Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-23-2014, 10:54 AM   #61
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,300
I'm going to update my earlier statement, and then hopefully get some work done on my taxes before we go out for the day...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
...If those listeners were not trained listeners, the results mean nothing to me. ...
Like I said earlier, if that test was done with average people, listening to average pop music, then it says that the average person, listening to average pop music, couldn't tell the difference. It's totally meaningless as to whether I could hear a difference, with good equipment and excellent recordings in my listening room.

When I was doing some equipment shopping, I took recordings with me that I knew to be very 'revealing', I wouldn't take pop tunes with heavy swooshy sounds all jammed on top of each other . Not that there's anything wrong with that music, it can be a 'fun' listen from time to time. But it isn't going to reveal subtle differences in equipment.

As an example, I found a site from one of the earlier links that had some interesting looking sample files and an 8-bit 16-bit blind test. I figured even through the defective analog port of my laptop (it has some noise bleeding into it from somewhere) I could tell the difference between 8 and 16, right? I've heard 8 bit recordings before, and they were not terrible, but they sure were less than anything I'd call 'hi fidelity'.

So before taking the test (you get 10 chances to identify 10 random picks), just like an ABX, you get to listen to the 8 and 16 samples as much as you want so you can accustom your ears to what each sounds like. Then I see the sample is the annoying (to me) tune 'Gangnam Style'. The snippet is all electronic whoops and swishy percussion stuff that are unidentifiable gated-noise type sounds. Both the 8-bit and 16-bit rates sounded terrible to me, and they sounded the same to me. I didn't even bother taking the test, I know I could not hear the difference with that source material.

So what does that prove - nothing useful. I guess it proves that noise bursts sound pretty much the same as 8 bit or 16 bit. But I don't care. I want to know how an acoustic guitar, going from a sharp staccato chord to a gently plucked, 'barely there' note sounded, one where you can just barely hear the players fingers caressing the strings, maybe a bit of fret noise as they bend the note and the string rubs across the fret, or a harmonic pluck. That is what differentiates the listening experience on great recordings/equipment, versus listening to pop music in your car.

BAD BLIND TEST >>> : The 16-bit v/s 8-bit Blind Listening Test

Was that the kind of music used to 'test' 16 versus 24? Of course listeners could not tell, they probably could not ID 16 versus 14, 12, 10, or even 8!


And if (and that is a big IF) 24/96 gets me closer to that, I'll consider some upgrading of my system - other than the source material, the cost is minimal, a few hundred for a new DAC, maybe an extra X MBytes of hard drive space, depending how much source material I find.

I found other samples of 8-16, not set up as a blind test, but the difference was clear, and much more revealing. Even though the source didn't sound that great (a simple male spoken word phrase that didn't seem particularly well recorded to me), they spoke a phrase, then repeated it, dropping 6db at a time. The 8 bit fell into the noise much faster, and started sounding more distorted at the lower levels. Very easy to hear he difference.

I lost those links, will have to search again later, but I was amazed at how much dithering helped. I know the basics of dithering, and was thinking it was just a 1 LSB pk-pk level of white noise added, mainly to keep that LSB from getting 'stuck' at one level or the other, smoothing it with random noise (better than non-random noise, or quantitizing artifacts). And I think understand how it can actually increase the dynamic range a little (the trade off being a little more noise?). But according to some of what I've read, but not fully digested yet, is that there are a few more 'tricks' with dithering. Apparently, dithering works about as well when you reduce the bandwidth of the noise, and move it to a range that the human ear is less sensitive (high frequencies). So you get the dynamic range improvements, with only a small amount of noise added? Hmmmm.

Now I don't know where dithering occurs. Is it in the recording? Is it done by my DAC? What about my ADC when I digitize my LPs - no dithering, and it all happens later in my DAC? I would think post processing would be better - any advances in the technique (or personal preferences) could be done later to existing recordings.

But taxes are calling.

