Quote from Nrchy: "Links that repeat your opinion are of little value. There are many places on the web to read absolute foolishness, not just your responses".
Oh, so first you state that I posted no scientific proff, then you state that scientific proof that backs up some of my points isnt valid? You are an idiot. And a very closed minded idiot at that.
Quote from Nrchy: "I'm sure the reason for Mfgs staying with redbook CD rather than going to a new format has more to do with cost than an aversion to the new technology."
Actually the liscensing fees for SACD is alot cheaper than for redbook presently. Sony is doing all they can to get mfgs to jump on their bandwagon with their technology to produce SACD players and SACD software. I would post the link proving this fact too, but considering how you just admitted to us all that you are a close minded moron on scientific links its kind of pointless.
Quote from Nrchy: "Your cymbal crash example goes along way to show the shortcomings of the 44.1 sampling rate, since not only does it begin in the bass registers, but it also exceeds audible listening levels. By removing the inaudible, audible ranges are effected. i.e. things you cannot hear affect things you can hear."
Once again your IQ shines through. It has nothing to do with limitations of 44.1khz. 44.1khz can register a 15-20hz bass note no problem, it can also reproduce a note beyond 20khz no problem. The real problem lies at the hands of the budget and recording of the artist themselves, and how much time and effort they want to put into a recording, not 44.1khz. Do you want me to post a few scientific links on this as well? Or is it null because it backs up my point?
QUote from Nrchy: "44.1 on an equal playing field will never be able to compete with 96 kHz. There is too much of the music missing! If you don't care about the quality of the music, continue to ridicule new formats thereby assuring that better formats will never become a reality. No one is forcing you to buy an SACD player, but don't use your junk science to talk others out of investing in a better future!"
Well guess what bud, were not on an equal playing field. And SACD has proven to have shortcomings in high frequency reproduction. Why is this? Read the above scientific links to validate the point. As for stating that there is too much of the music missing, your just backing up my claim even further. It is missing. But its not due to 44.1khz, its due to the actual recording artist and engineers themselves. And one of my points up above were that some of the SACD that DO sound better than their redbook counterparts is in large part due to the fact that the recording process was done properly to begin with. No the fact that it samples a 96khz.
As for talking others out of investing in a format, I do no such thing. But I will point out, the "better future" doesnt necessarily lie with Sony's SACD format which is far from perfect. I dont ridicule new formats. I hope they do come out and soon, but I also hope they are a true step up in sound reproduction. SACD currently is not in many respects. Will it be in the future. Im sure it will at some point. But to be honest with you, I hope DVD-A gets it straight and comes on strong because DVD-A has alot more potential than SACD without the high frequency reproduction and noise floor problems inherant in SACD's format. I want their to be a next generation format thats universally accepted and soon like everyone else here Im sure.
Ritteri, the point I made with your cymbal crash was that it extends higher than 20 kHz, not that the bass wasn't being reproduced. The point is that 44.1 kHz cannot reproduce anything above 20 kHz, it has nothing to do with the bass.
44.1 cannot reproduce a single note beyond 20 kHz! That is the limiting factor built in a 44.1 kHz sampling rate. See the Nyquist theorum! It is impossible! 96 kHz can reproduce a signal up to about 48 kHz. How is the high end limited with that?
The music which is missing is due to the fact that it was not recorded because 44.1 kHz is simply too low to obtain all the information in the music.
Making an SACD copy of a 44.1 kHz recording is an exercise in futility. SACD can never add back what isn't on the recording to start with. This is one reason some SACD recordings do not sound as good as analog or higher resolution digital recordings. Rerecording a poor quality original is not going to improve it regardless of the format. When things are available that were recorded at 96 kHz then we will see the actual results of this new format. As of today, there are very few of those.
My point about SACD vs redbook has nothing to do with licensing fees. It is about all the technology involved in putting together a superior version of the basic Sony/Philips models. There is going to be a big financial outlay involved in redesigning a first rate unit.
