floats your marshmallow. I mean, F1 is one of my closest friends and he despises vinyl....and we STILL manage to be civil to each other. Like what you want....it's REALLY ok.

Yes, there are lots of audio paths. In my home I currently have some OLD records (pre-vinyl) that are about a half inch thick, vinyl LPs, 45 and 78 rpm singles, cassettes, mini discs, Redbook CDs, music DVDs, SACDs, HDCDs, XRCDs, music on my computer hard drive, iPods, a Dell digital jukebox music player, a boombox, AV digital tuner, analog stereo tuner, portable radios...and yes...I have an 8-track player just waiting to be installed in my 69 Mach I (if I ever get around to restoring it). I would like to get an old Pioneer RtR to go with my vintage rig just for the coolness factor.

They all play music in some form or fashion...and it is all good.

Uilleann

02-23-2010, 10:11 PM

Some of the best recordings of some of the most gifted uilleann (Irish) bagpipers I've ever heard - yeah, I know calling myself a "musician" when it was bagpipes I played was a stretch...but well, ya know, it worked for me! :) - ANYHOOOOOO...

The best recordings I've heard are actually on wax cylinders from the 1890's-1930's.

http://www.tinfoil.com/cylinder.htm

And they're really great and all - I'm just completely cheesed off that they didn't bother to record at 96K in full 7.1 HD. Big fat jerks!

Uilleann

02-26-2010, 06:47 PM

shack

02-26-2010, 07:27 PM

Wow. So in further research on "quality" SACD players, it seems that one simply can't get *true* reference level sound (which would be the goal of actually buying a specialized player and discs correct?) one has to spend in the neighborhood of $10,000 - $15,000. :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

For a CD player.

The consensus on the web, from what I can tell, is that even for a "marginal" to "poor" player, once can spend well over $1,000 quite easily. After seeing that, I'd have to wonder just what camp a player in the $100 - $200 range would sound like...the above mentioned wax cylinders?

ACK!

Doesn't sound like this is any sort of road I'm interested in traveling down. I'd rather buy a nice car, or further my education for that sorta dough. Ouch.

I don't know where you are doing research...but that is just wrong. I guarantee there are many here on this forum that have excellent sounding SACD players made by Sony, Denon, NAD, Oppo, CA, Marantz etc... all costing $1,000 or less...many costing much less. Here are three reviews of SACD players all under $350 new that get glowing praise for their SACD playback.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0205/sonyscdce595.htm

http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround/108mitr/index1.html#

http://www.hometheatersound.com/equipment/cambridge_audio_dvd99.htm

Several excellent Sony SACD and Denon universal SACD players are available used (several sold on this forum) in the sub $300-$500 range.

Uilleann

02-27-2010, 08:33 PM

F1nut

02-27-2010, 11:36 PM

Its just tricky to know what the real world experience would be for us. There are numerous reviews all over the web - and the general concensus appears to be that unless one is truly prepared to spend well over $1,000.00, and in many cases tens of times that, don't bother wasting time or money.

With our otherwise *very* modest system, I could easily take my lovely lady out to live concerts for the forseeable future with anything close to the $10-$15 K some are tossing about for what, again for us, amounts to nothing more than a glorified CD player.

Truth be told, we could hire a good number of live musicians to come play privately for us for less than that kind of coin! ;)

In the mean time, here's to the hope that Blu-ray audio catches on and rivals the quality and selection of SACD.

Have a great weekend everyone!!

Bri-

Glorified CD player!?! Either you don't have a clue or you are a troll and beginning to believe the latter.

If a *very* modest system is all that you can afford or all you care to afford, that's fine, but do not pass judgement on what you don't know or understand.

BTW, if Blu-ray audio catches on there will be $10,000 players as well, so your logic is without merit.

cnh

02-28-2010, 12:01 AM

Its just tricky to know what the real world experience would be for us. There are numerous reviews all over the web - and the general concensus appears to be that unless one is truly prepared to spend well over $1,000.00, and in many cases tens of times that, don't bother wasting time or money.

