Is the SACD format now dead ?.
 

In article , RJH wrote:

In this sense I think it'd be useful to understand a little more about
why I might always prefer an uncompressed music file to something lossy
of the exact same recording - even if, quantitatively at least, I can't
express any difference between the two. And technically, no difference

I'm not quite sure what you mean above. If you're listening to a version
that has been subject to 'lossy' encoding then, by definition, the result
will tend to be altered. e.g. If you look at

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/in...lacresults.png

you can see that the lower ('diff') plot for a recent R3 broadcast shows
that the aac (lossy) and flac (loss free) versions differ at a level
typically about 40dB below the flac version. For THD this would mean about
1% which would be audible. But if I listen to the 'diff' it sounds like an
odd kind of modulated noise. So in practice the aac and flac may sound
subtly different - but in a way you may not notice or be aware of.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Is the SACD format now dead ?.
 

On 29-04-17 12:32, RJH wrote:

What they don't cover is what I would call psycho or socio acoustics.

Do you mean stuff like expectation bias?

Julf

Is the SACD format now dead ?.
 

Once upon a time on usenet Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , ~misfit~
wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Andrew wrote:
As per subject.

While browsing the HMV Worthing store I came across some classical
music (German) on Super AUdio CD.

There are still a couple of players that support this format but
am I right in thinking that everyone has moved on to 'Higher
resolution' downloads (or back to vinyl :-) ) ?.

Or has the penny dropped and people gone back to standard CD format
with just a better pair of speakers ?.

I've seen this article btw :-

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Wow! Whoever wrote that doesn't know how to use the English language
to communicate clearly. I found myself reading sentences several
times to grasp what he (?) was trying to say.

Interesting. I read the page and it seemed pretty clear to me. In
general I tend to think Xiph's work is recommendable.


Yeah, I just gave it another go and once I got past the tricky bits and
strange grammar[*] it was understandable and fairly insightful.
[*] "The membrane is tuned to resonate at different frequencies..." (About
basilar membrane). If you say something 'is tuned' then you imply a tuner at
work. Maybe he's religious and is implying a god tuned it but that's at odds
with what is mostly a scientific 'paper'. Simply saying 'The membrane
resonates at different frequencies....' saves words and is far more accurate
scientifically. That ths is but one example of the things that jarred with
me. (I have a background in hard science and as such have difficulty with
quasi-scientific articles.)

Does anyone know of a similar explanatory site (mainly about the ear
and how it works - in detail)? Struggling with the phrasing at that
one gave me a headache.

Belay that, I found this site and it's much better;
http://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/how-ear-works

Though it doesn't cover inter-'hair' distances etc. that were being
used in the first artcile to support the author's stand.

I'm not clear what precise question you have in mind. But as a general
point the ability to sense 'pitch' isn't simply a matter of how far
apart in 'resonant frequency' the peaks of the individual sensor hair
bundles response curves are. That, I think, is the reason for Xiph's
analogy with a a vision colour system using a finite set of colour
sensor profiles.

Yep. Now I've actually read that far I don't disagree. ;)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

Is the SACD format now dead ?.
 

Once upon a time on usenet Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , ~misfit~
wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Andrew wrote:
As per subject.

While browsing the HMV Worthing store I came across some classical
music (German) on Super AUdio CD.

There are still a couple of players that support this format but
am I right in thinking that everyone has moved on to 'Higher
resolution' downloads (or back to vinyl :-) ) ?.

Or has the penny dropped and people gone back to standard CD format
with just a better pair of speakers ?.

I've seen this article btw :-

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Wow! Whoever wrote that doesn't know how to use the English language
to communicate clearly. I found myself reading sentences several
times to grasp what he (?) was trying to say.

Interesting. I read the page and it seemed pretty clear to me. In
general I tend to think Xiph's work is recommendable.

Having read and re-read the article in question now I must say that, despite
a lot of factual information I disagree with the conclusions he presents in
the section "192kHz considered harmful".

(For the record I believe that, while we may not be able to 'hear'
frequencies above 20kHz we detect sound with more than just our cochlea /
Oragn of Conti. Also that there are detectable products caused by
intercation between high frequencies... Etc.... Too complicated to get into
here.)

He offers as evidence as to why that arbitrary cut-off line should be there
a graph showing the effects of intermodulation distortion caused by two
notes at 30kHZ and 33kHz. If we take it at face value than, sure there is
IMD from the reproduction of those notes that manifest in the audible range.
However, as can be detected from his graph they are at
approximately -65"dbFS" (FFS - why not complicate the issue?) compared to
the original tones.

As tones at higher frequencies require and carry far less energy than sounds
at lower frequencies then it stands to reason the IMD from two tones at 30
and 33kHZ , being 65dB less than the originals, are miniscule and hardly
detectable. Compared with IMD that must also occur from 'desired' tones
lower in the frequency range (and thus with more energy) they might as well
not be there at all.