Your continued comments attacking the intelligence of people who disagree with you points out the fact that you are an idiot. You know nothing about me that could lead you to beleive anything other than that I disagree with you. On the other hand, you have 1) shown serious gaps in logic; 2) consistantly used poor grammer and spelling; 3) and resorted to ad hominum attacks when the proof for your point was not in evidence. Again, this may be a result of a poor education, or maybe you are just dumb.
I have no way of knowing the reason for all of these glaring errors, but then again I really don't care. If you want to make a point there is no need for resorting to name calling when the proof is there.
Ritteri, Im so embarrassed, I had no idea we were in the e-presence of such incredible greatness. Please except my ever so humble apology for my ignorance and obvious naivety regarding audio equipment and its proper use. Had I simply understood your extensive genius on all things audio I would have never dared to call you on your earlier comments. Believe me, Im convinced. Ive already arranged to sell my whole system and follow your obvious wisdom. I plan to purchase your exact system, and with any luck I can convince you to fly here and straighten out my other shortcomings. My room acoustic must be completely out of control in that my knowledge base is hardly as worldly as yours. I bow trembling at you feet, hoping you can overlook my sad little life and lead me to enlightenment. I know of no person on this earth with more experience than you have amassed, you truly are the chosen one. I finally understand that my ears are not well trained and thus are not worthy of determining such weighty topics as to wether SACD sounds better or worse than redbook. Thanks to your greatness I now see Ive gone astray. 44.1 is digital bliss. These new formats are no way better, so for anyone to make the foolish assumptions I made and believe what they hear is facing the same embarrassment I have had to endure. Lucky for me its not to late. I can change, I will go happily back to my old redbook cds. Maybe Ill venture outside the box with an Adcom pre-amp if I want to hook up my tuner, but I promise I will stray no further without first consulting my new found guru.
Nrchy...Mr Nyquist's rule says that a 22KHz SINE WAVE can be recovered without error if the sampling rate is 44KHz. Do you listen to sine waves? 96 KHz is probably just barely adequate for music.
Don't give Ritteri a hard time. The poor guy is obviously deaf.
Nrchy quotes: "Ritteri, the point I made with your cymbal crash was that it extends higher than 20 kHz, not that the bass wasn't being reproduced. The point is that 44.1 kHz cannot reproduce anything above 20 kHz, it has nothing to do with the bass."
OK, even so, do your ears register anything above 20khz? Most people's ears dont register anything past 15-16khz. A 2nd point made was that just by improving the bottom 2 octaves(and a bit below even)dramatically improves what we percieve on the midrange frequencies and beyond. You dont need an SACD to do this do you? If recording studios put more time into properly reproducing the low range of the recording there may even be a stronger debate on the side of Pro redbbok people. Like I stated before and I will do it once again. The biggest limiting factor is the studio recording itself, not the 44.1khz smapling rate.
Nrchy quotes: "44.1 cannot reproduce a single note beyond 20 kHz! That is the limiting factor built in a 44.1 kHz sampling rate. See the Nyquist theorum! It is impossible! 96 kHz can reproduce a signal up to about 48 kHz. How is the high end limited with that?" I believe it can reproduce a perfect signal up to 22khz. You can hear 22khz signal? You can hear 48khz signal? Wow. I bet the govt is gonna want to have u in for testing..........
Nrchy quotes: "The music which is missing is due to the fact that it was not recorded because 44.1 kHz is simply too low to obtain all the information in the music."
Well I guess the human race has been missing out on alot of music beyond 20khz for a very very long time.
Nrchy states: "Making an SACD copy of a 44.1 kHz recording is an exercise in futility. SACD can never add back what isn't on the recording to start with. This is one reason some SACD recordings do not sound as good as analog or higher resolution digital recordings. Rerecording a poor quality original is not going to improve it regardless of the format. When things are available that were recorded at 96 kHz then we will see the actual results of this new format. As of today, there are very few of those."
Well guess what? Most(not some) SACD recordings are from original redbook recordings. Another point of mine your helping me drive home. Just another reason why SACD currently isnt what its all cracked up to be.
Nrchy states: "My point about SACD vs redbook has nothing to do with licensing fees. It is about all the technology involved in putting together a superior version of the basic Sony/Philips models. There is going to be a big financial outlay involved in redesigning a first rate unit."