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-23-2014, 11:41 AM   #62
Full time employment: Posting here.
Birdie Num Nums's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle-ish
Posts: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
...
I want to know how an acoustic guitar, going from a sharp staccato chord to a gently plucked, 'barely there' note sounded, one where you can just barely hear the players fingers caressing the strings, maybe a bit of fret noise as they bend the note and the string rubs across the fret, or a harmonic pluck. That is what differentiates the listening experience on great recordings/equipment, versus listening to pop music in your car. ...
That is one of the primary reasons Neil Young is so into this 'sound fidelity' issue. He's got his "Old Black" Les Paul running through that Whizzer and a bunch of other gear to get his distinctive heavy rock sound, and then that vintage Martin acoustic (formerly owned by Hank Williams) that emits such a warm, gorgeous tone on Neil's softer stuff. A wide range of sounds!
__________________

__________________
Birdie Num Nums is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 12:00 PM   #63
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,453
I am going to make this post, then I need to get back to my TaxAct too.

We were talking about intermodulation (IM) distortions. But it occurs to me that the speakers themselves are capable of introducing plenty. Yes, and even perfectly working ones, due to the way they work.

We talked in another thread about how a speaker with fewer drivers may be better than one with many, due to less phasing difference between drivers in the crossover transition regions. So, think of a mid-bass driver that has to cover from 100Hz up to say 1KHz. When driven with two tones, one at 100Hz that requires the cone to have an excursion of a good fraction of an inch and one at 1KHz that requires a minuscule vibration, what happens with this driver? The 1KHz vibration is riding on a much larger to-and-fro movement of the speaker cone. The result is IM due to the Doppler effect, similar to a car horn sounding higher or lower depending on whether the car is approaching or receding from a listener.

The above two-tone test is very easy to experiment for myself, and I will get to that sometimes. I can excite a driver with both tones, and see if I can hear the difference compared to driving two separate drivers one with each tone. If I cannot hear the difference, I'd better be able to see the difference with a spectrum analyzer.

There are other things like taxes that must be taken care of, but the above is fun. See how an ER can entertain himself with existing toys but in a different way for so little cost?
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 12:11 PM   #64
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
walkinwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,677
This discussion fascinates me!

I did a blind test with DW (whose senses are more discriminating than mine) with two 192 Kb/sec MP3 files ripped from the Let it Be Naked CD using the default mp3 encoder in windows media center and the LAME encoder using Exact Audio Copy. I was surprised that even I could tell the difference - but since I knew which was which, I asked DW to listen to them. She thought the LAME encoder resulted in a more "rounded" and "warmer" sound & liked it better.

Who knew that the method of ripping CDs could make a difference!
__________________
walkinwood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 12:36 PM   #65
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
I am going to make this post, then I need to get back to my TaxAct too.

We were talking about intermodulation (IM) distortions. But it occurs to me that the speakers themselves are capable of introducing plenty. Yes, and even perfectly working ones, due to the way they work.

We talked in another thread about how a speaker with fewer drivers may be better than one with many, due to less phasing difference between drivers in the crossover transition regions. So, think of a mid-bass driver that has to cover from 100Hz up to say 1KHz. When driven with two tones, one at 100Hz that requires the cone to have an excursion of a good fraction of an inch and one at 1KHz that requires a minuscule vibration, what happens with this driver? The 1KHz vibration is riding on a much larger to-and-fro movement of the speaker cone. The result is IM due to the Doppler effect, similar to a car horn sounding higher or lower depending on whether the car is approaching or receding from a listener.

The above two-tone test is very easy to experiment for myself, and I will get to that sometimes. I can excite a driver with both tones, and see if I can hear the difference compared to driving two separate drivers one with each tone. If I cannot hear the difference, I'd better be able to see the difference with a spectrum analyzer.