I'm aware that this is a contentious issue so will leave it at that. Suffice
to say that in speakers of my own design and manufacture I often use
quasi-ribbon 'super tweeters' or tweeters capable of up to at least 40kHz.
If there is no dedicated super tweeter I make up the total capacitance for
the low frequency cut off of the tweeter from a 'capacitor cascade' of three
or more capacitors with the smallest being at least 100th of the capacitance
of the largest.

The ratio is usually 1:10:100 etc. and often it can be made simply by
measuring the largest capacitor and ensuring it's at the low end of the
quoted range so that the smaller ones in the cascade don't take total
capacitance much over design specs. I also often retro-fit such a capacitor
cascade (or at least one very low value capacitor to the tweeter cut-off) in
purchased speakers as part of a cross-over re-cap / modification.

The usual response I get from saying this sort of thing is 'what a lot of
mumbo-jumbo voodoo crap' so anyone who feels that way don't bother with the
negativity - I've heard it all before. ;)

I did however learn a bit from the article once I got past the (to me)
confusing phrasing. Perhaps the author isn't a native English speaker? That
is an increasing occurance lately and I think that I need to be more
flexible. However 'old dog - new tricks' and all that... ;)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

Is the SACD format now dead ?.
 

In article , ~misfit~
wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , ~misfit~
wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:


Interesting. I read the page and it seemed pretty clear to me. In
general I tend to think Xiph's work is recommendable.

Having read and re-read the article in question now I must say that,
despite a lot of factual information I disagree with the conclusions he
presents in the section "192kHz considered harmful".

(For the record I believe that, while we may not be able to 'hear'
frequencies above 20kHz we detect sound with more than just our cochlea
/ Oragn of Conti. Also that there are detectable products caused by
intercation between high frequencies... Etc.... Too complicated to get
into here.)

Yes. The argument here is that the hearing system is inherently nonlinear
so the presence of sounds which - in isolation - would be inaudible may
alter our perception when they occur sumultaneously with lower frequencies.

The snag being that devices like loudspeakers are also nonlinear. Present
when you reproduce the audio, but not in the original sound.

He offers as evidence as to why that arbitrary cut-off line should be
there a graph showing the effects of intermodulation distortion caused
by two notes at 30kHZ and 33kHz. If we take it at face value than, sure
there is IMD from the reproduction of those notes that manifest in the
audible range. However, as can be detected from his graph they are at
approximately -65"dbFS" (FFS - why not complicate the issue?) compared
to the original tones.

Again, if you examine 'high res' recordings, the amount of power above
about 30k Hz is also generally about three quarters of SFA compared with
what is below 10 kHz. So the same argument that this is too small to matter
can probably be deployed. :-)

I suspect this is why the MQA have changed tack and argue in terms of
'timing'. This lets them dodge the above awkward fact, and the way MQA
actually may alter and discard HF details.



I'm aware that this is a contentious issue so will leave it at that.
Suffice to say that in speakers of my own design and manufacture I
often use quasi-ribbon 'super tweeters' or tweeters capable of up to at
least 40kHz.

I tend to suspect that the main effect of 'super tweeters' is down to them
adding output at lower frequencies that then vector sums with the main
tweeter output to modulate the sounds at lower frequencies. Possibly in a
way that is room dependent due to differences in dispersion. So hearing any
'change' may be due to components that are audible without the supertweeter
or assuming we can all hear stuff well above 20kHz.

I did however learn a bit from the article once I got past the (to me)
confusing phrasing. Perhaps the author isn't a native English speaker?
That is an increasing occurance lately and I think that I need to be
more flexible. However 'old dog - new tricks' and all that... ;)

I thin Xiph is American.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Is the SACD format now dead ?.
 

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I notice from talking to those who still frequent stores that many
companies are releasing their content as a multi format offering. IE you
get two vinyl's, a CD and a download code for the rather inflated cost.
Brian


CD factories are facing hard times.
Hence the idea of a multi-fomat package -
vinyl pressings F.O.C as an incentive when
ordering CDs.



Iain

Is the SACD format now dead ?.
 

"Adrian Caspersz" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/17 09:04, Brian Gaff wrote:
I notice from talking to those who still frequent stores that many
companies
are releasing their content as a multi format offering. IE you get two
vinyl's, a CD and a download code for the rather inflated cost.

That is ...

1. A CD for convenience,
2. Two records pressed of decent weight material with the full playing
length of the CD
3. A subscriber tracked high resolution download.

Don't think it's *that* inflated, but a limited market for them that have
a real interest in enjoying things of higher fidelity to the general
masses acceptable output of CD.