Technology involved? Whats put inside the magical SACD box in design thats not put into a redbook player? A few chips that can decode a 96khz signal? There Nichicon caps that cost more than chips used to decode SACD. It doesnt cost a mfg. necessarily anymore to produce a quality SACD player than it does to build a quality redbook player.
Nrchy states: "Your continued comments attacking the intelligence of people who disagree with you points out the fact that you are an idiot. You know nothing about me that could lead you to beleive anything other than that I disagree with you. On the other hand, you have 1) shown serious gaps in logic; 2) consistantly used poor grammer and spelling; 3) and resorted to ad hominum attacks when the proof for your point was not in evidence. Again, this may be a result of a poor education, or maybe you are just dumb.
I believe that anything you point out to me could apply to you even further from your above quote. ANd if your going to point to me using poor grammer from me not really caring about a spellcheck, it just furthers my point about you avoiding what the real topic is at hand.
Why dont you tell me this? SACD can reproduce an unheard musical note past 22khz, but why is it inferior to redbook in the AUDIBLE high frequency range to begin with then? Its almost a catch 22.
A train wreck. It sure is ugly, but I just can't tear my eyes away! I am glad I read the entire thing though, because I know now to categorically ignore any post put out by Ritteri. He has consistently shown an inability to read and comprehend on one hand, and spew incomprehensible gibberish on the other. Nice! Keep up the good work man.
I never claimed to be able to hear above 22 kHz! My point as I clearly made in a previous post is that sounds which are not audible affect sounds which are audible. Just like multiple waves on water affect oneanother, so higher frequencies affect lower frequencies. Sound does not stop at the point where the human ear can no longer hear!
You make my point when you suggest that the limits of studio recordings is the problem, not the 44.1 sampling rate! The problem is that studios using digital recordings do not record music, they record sine waves. Then they expect the undersampled 44.1 redbook CDP to playback what happened minus all the music which was never recorded.
Many SACD recordings are from the remastered analog tapes, which are vastly superior to any digital tapes. Those are typically the SACDs which sound good. You cannot blame the SACD format for undersampled 44.1 kHz digital recordings. That is like blaming a CD for tape hiss!?!
As even a man of your limited understanding would have to admit, there is a lot more to a good CDP or SACDP than the basics found in a Sony/Philips playback unit. If that is not the case why are so many companies making a healthy living modding CDPs and SACDPs??? There is room for considerable improvement, just like there was for CDPs when they first came out. Try not to forget that although this is similar to redbook CDPs, it is a new and different technology. Improvements to this will be different than those put into CDPs for the last twenty years.
To rebutt your second to last paragraph, you are the one who began resorting to name calling when your arguement was proven to be without substance. The first new barbs I assumed to be due to the heat of emotion, but the continued assult I attribute to your natural character. I may be guilty of responding in-kind, but your name calling does nothing to prove your point (which again, has been evacuated of any substance) and does a lot to cause others to question your credibility. You have not harmed me in any way, but you have hurt yourself!
I own a Sony SCD 777es. I have several 15-20 multi-layer redbook/SACD and have listened to all of them. I have never heard SACD to be inferior in any respect.
The issue might be: why are you defending the top-end of a format that has for 20 years been know to be overly bright. Should SACD continue with the mistakes of the previous format???
Sacd is superior because the sample rate is higher, producing more information over the entire spectrum. Ritteri claims he hasn't heard the difference between SACD and CD even with trillions of dollars worth of equipment, but we cannot get pas his unfortunate claim that SACD is the equivilent of adding music hall echo. What this tells me is that Ritteri *DID* hear the difference, but simply did not understand what he was hearing. The ambient information to which he refers was due to SACD's higher sample rate which allows the recording to pick up more ambient information -- this is what gives SACD the ability to recreate more of the subleties of the performance and gives you more of the feeling that the performance is happening in your listening room. If you think you're hearing "echo" that was put into the music by the engineer, how could you appreciate this additional information? Perhaps Ritteri doesn't appreciate that information, but when he alludes to "music hall echo" is stands to reason that he indeed heard it. This is sort of similar to Steve Martin's character in The Jerk. Upon being served 1861 Lafite Rothschild, Martin spits it out and yells, "take this away and bring me something FRESHER!" Obviously, Martin's character TASTED everything that makes the vintage wine superior, he just didn't understand what he was drinking. On the other hand, it *is* possible that some people don't care for the secondary and tertiary flavors in vintage wine and some people might prefer a lower sample rate, lower resolution, and less ambient information. But, if Ritteri did actually work in audio sales, as he claims, we can only wonder how many others were exposed to this misinformation. How many others are out there thinking the ambient information was actually just music hall echo due to Ritteri's misunderstanding? Taste is one thing, but ignorance is dangerous.