There are other things like taxes that must be taken care of, but the above is fun. See how an ER can entertain himself with existing toys but in a different way for so little cost?
Although I can see the Doppler effect causing problems in some situations, I think it may be kind of bogus for many. Real sounds have a time waveform. It is that time waveform that should be reproduced. And it can definitely be reproduced by a single driver without "Doppler distortion", although conceptually a single driver would seem the worst case for Doppler.

A speaker system designed for phase coherence will minimize errors in the time waveform. A speaker with an infinite number of drivers, one for each frequency if you could do such a thing (an FFT speaker!), would be a real mess to get time aligned. Even though Doppler-wise it might be ideal, it might never come to life.

Magneplanars were well known as particularly phase coherent, able to come close to reproducing actual squarewaves, unlike almost all other speakers amazingly enough. Dunlavy's were the only cone speaker I found that could match the Magneplanar's sound, with the added benefit of playing louder and deeper.
__________________
Animorph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 10:37 PM   #66
Full time employment: Posting here.
Birdie Num Nums's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle-ish
Posts: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Paul View Post
Yes, there is a high end market for pretty much anything you can think of. There is a problem inherent in the Pono business plan that does not exist in any other high end market. One can manufacture Tesla autos, for example, and survive on the limited market. The manufacturer pays the price for high quality manufactured parts and makes the money back when selling the finished product.

With music, however, no technology is going to work unless there is a large catalog of music available to the consumer. That is a lot of work and needs the support of a wide range of providers. I don't know if that is going to happen. Then, unlike the automobile consumer that is replacing one auto with a better one, the music consumer is going to need to be convinced to replace their existing music catalog ... again.
To date three of the six (or seven) top recording companies are aboard the Pono program:
Young has noted that all three major music groups -- Warner Bros., Universal and Sony -- are participating in the PonoMusic online music store. The PonoPlayer will have a list price of $399 and be capable of storing 1,000 to 2,000 high-resolution digital albums, according to the PonoMusic statement.
Perhaps more recording companies to follow?

However, initial costs of the music to the consumer are expected to be somewhat high, I read somewhere--something like ~$25 per album. Eventually could go lower, I guess, if this Pono idea does indeed grow in popularity.
__________________
Birdie Num Nums is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 11:06 PM   #67
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animorph View Post
Although I can see the Doppler effect causing problems in some situations, I think it may be kind of bogus for many. Real sounds have a time waveform. It is that time waveform that should be reproduced. And it can definitely be reproduced by a single driver without "Doppler distortion", although conceptually a single driver would seem the worst case for Doppler.
Yes, a speaker's job is to convert an electrical waveform into a pressure wave analogous to that excitation. If I feed the sum of a 100Hz and a 1KHz sine waves to a speaker, and measure a 100Hz sound along with a 1KHz that's frequency-modulated (FM'ed) by the 100Hz, then the speaker has introduced errors.

The question I have for myself is that how pronounced this could be, and if I cannot hear it, can I at least measure it? If it is measurable, then perhaps someone with a golden ear can hear it. And if nothing else, I can at least say that, yes, that Doppler effect exists as I surmised but it is negligible.

I have speakers with different sizes of drivers to experiment with when I get to this. I expect that a smaller driver which needs more cone excursion for the bass will have more intermodulation distortion than a larger woofer that does not have to move its cone as much. Non-linearity of the cone suspension elements, meaning the proportionality of restoring force vs. displacement (spring constant), can also add distortion at large cone movements.

Quote:
...A speaker system designed for phase coherence will minimize errors in the time waveform. A speaker with an infinite number of drivers, one for each frequency if you could do such a thing (an FFT speaker!), would be a real mess to get time aligned. Even though Doppler-wise it might be ideal, it might never come to life.
Well, a large number of drivers would not be practical, and would run into other problems. It certainly creates more serious problems than the one it tries to solve.

A compromise has already been made in practice. A subwoofer would offload from the main speakers the low frequency components that require large cone excursions. This is the kind of things that I like to investigate.

