The future of Audio

F1nut

^^^
Hehe......

frreo1

heiney9 wrote:

Boy you do have a rosey outlook don't you. You haven't even begun to scratch the surface of what real audiophile components can do in reproducing audio. I'm glad you like your current set of gear, absolutely nothing wrong with that or what your ears hear. But let's not draw such narrow conclusions about the gear in question compared to much more out there. I can guarantee I could build a 20 bit redbook system for a modest amount of money that would blow the doors clean off of what you describe above. As always different strokes for different folks, but your statements are a bit shall we say optimistic and green. Just because it's ALL digital doesn't mean sqwat.

Digital, DVD-A, SACD is not the end all of audio reproduction.

Cheers

H9

Mate, In a word, Bollocks! There is no way you can make a CD system (By the way' it's 16 bit, not 20 bit), regardless of price, nevermind modest, sound better than a SACD/DVD sourced from an Elite DVi 59. Sorry, you have not mastered physics to that extent.

By the way, I have owned high qualiy audio gear from the likes of audio research, threshold, VPI, Acoustat, etc. All great pieces in there own right. However, good engenieering can quicly give way to irrrational exbuerence when it comes to the high end. The real advances are issues such as DVD/SACD, digital amplifers, major improvements in speaker manufacture, etc. Today's mid level speakers often outperform yesterday's high end speaker.

Cheers, and happy listening!

frreo1

The ONLY reason that I listed the equipmet was to counter the argurement that only people who have listened to high end equipment can pass judgement. My experiene with the high end is that folks often go overboard, well past engenieering principals, and start quoting gibberish as truth. There has been some crazy, non engineering "tweaks" written about improving the sound.
Having said that, all things being equal, the source is indeed the key. The price/performance ratio of SACD/DVD to any other format simply does not compare. For a reasonble price (by the crazy high end standards), one can achieve audio nirvina that will surpass anything out there, period. for example, if you listen to the Eagles I farewell tour, or the Queen W/Paul Rogers DVD (DTS 96/24), you cannot help but notice the stunning clarity and near realism.

PS: I would NEVER be embarassed...nes pa?

heiney9

All in your opinion Mate!!. Stop stating your phrases in the form of fact. And yes I could put together a 20 bit system for a modest price that would perform better than the Pioneer DVi 59, SACD or not. Have fun, that's what it's about.

Originally Posted by frreo1
I do not mean to offend anyone, but a mid pried DVD player that plays SACD/DVD will perform MUCH better than a high end CD only player.

Most times not even close. But then your high end is different than my high end which is different than F1's high end, etc.

What is your opinion of different cables? I bet I can guess your opinion on this subject as well.

H9

P.s. Also seems like you came to CP with a chip on your shoulder, you might want to check it at the door, just my opinion.

frreo1

What in the world is a 20 bit commerical source, anyway? CD is 16 bit, DVD is 24 bit, and SACD is roughly 26 bit (give or take a bit or two) all with increasing bit rates. It's not just my opinion that SACD/DVD is better, there are may articles written about this subject. Besides, it does not take EE degree to understand the improvements, which are facts, not opinions.
Why do you think performers are re-releasing catalogs as SACD/DVD in the first place?

I have no "chip", but when statements are made that cannot be backed up with factual data, expect to get called on it. Sorry if you take it personal. Not meant to be that way.

Since you asked about cables, my personal opinion is that it's a big marketing ploy. As long as good engineering principals are applied, great performance can be achieved without spending big bikkies. Cables are one area that are way over-hyped.


At any rate, we can all agree to disagree, and enjoy the music.

heiney9

frreo1 wrote:

It's not just my opinion that SACD/DVD is better, there are may articles written about this subject. Besides, it does not take EE degree to understand the improvements, which are facts, not opinions.
Why do you think performers are re-releasing catalogs as SACD/DVD in the first place?

Those writings are opinion as well. I listen with my ears and don't rely on EE to convince me something is better simply because you can measure it. Most of audio is an oxymoron. The writings are a guide at best and I would never refer to a review as fact, it's someones opinion. Performers are re-releasing for the $$$ for the most part.

frreo1 wrote:

Since you asked about cables, my personal opinion is that it's a big marketing ploy. As long as good engineering principals are applied, great performance can be achieved without spending big bikkies. Cables are one area that are way over-hyped.

But they can and do make an audible difference even though many all measure pretty much the same.

frreo1 wrote:

At any rate, we can all agree to disagree, and enjoy the music.