I personally don't think anyone on here has shown any true "merit", not just Rittori. And to be quite frank, there is alot less "misinformation" on this forum thread than what a few other Audiogon members above would lead people to believe. But regardless of the matter it sure does not change the fact he is not alone on feelings of the SACD platform. Myself personally and many others have very similiar feelings which is very obvious when filtering through the posts.
Man, I can't quit laughing at this entire thread, especially looking back on the nature of the original inquiry! I like to stir up poop as much as anyone but you guys have really let Ritteri drag himself through the mud and toss himself in the gutter here! It borders on mean, cruel and unusual to see a reputation destroyed like this; he may have to have to change his screenname or move to another board if the insanity continues! I'm shocked that his condescending personal attacks where posted on this censored forum, but not stunned to see the deserved response. Anyways, let's stop kicking the dead horse! :) I may have started this but am feeling bad for the guy and his sock puppet supporters now, seeing that reason and logical (yet often funny as heck) retorts have fallen on deaf ears (was that a funny?)! Seriously, the best way to end this is to stop feeding the monkey, to paraphrase a Big Lebowski line. It's painful, it is a train wreck. Agree to disagree and simply quit wasting time and energy on this....unless of course there's more opportunity for the funny stuff from following Ritteri posts after he reads this one :)...just kidding!(sorry!)
I believe it can reproduce a perfect signal up to 22khz.
That's incorrect.
What follows is a simplification, but you'll get the idea. Members, feel free to correct me as I'm only an enthusiastic amateur and am keen to learn.
In order to avoid "aliases" (byproduct of the sampling) when converting the original analogue signal to digital, no signal at half the sampling frequency must be present. Since the Redbook sampling frequency is 44.1kHz, this means that no signal must be present at 22.05kHz.
Let's say there was a signal at 24kHz. Sampling would produce an "alias" - an artifact - at 12kHz, which you can hear. Clearly we don't want this to happen. So the signal must be way down in level at 22.05kHz.
Yet, to have accurate reproduction to 20kHz (the nominal limit of human hearing), we want normal signal strength (whatever there is in the performance) at 20kHz.
So the signal must be passed through a very steep filter which is not affecting the signal at 20kHz, and is 90dB down at 22.05kHz. The famous "brick wall".
Oversampling attempts to overcome this problem. If the sampling frequency is (say) 88.2kHz, then we have to pass the signal through a filter that is flat at 20kHz and 90dB down at 44.1kHz. Still pretty steep and difficult to make without nonlinearities, but doable. Now we need a mathematical algorithm to choose (essentially) every second sample point and save the amplitude, thus making the digital recording.
Let's say the studio is recording digitally at 96kHz and 24-bit words. They make the recordings, mix it in the digital domain, and now they have to prepare it for the Redbook format. Lots of very funky mathematics to convert down to 16/44.1.
Consider now a studio recording in DSD. They make the recording, mix it (DSD mixers are more available now) and put that on the disc.
Similarly with DVD-Audio. The studio could record stereo at 192kHz, probably mix digitally at that resolution, and save this on the DVD using lossless compression.
Littlemilton: And what makes you think your any better than Rittori? You are the last person who can point a finger or make a comment, as your crude behavior and need to make an ass out of yourself on every post has shown myself and others what this community really doesn't need.Grow up child.
Matralla, that was a very good post! It brought to mind many things I had used in a paper I wrote in college back in the 80's about the CD format and why it was inferior to analog.