Quote:
Magneplanars were well known as particularly phase coherent, able to come close to reproducing actual squarewaves, unlike almost all other speakers amazingly enough. Dunlavy's were the only cone speaker I found that could match the Magneplanar's sound, with the added benefit of playing louder and deeper.
Because planar speakers have a large radiating surface, they do not require as large an excursion of the radiating element compared to cone speakers for the same loudness. So, despite other drawbacks, they may have the advantage when it comes to intermodulation distortion. That's just a guess on my part, of course.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2014, 08:13 PM   #68
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,300
So after spending too much time on taxes today, I got back to some of these nagging audio questions. I think I found something pretty interesting that might help me decide whether I should spend any more time considering higher bit rate audio equipment (though it really isn't that expensive anyway).

I found this site that had some free 24/96 downloads of what I'd expect to be very well recorded and revealing music:

High Resolution Music DOWNLOAD services .:. FLAC in free TEST BENCH

So I downloaded 5 tracks ( ~ 3 ~4 minutes each) - these are promos to get you to buy their full albums. My plan is to import these into Audacity sound editing program, and convert them to 16,15,14,13,12,11,10 bit versions. Then I'll put those in a playlist, set it to 'shuffle' and see if I can ID any of the various bit rates. I can make this double blind by making notes, and doing something to record which ones came up in the rotation (or maybe just add a voice announcement at the end of each file, after I've graded them).

If I can't reliably pick out 13-14 bit recordings from 16 bit, then I doubt I'd pick out 24 from 16. It must be diminishing returns.

In the process, I also found out more about dithering, and in practice it really can increase the theoretical 96db limit of 16 bit audio, without increasing the audible noise very much (which is already very low). And Audacity has the preferred dither methods included, these are used only when down-converting the bit resolution.

We will see what the listening tests tell me, but I anticipate that I should spend more time on room treatments, and just plain listening over pursuing higher bit rates.



Quote:
Originally Posted by walkinwood View Post
This discussion fascinates me!

I did a blind test with DW (whose senses are more discriminating than mine) with two 192 Kb/sec MP3 files ripped from the Let it Be Naked CD using the default mp3 encoder in windows media center and the LAME encoder using Exact Audio Copy. I was surprised that even I could tell the difference - but since I knew which was which, I asked DW to listen to them. She thought the LAME encoder resulted in a more "rounded" and "warmer" sound & liked it better.

Who knew that the method of ripping CDs could make a difference!
Interesting. These compression algorithms are actually very impressive at what they do and very complex, and since they do so much, maybe it isn't too surprising that different implementations would sound different? I know the codecs for VOIP and mobile phones are optimized for voice over music (ever notice just how bad the 'hold' music sounds on a cell phone - they should avoid hold music, or use very simple stuff that can encoded reasonably well). But 192k encoding is getting up there in quality, so maybe you both are true 'Golden Ears"?


But that always takes me back to my philosophy of maintaining at least the archive at lossless. For serious listening I use lossless, for casual and where storage is limited, I can convert from the lossless to whatever format I want w/o any generational losses.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2014, 09:35 PM   #69
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,300
A little update (which maybe should go in this other thread):

Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
.... My plan is to import these into Audacity sound editing program, and convert them to 16,15,14,13,12,11,10 bit versions. Then I'll put those in a playlist, set it to 'shuffle' and see if I can ID any of the various bit rates. I can make this double blind by making notes, and doing something to record which ones came up in the rotation (or maybe just add a voice announcement at the end of each file, after I've graded them).

If I can't reliably pick out 13-14 bit recordings from 16 bit, then I doubt I'd pick out 24 from 16. It must be diminishing returns. ...
So after listening to those 24 bit downloads (with my 16 bit equipment), I decided to just use some of my 16 bit CD rips that I was familiar with as a source.

I did not see any direct way to export to lower bit rez in the Audacity program - it uses 32-bit float and tries to keep you from degrading the quality, but I posted some possible anomalies I found to the Audacity forum, and someone responded with a Nyquist prompt code segment that would convert to any number of steps (so just do the math from power-of-two bits to steps). So I did a quick test of original 16 bit and 12 bit, and along the way I had done a test of 8 bit audio.

