High definition audio formats

headrott

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

Greg

Uilleann

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

BlueFox wrote: »

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.

hearingimpared wrote: »

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?

comfortablycurt wrote: »

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

Uilleann wrote: »

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!

I love Blu-ray audio. TrueHD and DTS-HD are gifts from god. Watching Blu-ray moves really puts a smile on my face because the audio is so real and convincing.

I think all the latest recording media has been mentioned already.

F1nut

BlueFox wrote: »

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.

BlueFox wrote:

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

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

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.

F1nut

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

Uilleann

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

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

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

hearingimpared wrote: »

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.

Cpyder wrote: »

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

F1nut wrote: »

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

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

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

Uilleann wrote:

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

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

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 **** about hi-rez audio.

Cpyder

hearingimpared wrote: »

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

Uilleann wrote: »

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

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

shack wrote: »

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.

...there is a place for digital music servers...

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.

Excellent points!!!

Hillbilly61

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

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

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

shack wrote: »

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

F1nut wrote: »

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?

shack

Uilleann wrote:

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.

Uilleann wrote:

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

Uilleann wrote:

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

Yes.

Uilleann wrote:

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.

Uilleann wrote:

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

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

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

Uilleann wrote: »

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?

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!