I have Pink Floyd DSOTM in various formats now, including the 5.1 surround
SACD. Prefer the 70's vinyl, I don't have access to the hallucinogenics to
do full justice to the SACD release.

I am happy to see there is product still being released on vinyl
only - pristine, low-run 200 gm numbered pressings, with
fabulous gatefold sleeves ande booklets.

The "general masses" to whom you refer don't use CD. Dowloads
at 120k are the standard for people many of whom have never
heard a good vinyl set up. It's fun to watch their faces.


Iain

Is the SACD format now dead ?.
 

On 05/05/2017 20:23, Iain Churches wrote:
CD factories are facing hard times.
Hence the idea of a multi-fomat package -
vinyl pressings F.O.C as an incentive when
ordering CDs.

I passed a shop the other day offering someone's new album at twice the
price for vinyl as CD.

Andy

Is the SACD format now dead ?.
 

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 05/05/2017 20:23, Iain Churches wrote:
CD factories are facing hard times.
Hence the idea of a multi-fomat package -
vinyl pressings F.O.C as an incentive when
ordering CDs.

I passed a shop the other day offering someone's new album at twice the
price for vinyl as CD.


The unit cost of vinyl pressings is much
higher than CD. How much higher
depends on the pressing quantity.

One can get CD reprocation, disc and simple
sleeve for 20p a piece.

Iain

Is the SACD format now dead ?.
 

Once upon a time on usenet Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , ~misfit~
wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , ~misfit~
wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:

Interesting. I read the page and it seemed pretty clear to me. In
general I tend to think Xiph's work is recommendable.

Having read and re-read the article in question now I must say that,
despite a lot of factual information I disagree with the conclusions
he presents in the section "192kHz considered harmful".

(For the record I believe that, while we may not be able to 'hear'
frequencies above 20kHz we detect sound with more than just our
cochlea / Oragn of Conti. Also that there are detectable products
caused by intercation between high frequencies... Etc.... Too
complicated to get into here.)

Yes. The argument here is that the hearing system is inherently
nonlinear so the presence of sounds which - in isolation - would be
inaudible may alter our perception when they occur sumultaneously
with lower frequencies.

Yes. I find that very high frequencies tend to make bass (in particuler)
cleaner and better defined.

The snag being that devices like loudspeakers are also nonlinear.
Present when you reproduce the audio, but not in the original sound.

Yeah, this is why the whole field is disputed. ;)

He offers as evidence as to why that arbitrary cut-off line should be
there a graph showing the effects of intermodulation distortion
caused by two notes at 30kHZ and 33kHz. If we take it at face value
than, sure there is IMD from the reproduction of those notes that
manifest in the audible range. However, as can be detected from his
graph they are at approximately -65"dbFS" (FFS - why not complicate
the issue?) compared to the original tones.

Again, if you examine 'high res' recordings, the amount of power above
about 30k Hz is also generally about three quarters of SFA compared
with what is below 10 kHz. So the same argument that this is too
small to matter can probably be deployed. :-)

I suspect this is why the MQA have changed tack and argue in terms of
'timing'. This lets them dodge the above awkward fact, and the way MQA
actually may alter and discard HF details.

I suspect that you are right.

I'm aware that this is a contentious issue so will leave it at that.
Suffice to say that in speakers of my own design and manufacture I
often use quasi-ribbon 'super tweeters' or tweeters capable of up to
at least 40kHz.

I tend to suspect that the main effect of 'super tweeters' is down to
them adding output at lower frequencies that then vector sums with
the main tweeter output to modulate the sounds at lower frequencies.

The 'super tweeters' that I make for my own use have Philips quasi-ribbon
drivers (aluminium 'voicecoil' printed onto Kapton film between four
neodymium bar magnets) and are run through high-pass filters of my own
devising and as such are 'inaudiable' when played on their own.

My 5.1 system uses Sony SS-K70EDs, SS-K30EDs and a SS-CNK10ED centre
speaker, the 'ED' is for 'Extended Definition'. using a 25mm carbon dome
tweeter supposedly accurate up to 40kHz. These were from a failed line (at
least economically) of speakers that Sony released to accompany their SACD
offerings. Sony make a slightly different version of them using the same
drivers but with better finish for sale in Japan where they are still very
popular.

Possibly in a way that is room dependent due to differences in
dispersion. So hearing any 'change' may be due to components that are
audible without the supertweeter or assuming we can all hear stuff
well above 20kHz.

It's hard to know exactly why they work as they do.

I did however learn a bit from the article once I got past the (to
me) confusing phrasing. Perhaps the author isn't a native English
speaker? That is an increasing occurance lately and I think that I
need to be more flexible. However 'old dog - new tricks' and all
that... ;)

I thin Xiph is American.

Ok. I might look for more of his stuff.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)