The first amazing thing to me was that 8-bit audio sounds much better than I'd expect! Recall, 8 bit means that every sample is assigned one of 256 levels (or 255 signed I think, but close enough). The step sizes are easily seen on a computer screen, the waveform is visibly 'choppy'. Compared to a 16 bit conversion, with 65,535 steps - even zoomed in multiple times, the step sizes are not discernible on a screen with 768 pixels vertical.

Now 8-bit clearly is not 'audiophile', it is noisy and grainy, but considering the huge difference in rez, it was surprising to me that it sounded as good as it did.

So I did a quick test of 16 bit versus 12 bit (4095 steps) rez. On a quick listen, there wasn't anything that jumped out at me. When I listened to the end, as the guitar chord dies out, I could hear some gurgling/gargling noises as it jumps from one level to the next and neither level really represents the 'true' sound, and you can hear some noise. But I actually got near the speaker to hear that. So there definitely is an audible difference, but maybe still on the subtle side* ( *see below).

But if the difference between 12 and 16 bits isn't something that just smacks me in the face, I doubt I will hear anything going form 16 to 24. Recall that going from 12 to 16 is DOUBLING the available steps 4 times over again. My gut is telling me that 16 bit really is at the edge of diminishing returns.

But even if that is the case, it still makes sense to use 24 bit in the studio. It gives more room for error, and processing can end up truncating bits if it is all done at 16 bit levels. But that processing can be done in 24 bits, and still be accurate when finally converted to 16 bit for distribution.

*(from above) - I must say though, that I am pretty certain that a quick A-B comparison is not enough. I have found that small differences in sound quality affect the listening experience over time, like listening for 20 minutes or more at once. After a while, you just sense that something is missing, or there is some distortion somewhere, even if you can't describe it. It does not need to be obvious to be a problem for a listening session.

A rough parallel is a car seat. It might feel great when you first sit it in it, but take a 4 hour drive, and it can really bother you. I'd say sound is like that too. Little differences add up over time, and either feel right or wrong.

So I will do more testing in the future, going to all the bit depths between 12 and 16, but just thought I'd update at this point.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2014, 09:50 PM   #70
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,863
Sounds reasonable. Looked at another way, you're giving up dynamic range and leaving the resolution the same. So something that has a wide dynamic range would make the best test.

The bane of audiophiles, everything sounds fantastic until you get used to it and start hearing things you think could be improved...
__________________
Animorph is offline   Reply With Quote
An update to my listening tests:
Old 08-08-2014, 12:19 PM   #71
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,300
An update to my listening tests:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
....

So I did a quick test of 16 bit versus 12 bit (4095 steps) rez. On a quick listen, there wasn't anything that jumped out at me. ... there definitely is an audible difference, but maybe still on the subtle side* ( *see below).

But if the difference between 12 and 16 bits isn't something that just smacks me in the face, I doubt I will hear anything going form 16 to 24. Recall that going from 12 to 16 is DOUBLING the available steps 4 times over again. My gut is telling me that 16 bit really is at the edge of diminishing returns.
...

So I will do more testing in the future, going to all the bit depths between 12 and 16, but just thought I'd update at this point.

-ERD50
A few months back I actually did some additional testing, and I just decided to document this for myself and anyone who might be interested.

Cut to the chase for those not interested in the technical details/background: I have determined, that for myself, 16 bit audio has plenty of resolution, and I will no longer put any effort into 'upgrading' to 24 bit equipment or source material (but 24 bit still makes sense in the recording studio and for post processing).




I played around with various ways to test myself to determine if 16 bit was lacking. As I've mentioned, subjective listening tests are rather tedious, you need to do them blind, and I'm convinced that some subtle differences are not apparent until you've listened for a long time (like my analogy with the car seat - it might be fine for a 15 minutes drive, but is like torture for a straight 4 hours behind the wheel).