I can go for that.

H9

F1nut

Redbook CD is indeed a 16 bit format. However, the DAC's in a given CDP today upsample to 24 bit. They use to be 20 bit DAC's as H9 correctly stated, so he could easily put together a "20 bit redbook system." SACD is Direct Stream Digital, which is 1 bit, not roughly 26.

You're not talking to novices here. There are a great number of redbook only CDP's that will easily outperform the Pioneer DVi 59.

Zero offered you some very good advice, you should consider it.

BTW, DTS is not a hi-rez format.

frreo1

No disrespect, but there is simply no way a redbook CD is going to outperform a SACD/DVD. The upsampling does not add any detail in the same manner that a 24 bit word will capture detail. That is like saying a DVD video that upsamples is as good as HD DVD. Have anyone here read "principals of digital audio?" It's must reading.

F1nut

Once again, SACD is 1 bit. Go ahead, look it up.

As for your thoughts about the subject matter at hand....I'll be blunt, you're dead wrong. SACD has the potential to be better, but the final product doesn't always live up to it. I've been a huge supporter of SACD from day one, but I also live in reality and that reality is that redbook can outperform SACD.

heiney9

frreo1 wrote:

No disrespect, but there is simply no way a redbook CD is going to outperform a SACD/DVD. The upsampling does not add any detail in the same manner that a 24 bit word will capture detail. That is like saying a DVD video that upsamples is as good as HD DVD. Have anyone here read "principals of digital audio?" It's must reading.

In theory 24 bits is higher resolution than 16 bits, yes. But in practice there are to many other variables involved. Redbook is PCM and SACD is PWM and both have their drawbacks. The only thing SACD is good for is multi channel reproduction of which I have absolutely no interest. It will allow one to have 7 channels of audio information with a dynamic range of up to 120db, which is impossible because of limitations with PCM. Does that make PWM better....no, it makes it different in that it can be used in another application.

Lets not even talk about the inherent limitations of taking that oh so much better 24 bit cpature and running it through a less than perfect analog conversion. This IS where the difference is. Bits mean absolutely nothing if the end result (the analog wave form) is massacred by a poor conversion and right now it's very expensive to properly take a DSD stream (PWM or SACD if you prefer) and make it correct. So all of your mdipriced SACD players are subpar compared to a great redbook (PCM) player. SACD when done right (which is not done very often) IS a higer resolution format and CAN sound better. But it doesn't ABSOLUTELY mean in every instance it will. I can assure you your Pioneer DVi 99 won't cut it against a modestly priced performance redbook player.

frreo1

SACD resolution works out to roughly 26 bit resolution, regardless of the conversion method. I'm sure you must have compared 16 bit CDs with SACD, and I cannot think of one instance that the CD outperforms SACD (or DVD, for that matter). If you find one, I'm all ears. Please cite some example.
It is a real shame that SACD is on life support. The industry is not helping it. The fact that low res formats like IPODS are so successful is bad news. My dads 1960's fisher sounded better than these new ipod home setups. It's a shame.
I guess we can agree to disagree. Right now, I cannot agree with your assessment. However, if you can cite a player and recording where I could go listen for myself, I'll go to a local hi end joint and listen for myself. The last time I did this, the SACD/DVD was better than any of the high priced CD only rigs. I'll try to keep an open mind.

frreo1

Thanks for the recent well articulated responses. It does give one pause to think. I understand the issues with the D/A conversion process. The converters have gotten way beeter of late, though. Even the mid priced converters of today outperform the high end ones of a few years ago.
The setup i'm using is outputting the SACD/DVD bitstream via firewire to the amp, where it is sent to the output (D/A). Check out the Ultimate guide to Home Theater for a review of the gear. It was very highly regarded (the reviewer said he never heard SACD sound better).
Again, I'm open to audition suggestions.

TroyD

Pointless argument and a waste of time. If you are convinced that just because it's higher resolution, then by golly it's better, who am I to try and convince you otherwise. It's a simpleton argument that's easily disproved but, if that's what you believe, than Bob's your uncle.

Good luck.

frreo1

heiney9 wrote:

In theory 24 bits is higher resolution than 16 bits, yes. But in practice there are to many other variables involved. Redbook is PCM and SACD is PWM and both have their drawbacks. The only thing SACD is good for is multi channel reproduction of which I have absolutely no interest. It will allow one to have 7 channels of audio information with a dynamic range of up to 120db, which is impossible because of limitations with PCM. Does that make PWM better....no, it makes it different in that it can be used in another application.