With our otherwise *very* modest system, I could easily take my lovely lady out to live concerts for the forseeable future with anything close to the $10-$15 K some are tossing about for what, again for us, amounts to nothing more than a glorified CD player.

Truth be told, we could hire a good number of live musicians to come play privately for us for less than that kind of coin! ;)

In the mean time, here's to the hope that Blu-ray audio catches on and rivals the quality and selection of SACD.

Have a great weekend everyone!!

Bri-

BUY used my man! Buy 'used'.

And, didn't shack's reviews mean 'anything'? Of course there is and always will be high end. But how many of us can 'afford' that. So we're either doing what Shack says, or buying and tweaking a nice 'used' piece.

F1nut...lol....10,000 dollars and more!--that market is BIG and glorious!

cnh

cheddar

02-28-2010, 03:35 AM

With our otherwise *very* modest system, I could easily take my lovely lady out to live concerts for the forseeable future with anything close to the $10-$15 K some are tossing about for what, again for us, amounts to nothing more than a glorified CD player.

If you are only willing to buy a modest system, then why are you looking at high end players? You can actually find very expensive (by your standards) versions of all components. Yet you continue to ignore all the advice you've been given in this thread directing you to good affordable SACD players.

This is beginning to sound like a rant you have against all those other reviews you keep mentioning. Why not take your complaints to somewhere that is actually recommending those players as the minimum acceptable instead of the more modest players continually mentioned here?

shack

02-28-2010, 09:29 AM

I've certainly tried to help the OP with as many recommendations as I can find...plus my own personsal experience. I have heard the $10,000+ CDPs and the $20,000+ TTs and the $30.000+ amps and the $40,000+ speakers...and yes if you are looking for perfection then the price of playing is steep. I look for the best results at a level I can afford. To say that SACD is not worth the effort unless you spend $10,000+ is pure bull****. I don't care who says it. I hope the OP finds his answers...but probably won't be here.

tonyb

02-28-2010, 10:00 AM

Agreed Shack,but reading through this thread,it seems the Op is not willing to invest in his own gear for better SQ. Could be me,I dunno,but he seems to think one piece of gear alone that decodes high rez formats is his answer to better SQ. As another member has stated in the past,everything matters. Maybe an OPPO universal is up his alley for what he's looking for but that is no absolute to better SQ within a given system. Seeing that many players are out there that support all available formats, and on the cheap, I don't see his arguement except that maybe he didn't research enough before buying the gear he did. Oh well, many members tried to help in this thread but the OP needs to get a better understanding of all things audio.

tonyb

02-28-2010, 10:03 AM

I still like Popeye, Mighty Mouse and Underdog...the superheros of MY YOUTH.

LOL!! Yeah,me too,only now a days,my super energy pill is viagra.:p

Uilleann

02-28-2010, 11:25 AM

There are certainly plenty of opinions here to be read. Yes, I've done a LOT of reading, a lot of reviewing opinions of those here, as well as many other places on the web (as good as Club Polk is, it's still one small place in a very large internet!) :) I've spent a good number of years in audio, and I'm certainly hopeful I'm able to discern the difference between good and bad sound to my own ears.

The investments and time some make to their audio or HT systems is nothing short of staggering! To spend thousands, tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars is impressive - but not a place I envision myself every being. And I'm perfectly happy with that. While I appreciate the information I've learned from many of the posters in this thread, the "opinions" are at the end of the day, just that. And for this researcher, it's been highly enlightening to read the opinions in this thread, in others here on CP, elsewhere on the web, and in speaking over the past few weeks with a number of local retailers about the merits, pros and cons of formats such as SACD.

You're welcome to draw any and all "trollish" opinions about myself you care to. :) Since you've never met me in person, I find it rather entertaining to say the least! My motivations, and those of my darling fiance who is also involved in this newest audio/visual experience of ours are ours alone. We won't be rushing out to buy a player tomorrow at any cost, but we are both better informed now as to what the formats offer - for better and for worse.

Have a great weekend all! :)

Brian~