I also remembered the LSB (least significant bit) and MSB (most significant bit) and how a misread on the MSB could completely distort that signal. As I recall SACD does not employ error correction like redbook. Is this an admission on the part of redbook designers that the digital format is flawed from the outset???
Ritteri you are a fool. Your postings indicate that you are an immature naive child. Come on!! The discussion forums here are for adults and stop writing your meaningless theories trying to defend yourself whereas you're making yourself to look more silly than ever.
I'm a first-timer here and I just have to post this one since I can't stop laughing to myself reading this thread that seem to have a 12 year old kid in here trying to outdo everyone else here despite having a shallow knowledge and conscience of what he's doing. Everyone else please ignore Ritteri's postings so that he won't make a fool out of himself even more.
Nrchy...Error correction encoding of a digital data transmission is not an admission of a problem. It is a way to operate the transmission at a higher bandwidth. Correctable errors are intended to occur. By accepting this the hardware can be run at a much higher frequency, so that in spite of using some bandwidth for data redundancy the net bandwidth is increased.
I felt compelled to make one final entry into this thread. Its time for me to come clean with my background in audio and how I came to be so knowledgeable about stereo systems. It started in 1962, I was in second grade and learning to play the flute-a-phone. I spent two years practicing and learning this classic instrument when I was labeled a prodigy and sent off to Juilliard. After a year of study I was booked to perform Bachs sonata for flute-a-phone in E minor at Carnegie Hall. It was a huge success and my career was off and running. I continued my studies back at Juliart for another year during which time I was pursued by more than 50 recording labels. I signed a three-record deal with Sony Music. This is probably where my obvious prejudice for SACD begins, but that has no relevance to this post. My first recording was Wagners concerto for flute-a-phone and piano. Leonard Bernstein played piano and I played flute-a-phone. It was an instant success and I was pursued by every major orchestra to perform with them. Tragedy struck that winter when I lost all four fingers on my right hand in a horrible ice-skating accident. Im luck to be alive. I was fortunate that it was my right hand in that I am left-handed. I began an art career in 1968 at the now mature age of twelve. Given my history with New York and Juilliard I was able to get sponsorship from the Carnegie Foundation to study the old masters in Paris. By the time I was seventeen I was considered one of the greatest living artist and received great benefits from all who hoped to touch me. I was fortunate to have full access to any musician I wanted to meet, and was given back stage passes to concerts for all the great bands. I met up with Pink Floyd in 1974 and was present at the tragic concert in Singapore. As many of you will remember, this was the concert where the entire right column of speakers (almost 80 sq. ft of area) blew up! Unfortunately I was seated just to the center of the column in the front row. There were about ten of us sitting in the exact wrong spot. We all lost full hearing in both ears. This of course was quite a blow to my love for music, worse yet fragments of speaker magnets hit my face, leaving me completely blind. I thought my life had ended. I could no longer pursue my artistic career, and without my hearing, my love for music seemed doomed. It was four years later that I was with a friend who was shopping for a new stereo when I discovered the miracle that brought me to Audiogon. Because of my loss of sight and hearing, my remaining three senses have been greatly enhanced. Of course taste and smell have little to do with audio systems unless a tube blows, but surprisingly feel has a lot to due with musical enjoyment. I discovered quite by accident that I had an unbelievable ability to determine the quality of audio equipment and its proper set-up all through my perception of sound waves. In my minds eye the vibrations from the speakers create an image of what is recorded. With a well-recorded piece, on excellent equipment and set-up properly, I can see a well defined three-dimensional image as real as life. With well-recorded material I am able to clearly identify what instrument is being played, and where it is positioned on the stage. Ive discovered that cabling, footers and power supply all have great effects on a systems ability to properly reproduce the event. I even found that I can tell you if cable is laying on the floor, all through the image created in my minds eye. Of course a lot of the recordings made in the 70's and 80's are made using multi-track tape. This is like feeling knives hitting my skin. I am not able to interpret the information and it looks hazy and glaring to me. Sadly the format of 16/44.1 is similar to what is produced by multi-tracked tape. I am not able to spend any time in front of this noise, interestingly enough I understand hearing people have this same reaction! So now to the point, SACD is closer to real when Im feeling a recording. Its subtle I suppose, maybe like seeing a concert in the fog, or not. Or listening to music with the white noise of a fan in the room or the quite of a well-isolated space. It is not as to whether the quality is subtle to me. Its simply more enjoyable seeing music from SACD rather than from the digital blur of redbook cd. These of course are simply my opinions, but I feel my unique background makes me more qualified to make these judgements than any person who is simple listening to a system with their ears. Thats so yesterday! Unless any of you have had a similar background in audio as I have I do not believe youre in a position to argue my conclusions. I am so happy to have the advantages of SACD in my system. The simple SACD format is so much easier to work with than my old LP collection. I always dreaded setting the needle on the vinyl. Its hard to explain what image is created as that needle skips across the grooves. I must admit for the ultimate in realism vinyl is still king, even though a single pop or click can create a huge flash to my minds eye. With practice I found I was able to over look these shortcomings, much like my eventual acceptance of cds. Now however with SACD I feel I am losing nothing and gaining near perfection.
