Redbook CD vs hi-res format - is there a difference?

[mmilovan]

Hello,

form another board today I've received this:

Seems like 44.1/16 correctly done is transparent compared to 24/192,

SACD, DVD-A etc.

So no difference was heard among the various sample rates and bits.

Please read on:

----------------------------

http://www.aes.org/journal/toc/AES-Sep2007TOC.cfm

Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted

into High-Resolution Audio Playback

E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran 775

Conventional wisdom asserts that the wider bandwidth and dynamic range

of SACD and DVD-A make them of audibly higher quality than the CD

format.

A carefully controlled double-blind test with many experienced

listeners showed no ability to hear any differences between formats.

High-resolution audio discs were still judged to be of superior quality

because sound engineers have more freedom to make them that way.

There is no evidence that perceived quality has anything to do with

additional resolution or bandwidth.

-----------------------------

Additional info here:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

[Shawn]

High-resolution audio discs were still judged to be of superior quality

because sound engineers have more freedom to make them that way.

WTF?

[Jim Alfredson]

I defy anyone to go into a professional recording studio and hear the playback of audio coming from whatever medium they are using (usually ProTools but sometimes analog 2" tape) and compare it to the same audio coming from a 16bit/44.1kHz CD and then tell me they can't hear the difference.

There is a vast difference between 24bit and 16bit. Not as much between the sample rates, but the bit depth difference is huge. And if you're recording a project at a higher sampling rate, the difference when stacking multiple tracks and using plug-ins (or affecting the audio in any way, including simple volume changes) is much more evident between sampling rates.

[mikeweil]

Of course there are some red book CDs sounding better than some SACDs - there are many factors involved. But physically, the statement that there is no difference is nonsense. It's measureable - and, to my ears, it's audible.

High resolution displays its advantages best onrecordings in natural room ambience with a minimum of microphones, and I don't see too many of them on the list of samples chosen.

If you compare CD and SACD stereo layers of Hybrid discs you will always hear a difference. I tested a lot of friends and even those less invloved in HiFi heard the difference.

[J Larsen]

High-resolution audio discs were still judged to be of superior quality

because sound engineers have more freedom to make them that way.

WTF?

I think they are saying that to the extent that SACDs sound better than CDs, it is because they are better produced, not the result of technical differences between the two media. But I have no idea how they differentiated the two effects.

[jim anderson]

Is there a difference?

Yes.

Jim

[Chuck Nessa]

Would be helpful if you could point out the difference beyond "needles" and auditory recognition.

[jim anderson]

Most of these demonstrations have some reason that the recordings can't compared in an A-B demonstration: different mastering, etc.

I would direct you to my recording of Terrance Blanchard "Let's Get Lost." It is available in SACD and Redbook versions.

The master was stereo DSD and Mark Wilder and I mastered it in SACD.

The Redbook version is a downstream of the SACD mastering.

It's one of the few recordings that allow a direct comparison to be made.

Give the two versions a listen and tell me that the difference can't be heard.

I presented this set of recordings on a High Resolution Panel at the AES Convention in 2001 and we could hear the difference from the dias sitting behind the speakers, instantly. On the panel was Tom Jung, Akira Fukada, Elliot Maser, George Massenberg, and myself.

Believe me, there is difference.

JA

[rockefeller center]

I presented this set of recordings on a High Resolution Panel at the AES Convention in 2001 and we could hear the difference from the dias sitting behind the speakers, instantly. On the panel was Tom Jung, Akira Fukada, Elliot Maser, George Massenberg, and myself.

Believe me, there is difference.

JA

High Resolution Panel? No bias involved? How have the recordings been presented? "Now, please listen to the SACD recording..."?

Unless someone can prove the difference to be audible via double blindfold test (with comparable recordings, of course) there is no reason to believe you. Or am I missing something?

[jazz1]

[

Believe me, there is difference.

JA

[Jim Alfredson]

Why is SACD disappearing? Because much to the dismay of people who appreciate great sound, the general public doesn't really care about hi-fidelity. CDs are going the way of the dodo as well because the new thing is mp3s and downloads, a lossy compressed format that even compared to 16bit/44.1kHz sounds bad to acceptable (depending on the encoding rate).