Then I stumbled across a more objective test method. I decided that if I simply cannot hear a sound at a certain dB level below full scale, that it made no difference if my system had the resolution to reproduce that 'sound' or not. Recall that each bit of resolution provides ~ 6 dB of dynamic range. So 16 bit source theoretically provides 96dB dynamic range, but there are arguments that you lose a bit or two to dithering - or does the dithering increase the effective bit resolution? Save that argument for later...

For my first test, I used the sound program 'Audacity' to generate a 220Hz Saw-tooth wave (lots of harmonics throughout the audio range, very 'buzzy' and identifiable above background noise). With a good pair of headphones (to help block out room noise), I adjusted the sound level to LOUD (not painfully loud, but higher than I would ever listen to music for an extended time), and then used the program to attenuate the sound in specific amounts.

At -78 ~ -84 dB from that full scale LOUD reference, it was getting soft and softer (per my notes). At -87 dB, 'very soft', and by -90 dB I could barely hear it if I concentrated fully on that tone and cupped the headphones a bit (which is 'cheating' - that is effectively raising the level), and by -93 dB, I rated the sound as nothing, nada - it ceased to exist, it was pushing up daisies. That sound was dead to me.

So it would seem that for a pure tone, which I think represents a worst-case and somewhat unrealistic test, 16-bit, 96 dB range is sufficient, but maybe, just maybe a little marginal?

Then I tried again with real music ('Blake's Rag' - Bluesmen CD, Cephas & Wiggins), and setting the full scale to LOUD.

My notes say that just - 48 dB from that full scale was barely audible! I could pick up a little sound at -60 dB, but I really had to concentrate, and switching back to the full scale reference sounded ridiculously LOUD. At -66 dB, I could not detect anything at all.

I was surprised by those results, and I think they are much more meaningful than A-B listening tests. If I can't hear a sound at all at -66 dB, in isolation, at LOUD levels, with headphones on and my full powers of concentration, then I really don't think going beyond a 96 dB range is going to improve anything for me.

OK, I can hear a devil's advocate saying that the reason I couldn't hear the sound lower was because of the limited resolution. Hmmmm, maybe - but the sound wasn't masked by noise, it was just too low in volume for my ears to detect. The -60 dB that I could barely hear is still 36 dB above the limit of a 16 bit coding, so I don't think it's a coding issue.

Thoughts?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Beatles Catalog on Pono
Old 01-12-2015, 01:42 PM   #72
Full time employment: Posting here.
Birdie Num Nums's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle-ish
Posts: 777
Beatles Catalog on Pono

Paul McCartney "reboots" Beatles catalog for Neil Young's Pono music player:
Neil Young’s high end music player and library, Pono, has scored a coup. They’ve secured the Beatles catalog for download in what’s known as loss-less digital.

Paul McCartney himself is said to be supervising the transfer of the Beatles’ crown in the jewel recordings so they can be added to the Pono catalog which can then be purchased and downloaded into the $399 Pono player.
__________________
Birdie Num Nums is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2015, 03:20 PM   #73
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Makakilo and Reno
Posts: 343
There is absolutely a very noticeable difference between SACD and CD, at least on my system. I have a hard time listening to a regular CD now. I just wish SACD had "survived" so I could have replaced all my CD's instead of just a few....I know, there are places to buy SACD's but what I mean is I wish they survived so that everything was available in SACD.
__________________
Kimo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2015, 05:22 PM   #74
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
Call me skeptical, but a 69yo who has been standing in front of guitar amps cranked to eleven for the past 50+ years likely cannot hear any discernible difference...

http://nypost.com/2015/01/11/do-cons...gital-quality/


Sent from my iCouch using Early Retirement Forum
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2015, 07:38 PM   #75
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post
Call me skeptical, but a 69yo who has been standing in front of guitar amps cranked to eleven for the past 50+ years likely cannot hear any discernible difference...