Lets not even talk about the inherent limitations of taking that oh so much better 24 bit cpature and running it through a less than perfect analog conversion. This IS where the difference is. Bits mean absolutely nothing if the end result (the analog wave form) is massacred by a poor conversion and right now it's very expensive to properly take a DSD stream (PWM or SACD if you prefer) and make it correct. So all of your mdipriced SACD players are subpar compared to a great redbook (PCM) player. SACD when done right (which is not done very often) IS a higer resolution format and CAN sound better. But it doesn't ABSOLUTELY mean in every instance it will. I can assure you your Pioneer DVi 99 won't cut it against a modestly priced performance redbook player.

Thanks for the recent well articulated responses. It does give one pause to think. I understand the issues with the D/A conversion process. The converters have gotten way better of late, though. Even the mid priced converters of today outperform the high end ones of a few years ago.
The setup i'm using is outputting the SACD/DVD bitstream via firewire to the amp, where it is sent to the output (D/A). In this case, I think that the player does outperform redbood CD. Check out the Ultimate guide to Home Theater for a review of the gear. It was very highly regarded (the reviewer said he never heard SACD sound better).
Again, I'm open to audition suggestions.

TroyD

You've already auditioned the high end players, no? So, why suggestions.

In my home I have a cheapie universal player (actually had is more appropriate, I gave it to my in-laws) and decent SACD player and a very nice CD player. The latter sounds better than the former (either one) and does to just about everyone.

Just because a review in a hifi rag gives something a thumbs up, doesn't make it empirical fact. Just like not everything audible has a corresponding measurement.

BDT

frreo1

Because, I keep an open mind, that's why. If someone can cite a specific recording that can be compared between SACD and CD, and the high end shop can demostrate this, I am keen to find out.
The book I cited (Principals of Digital Audio) is no rag, and there is a great deal written on this stuff, and it deals in facts and engineering principals! Of course one needs to trust one's ears in the end. I have heard excellent CD players, but not one sounded better than a comparable SACD player. I will note that CD's through the firewire sounds cleaner than via the analog outputs. I've had a lot of non audiophile friends listen to SACD/CD's, and EVERY ONE hear a major difference over the standard CD playpack (which still sounds very good).

frreo1

I've provided references for my position. It would be good if someone could provide a reference for a given position. If someone states a position as fact, then the fact needs to be backed up with some valid data, and a source for that position. So, I listen to opposing points of view, and will attempt to validate them. I will gladly listen to a suggestion to attempt to gain knowledge, and it's normal to question things, thats how one learns.

Besides, as John Mellencap says: "you gotta stand for something, or you're gonna fall for anything"

hearingimpared

I've read this entire thread and I just don't see how digital is anywhere near analog.

The spoken word and/or musical instrument starts up. The air vibrates, it looks like a sine wave. We listen, our ear drums vibrate and create a sine wave and our brains interpret. We hear natural sounding SOUND . . . Analog. Take any analog system and play music through it, you never really deviate from the sine wave. You may distort it, you may make it bigger or smaller, you may invert it and then reinvert it but you still have a sine wave. Speakers create sound pressure that our ears still have to interpret as analog or else we don't hear what the source sounds like.

Take an analog signal convert it to digital and you no longer have a sine wave but a distortion, a square wave, on off on off. You can never ever get that distortion to become a sine wave again, it may resemble one but it is no longer. Sample and oversample a million times it is still a distortion.

I can hear the difference between digital and analog and analog with all it faults sounds better to me than any digitally reproduced sound.

This is my opinion, not facts, my logic, not facts, but the fact is that I prefer the sound of analog than I do digital.

Someday someone, somewhere is going to be able to create a digital reproduction of an analog signal, the problem is that none of us will be alive to hear it. This is my humble opinion.

F1nut

H9 I'm sorry, but I disagree that SACD is only good for surround sound. 2 channel on my reference SACD player is glorious.

Anyway, I believe this discussion has gotten off track, let's get back to the original subject matter. Frreo1 thinks that any SACD played on an entry level SACD player will sound better than redbook on a top notch CD player and he wants proof. Ok, I'll provide proof as my ears hear it. I had a big name (yet mid-fi, IMO) SACD/CD player that got A+ ratings from certain rags, but it left me wanting. I sold it and bought a reference level (read a lot more $) SACD/CD player. Redbook on this player is easily better than SACD on the original player, hands down, no question about it. I believe that if all this unit played was redbook most folks would be very, very happy. The fact that SACD on the reference player is to die for is icing on the cake.