The biggest differences in bit rates and high resolution sample rates is the presence of low-level detail like reverb tails and also in the upper end, the "air" of a recording. Dynamic range is also extended.

[porcy62]

Why is SACD disappearing? Because much to the dismay of people who appreciate great sound, the general public doesn't really care about hi-fidelity. CDs are going the way of the dodo as well because the new thing is mp3s and downloads, a lossy compressed format that even compared to 16bit/44.1kHz sounds bad to acceptable (depending on the encoding rate).

The biggest differences in bit rates and high resolution sample rates is the presence of low-level detail like reverb tails and also in the upper end, the "air" of a recording. Dynamic range is also extended.

Agree, and I believe what J. Anderson posted.

One of the points is that you can't hear any difference on a bad playback system, even between a well encoded Mp3-like compressed file and a SACD. Since the general trend moved towards boomy HT systems and iPod-like stuff...well, you know the answer.

At work I could clearly hear the difference when ProTools, that is commonly used on the top AVID editing systems as separated audio board, introduced the new 24 bit model.

Said that, even at work, most of the people I work with don't care about audio in common broadcasting. So a lot of guys come down in the studio with awful mastered mp3 cds to use as soundtracks. That is not a real problem when you use it as background for an interview, but it's frustrating for a film editor who cares about his job.

[rockefeller center]

CDs are going the way of the dodo as well because the new thing is mp3s and downloads, a lossy compressed format that even compared to 16bit/44.1kHz sounds bad to acceptable (depending on the encoding rate).

The good thing about the "new thing" is that the supplier is able to choose the format: AIFF, FLAC, MP3, Ogg-Vorbis, etc. I, for one, don't need the music to be delivered on some storage media that restricts the audio-format. And I'm sick of buying players with limited playback possibilities, too ("an SACD player can play CDs, too - OMG, WOW!"). Next thing to skip: Blue-ray.

HD-DVD, anyone?

[porcy62]

CDs are going the way of the dodo as well because the new thing is mp3s and downloads, a lossy compressed format that even compared to 16bit/44.1kHz sounds bad to acceptable (depending on the encoding rate).

The good thing about the "new thing" is that the supplier is able to choose the format: AIFF, FLAC, MP3, Ogg-Vorbis, etc. I, for one, don't need the music to be delivered on some storage media that restricts the audio-format. And I'm sick of buying players with limited playback possibilities, too ("an SACD player can play CDs, too - OMG, WOW!"). Next thing to skip: Blue-ray.

HD-DVD, anyone?

The fact is that you will have to buy a new player every couple of years, since the research on new formats will never stop, like everything in the software and computer industry. I mean that new chips, processors, OS's are coming out every six months. So even if you buy a huge hard disk as musical server you'll never be safe forever. BUY! And don't complain.

[rockefeller center]

CDs are going the way of the dodo as well because the new thing is mp3s and downloads, a lossy compressed format that even compared to 16bit/44.1kHz sounds bad to acceptable (depending on the encoding rate).

The good thing about the "new thing" is that the supplier is able to choose the format: AIFF, FLAC, MP3, Ogg-Vorbis, etc. I, for one, don't need the music to be delivered on some storage media that restricts the audio-format. And I'm sick of buying players with limited playback possibilities, too ("an SACD player can play CDs, too - OMG, WOW!"). Next thing to skip: Blue-ray.

HD-DVD, anyone?

The fact is that you will have to buy a new player every couple of years, since the research on new formats will never stop, like everything in the software and computer industry. I mean that new chips, processors, OS's are coming out every six months. So even if you buy a huge hard disk as musical server you'll never be safe forever. BUY! And don't complain.

No, it's not a fact that I will have to buy a new standalone player every couple of years. I'm getting a new computer (or new components) every 4-5 years and use this as my playback device. I have a turntable, CD and DVD players but don't use them anymore. At this point I don't see a reason to buy a standalone player for any format.

Edited January 6, 2008 by rockefeller center

[porcy62]

No, it's not a fact that I will have to buy a new standalone player every couple of years. I'm getting a new computer (or new components) every 4-5 years and use this as my playback device. I have a turntable, CD and DVD players but don't use them anymore. At this point I don't see a reason to buy a standalone player for any format.

So, a computer with its audio board is your main playback device, nice...if you're happy about it.