Engineers at Neil Young’s company admit doubts on music player | New York Post


Sent from my iCouch using Early Retirement Forum
My ears are still pretty good (some mild tinnitus though), but the tests I did in post 71 convinced me I won't hear a difference, and should concentrate on other things, like the room.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimo View Post
There is absolutely a very noticeable difference between SACD and CD, at least on my system. I have a hard time listening to a regular CD now. I just wish SACD had "survived" so I could have replaced all my CD's instead of just a few....I know, there are places to buy SACD's but what I mean is I wish they survived so that everything was available in SACD.
Well, I will never argue with what someone else says they can hear, but I am curious. It would be interesting if you would repeat the experiment I did. To my thinking, if I can't hear sounds below a certain threshold, and that threshold is well within the range of what 16 bit can reproduce, I don't see how more bits can do anything for me.

All those extra bits can do is more accurately represent things that I can't hear. If a sound is at the threshold of my hearing, I would not be able to tell a sine wave from a square wave - the harmonics would all be lower than that threshold.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2015, 07:49 PM   #76
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Makakilo and Reno
Posts: 343
Hello ERD50,


I actually hear the difference almost every week. I really enjoy listening to music in my theater room that was built by the designer with me in mind, meaning, he listened to my music quite a bit before he started designing it and then he kept me in mind when picking out all the equipment. I can play the same cd that I purchased on sacd and I am still amazed at the difference. Remember, there are additional speakers that are being used on the sacd that don't even exist on the cd. They are not overpowering, just enough to really fill out the room.
__________________
Kimo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2015, 07:59 PM   #77
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimo View Post
Hello ERD50,


I actually hear the difference almost every week. I really enjoy listening to music in my theater room that was built by the designer with me in mind, meaning, he listened to my music quite a bit before he started designing it and then he kept me in mind when picking out all the equipment. I can play the same cd that I purchased on sacd and I am still amazed at the difference. Remember, there are additional speakers that are being used on the sacd that don't even exist on the cd. They are not overpowering, just enough to really fill out the room.
Ahhh, if you are comparing multi-channel SACD to 2 channel CD, then I don't doubt that you (or I) would hear a difference. I was really focused on the higher bit depth/rate, as in the PONO player, and 2-channel versus 2-channel.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2015, 08:35 PM   #78
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Makakilo and Reno
Posts: 343
Ah....and I do agree with you regarding 2 channel CD vs. 2 channel SACD, you have to really know the music you are listening to in order to hear a slight difference...
__________________
Kimo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2015, 09:03 PM   #79
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Keim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,128
I can hear the sscd vs cd difference in my system. It isnt very subtle. Tho not as freakin' obvious as the step from high quality mp3 to cd.
__________________
You can't enlighten the unconscious.
But you can hit'em upside the head a few times to make sure they are really out...
Keim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 09:54 AM   #80
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Nodak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Cavalier
Posts: 2,317
I noticed in the early 90s that CD sound seemed to be worse than earlier CDs. I have an excellent McIntosh stereo with a very good Thorens turntable so I have, as much as possible, stayed with analog sound. I love the fact that vinyl is coming back. My 42 year old amplifier and pre-amp have been worked over by McIntosh and brought back to original specs. Also had the speakers re-foamed.
__________________

__________________
"Don't take life so serious, son. It ain't nohow permanent." Pogo Possum (Walt Kelly)
Nodak is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I think I can. I think I can. Gil24 Hi, I am... 26 01-22-2014 05:48 PM
I think I'm close, what do you think? erinsd Hi, I am... 6 04-08-2012 08:30 PM
HFWR and other Audiophiles Sarah in SC Other topics 5 03-09-2008 06:16 AM
55 and anxious to retire, I think I can, I think I can 56mga Hi, I am... 6 10-09-2007 05:12 PM
I think I can, I think I can, but why am I afraid? behappy Hi, I am... 30 09-26-2007 11:29 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:38 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.