Yes Dave, youre correct. The PBS segment was filmed while I was at M.I.T. being studied. Those were fascinating days, we discovered so much about our bodies during the three years I spent in Boston. The most amazing thing we discovered has hardly been written about. We learned that our bodies and consequently our minds could interpret sound waves well beyond 100,000kHz. I believe this may also play into my enjoyment of SACD. It simply appears to provide a more real and natural response in my mind. Someday remind me to tell you about when I played pinball with Pete T. of the Who J.D.
Jadem6, I remember a late night channel 13 television broadcast where the PBS interviewer spoke with a Jadem6.
This boy broke down, revealing the tragedy of his younger years and the difficulties he faced as a musician.
Is it possible that you are the same Jadem6 whos father beat him every morning and was forced to live in a cardboard box in the middle of the freeway? In spite of this, went on to greatness even with persistent nightmares about street cleaning equipment?
If so, my hat is off to you.
Just one question though, what did the police do about that incident with the school girl and the parrot?
I find that when I listen to sacd I get a better feeling of relaxation, kind of like listening to vinyl. I enjoy listening to cd's, but it just makes me feel a little uptight.. I don't know exactly why. As far as sound is concerned, the most important difference to me is that it sounds less restrained.. it just seems to open up more and sound less like listening to a hi-fi. I feel that it images a lot better than cd also. It's like having a great, sharp sounding vinyl record that you never have to clean. I like it so far
It has to do with dynamic range -- CD is compressed compared to SACD. It also has to do with the filtering used with CD playback and digital gaps due to the lower sample rate. It has to do with the significantly lower noise floor of SACD. Has to do with the digital glare of CD which is not audible on SACD.
I remember with the introduction of CD, the New York Times had an article that CD reproduction is perfect sound forever. And stated the new medium is much better sounding than vinyl. Most Audiophiles started giving away their turntables. Whether this was true or not (IMO not) Audiophiles after the CD medium took hold, realized the CD medium was inferior. The CD software and hardware vastly improved over time and became comparable to vinyl, however; long in the tooth audiophiles never forgot they were duped and grudgely accepted digital. Now we are asked to forgo the CD to the alleged superior SACD. Once bitten, twice shy? IMO no. I have both high end CD and SACD playback in my DCS gear. IMO the SACD has nuances, correct timbre and better layering than the CD. And if the SACD sticks around, I'm sure the software along with hardware will get better. Does this make the listening to CDs less pleasurable, of cause not. Those of us who have libraries of CD titles should get their hands on the highest end CD playback system they can afford and listen. Each medium, vinyl, CD and SACD has their own strengths and weakness'. Don't compromise your listening to music by comparisons to mediums. And by the way, I was not one of those Audiophiles to give away my turntable, in fact, I bought a Verdier Plantine Turntable with a Morch tonearm and Koetsu cartrige, when most Audiophiles were selling their rigs. And if your wondering if SACD sounds like vinyl? In a lot of respects, it most certainly does. Happy listening everyone, Iv'e just stepped down from my soapbox.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