Now I understood your reply to J. Anderson's post:

High Resolution Panel? No bias involved? How have the recordings been presented? "Now, please listen to the SACD recording..."?

Unless someone can prove the difference to be audible via double blindfold test (with comparable recordings, of course) there is no reason to believe you. Or am I missing something?

maybe you missed something, we are talking about "blindfold" test, not "deaffold" test.

BTW what's the goal for supplier to provide music in such a big collection of format: WAV, AIFF, FLAC, MP3, Ogg-Vorbis, SACD, DVD-A, vinyl, CD. Frankly I missed it.

[rockefeller center]

No, it's not a fact that I will have to buy a new standalone player every couple of years. I'm getting a new computer (or new components) every 4-5 years and use this as my playback device. I have a turntable, CD and DVD players but don't use them anymore. At this point I don't see a reason to buy a standalone player for any format.

So, a computer with its audio board is your main playback device, nice...if you're happy about it.

Uhm, are you implying that I use onboard sound? Where did you read that? How do you know what sound device I'm using?

By the way: don't forget to take the tubes out of the fridge.

[porcy62]

No, it's not a fact that I will have to buy a new standalone player every couple of years. I'm getting a new computer (or new components) every 4-5 years and use this as my playback device. I have a turntable, CD and DVD players but don't use them anymore. At this point I don't see a reason to buy a standalone player for any format.

So, a computer with its audio board is your main playback device, nice...if you're happy about it.

Uhm, are you implying that I use onboard sound? Where did you read that? How do you know what sound device I'm using?

By the way: don't forget to take the tubes out of the fridge.

Ach so...

[rockefeller center]

BTW what's the goal for supplier to provide music in such a big collection of format: WAV, AIFF, FLAC, MP3, Ogg-Vorbis, SACD, DVD-A, vinyl, CD. Frankly I missed it.

I meant to say that suppliers can choose from a variety of different formats.

[porcy62]

BTW what's the goal for supplier to provide music in such a big collection of format: WAV, AIFF, FLAC, MP3, Ogg-Vorbis, SACD, DVD-A, vinyl, CD. Frankly I missed it.

I meant to say that suppliers can choose from a variety of different formats.

What I meant instead, is that there are only two reasons for choosing a format: cost and quality, from recording to playback. Like everything obviously.

Overall, observing my son's habits in music, 18 y/o, and his friends, I think that audio and recording industries as we use to know it now are going to disappear. The fact is that music is no more the biggest branch of the entertainment for young people, as it used to be. My son didn't buy a cd in the last three years, he downloaded a lot of music, mostly techno and new raggae, he spend his pocket money for rave parties and concerts, not for the record or cd or legal downloading (he can't unless he steal my CC's numbers). He never asked for a better stereo, he asked for a bigger hard disk.

Edited January 6, 2008 by porcy62

[jazzbo]

Jim Anderson is an excellent audio engineer. If he says there's an audible difference, I'd be inclined to believe him.

I hear the difference myself in my system as well.

[Peter Friedman]

I hear a difference in SACDs too. What is interesting to me is that SACD seems to be much more "alive" in the classical music field than in other musical fields. I suppose that means that, in general, classical music lovers are more interested in top flight audio quality. Thankfully, at least Chesky continues to put out jazz SACDs fairly often.

[rockefeller center]

top flight

Man, thanks for reminding me to get new golf balls.

[jim anderson]

I am sure that they must be a difference, but why is SACD disapearing? I noticed that the last Patricia Barber never made it to SACD, will the new one have the same fate?

As a music lover with a few 1000's RBCD should I invest in a SACD player?

How many SACD's sound better than the best RBCD,s you've recorded.

Thanks

Edited January 8, 2008 by jim anderson

[mikeweil]

What is interesting to me is that SACD seems to be much more "alive" in the classical music field than in other musical fields. I suppose that means that, in general, classical music lovers are more interested in top flight audio quality.

I'd say the reason is that the advantages of high resolution recording are the greatest in a natural room ambience - and classical recordings are still made that way, in the vast majority of cases, whereas in jazz multi-tracking with artificial reverb added and overdubbing has taken over.

How many jazz groups can balance without amplification and/or a mixing board?

Edited January 8, 2008 by mikeweil