So Frreo1, as I've heard yours I already know mine is better at both formats, but would be happy to have you stop in with yours in tow, so that you can hear it for yourself.

heiney9

F1nut wrote:

H9 I'm sorry, but I disagree that SACD is only good for surround sound. 2 channel on my reference SACD player is glorious.

Yeah, I re-read and was going to edit it to read one of the things SACD.......

Because I don't really believe it's only good for multi channel.

F1nut

heiney9 wrote:

Because I don't really believe it's only good for multi channel.

I sat here scratching my head because I knew you didn't believe that.

TroyD

H9,

Are you kidding? F1 was about to make his hair move incrementally by laying down an asswhooping of epic proportions!

Again, if you believe that the sampling rate is the only thing that matters, it's a worthless argument and would say using THAT logic than vinyl which has an infinite sampling rate is inherently superior.

HOWEVER, the devil of it is HOW that information is extracted. Some tables extract more material than others while that is also true of digital players.

I'll give you three references, my ears and brain.

BDT

reeltrouble1

Analog trumps Digital. If I live long enough for this to change then I will.

Yes, Green/Opinion seems quite appropriate.

Feedback, well it is used to counter something unwanted, so there you go.

The battery idea/designs interest me.

I count my blessing that I am not a video-phile.

Music servers are the future, yep appears so.

Multi-tasking, not my cup of tea.

Uninterupted listening sessions are priceless.

RT1

heiney9

F1nut wrote:

I sat here scratching my head because I knew you didn't believe that.

I should have said one of the reason's it appears to always be superior is in it's ability to provide 7 channels of wide dynamic range capability, which redbook by it's own limitation cannot.

There I feel better now that I've been a little bit more articulate in my explanation.

And Troy you right on the money. I have a very good friend who only quotes HP when having a nice discussion about cars. To him if it has more HP and goes 0-60 faster then it's hands down a better car. I keep telling him the difference between 0-60 in 5 sec is really no different than 0-60 in 4.5. Plus try and recreate the situation where HE could consistently get 0-60 times in 4.5 sec each time.

As we all know this kind of thinking goes on in audio all the time.

H9

mantis

Another case of people getting caught up in the spec's.

Dan

reeltrouble1

Integrated circuits---phooey

Yes, Dan it is a shame. Now go buy some.

RT1

frreo1

F1nut wrote:

H9 I'm sorry, but I disagree that SACD is only good for surround sound. 2 channel on my reference SACD player is glorious.

Anyway, I believe this discussion has gotten off track, let's get back to the original subject matter. Frreo1 thinks that any SACD played on an entry level SACD player will sound better than redbook on a top notch CD player and he wants proof. Ok, I'll provide proof as my ears hear it. I had a big name (yet mid-fi, IMO) SACD/CD player that got A+ ratings from certain rags, but it left me wanting. I sold it and bought a reference level (read a lot more $) SACD/CD player. Redbook on this player is easily better than SACD on the original player, hands down, no question about it. I believe that if all this unit played was redbook most folks would be very, very happy. The fact that SACD on the reference player is to die for is icing on the cake.

So Frreo1, as I've heard yours I already know mine is better at both formats, but would be happy to have you stop in with yours in tow, so that you can hear it for yourself.

Okay, fair enough. You have not stated what the unit you are using is (or pehaps I missed it). If you could also provide a reference recording (CD/SACD), that would be good. I am in the camp that the source is often the most limiting factor in reproduction.

Happy Listening!!

heiney9

frreo1 wrote:

I am in the camp that the source is often the most limiting factor in reproduction.

Happy Listening!!

Finally something to agree on .

F1nut

I also agree that it all starts with the source. However, as good as the source my be, it's still limited by the recording. For example, the SACD of Layla still sounds like it has a veil over it, just like the original CD and vinyl do.

As for the other, I prefer to keep a low profile.

frreo1

Agree wholeheartly with F1nut about the recording. For example the Phillips recordiing of Dvorak 8 and 9 symphonies was recorded in DSD surrond, and it is absolutly incredible sounding played back in DSD. The advantage of the source can be heard in CD as well (it's dual layered). But listen to it in SACD, and it is amazing.