Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:38:44 GMT, Clive Backham
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:45:48 +0100, Jim H
wrote:

I am yet to hear a SACD, but the reason they supposedly sound better is
a higher sample frequency, bringing the digital waveform closer to the
analogue ideal. Its similar in some ways to having an raster image use
more pixels.

Are you prepared to acknowledge that beyond a certain pixel density,
there is no point in adding more pixels to an image because it will be
beyond the eye's ability to distinguish the improvement? (I'm no
expert in imaging, but suspect that there would be no discernable
difference between 10,000dpi and 20,000dpi).

I agree completely, but since I haven't heard SACD I can't say if cd is
past the limit of human hearing. However, an above-cd recording of vinyl on
my soundcard sounds no better than a cd-quality one, asthough this is more
likely to be limitations of the equipment

--
Jim

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

In article ,
Clive Backham wrote:
What's left for debate is whether the sampling frequency used for CD
is already at or beyond the limits of human hearing

It is - when digital was in its infancy I and many of my colleagues had
an
opportunity to play with different sampling rates on a wide variety of
material. And the point where any difference is detectable is below that
of CD - *that's* why it was chosen - although the exact rate was down to
TV video parameters so video recorders could be used.


Is it possible that, back then, the DACs were only effective up to a
certain rate, at a lower rate than for the ear? If, say the DACS showed no
improvement in sound past 44kHz, your experiment would always show cd to bo
optimal. Just a thought.

--
Jim

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

That's not to say analogue is ideal, there's a trade off between
analogue accuracy and digital precision.

I'm afraid those are only words without an explanation.

Expanation:

Contrary to popular belief the terms 'acuracy' and 'precision' are not
synonyms.

A digital signal may have perfect pcecision, that is, what is
transmitted/pressed is exactly what arrives. however that signal is only
accurate to a certain degree. In the example of cd audio, an atomic sound
is the nearest of about 65,000 options for that 1/44,000 of a second.

Now, for an analogue signal, the accuracy is perfect, the sound isn't said
to be 'to the nearest x'. I suppose you could argue that a record is 'to
the nearest atom of vinyl' but accuracy on that level is pretty much
irrelevent because an analogue copy is never totally precise - what is
transmitted or pressed will not be exactly the same as the original and
with every copy the errors get worse.

Digital = perfect precision, limited accuracy.
Analogue = limited precision, perfect accuracy.

That's the tradeoff!

NB: I'm not saying anything about the superiority of the sound of either
format here.

--
Jim

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Clive Backham wrote:
What's left for debate is whether the sampling frequency used for CD
is already at or beyond the limits of human hearing

It is - when digital was in its infancy I and many of my colleagues had an
opportunity to play with different sampling rates on a wide variety of
material. And the point where any difference is detectable is below that
of CD - *that's* why it was chosen - although the exact rate was down to
TV video parameters so video recorders could be used.

Wasn't there another reason for choosing this particular sampling rate - it
allowed storage of approx 1 hour of music on the CD technology available at
the time?

Mike F

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"Jim H" wrote in message
...

That's not to say analogue is ideal, there's a trade off between
analogue accuracy and digital precision.

I'm afraid those are only words without an explanation.

Expanation:

Contrary to popular belief the terms 'acuracy' and 'precision' are not
synonyms.

A digital signal may have perfect pcecision, that is, what is
transmitted/pressed is exactly what arrives. however that signal is
only
accurate to a certain degree. In the example of cd audio, an atomic
sound
is the nearest of about 65,000 options for that 1/44,000 of a second.

Now, for an analogue signal, the accuracy is perfect, the sound isn't
said
to be 'to the nearest x'.
Nice theory but how does that work in practice?
Don't analogue signals suffer all sorts of atenuation and distortion
once you attempt to propogate them?

I suppose you could argue that a record is 'to
the nearest atom of vinyl'
Only if the "resolution" of the mastering process is at an atomic level
and if you start to examine vinyl at an atomic level the actual playing
of the record will alter the shape of the groove simply because of
difference of the physical properties of diamond and vinyl.

but accuracy on that level is pretty much
irrelevent because an analogue copy is never totally precise - what is
transmitted or pressed will not be exactly the same as the original
and
with every copy the errors get worse.

Digital = perfect precision, limited accuracy.
Analogue = limited precision, perfect accuracy.

That's the tradeoff!

NB: I'm not saying anything about the superiority of the sound of
either
format here.



--
RobH
The future's dim, the future's mono.

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

Now, for an analogue signal, the accuracy is perfect, the sound isn't
said
to be 'to the nearest x'.
Nice theory but how does that work in practice?
Don't analogue signals suffer all sorts of atenuation and distortion
once you attempt to propogate them?

Yes, but that lowers the precision of the signal, not the accuracy. The two
are not the same.

I suppose you could argue that a record is 'to
the nearest atom of vinyl'
Only if the "resolution" of the mastering process is at an atomic level
and if you start to examine vinyl at an atomic level the actual playing
of the record will alter the shape of the groove simply because of
difference of the physical properties of diamond and vinyl.

That's why I went on to say "accuracy on that level is pretty much
irrelevent", It remains that the axiom of a vinyl recording is the atom.

--
Jim H

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"Mike Fordyce" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Clive Backham wrote:
What's left for debate is whether the sampling frequency used for
CD
is already at or beyond the limits of human hearing

It is - when digital was in its infancy I and many of my colleagues
had an
opportunity to play with different sampling rates on a wide variety
of
material. And the point where any difference is detectable is below
that
of CD - *that's* why it was chosen - although the exact rate was
down to
TV video parameters so video recorders could be used.

Wasn't there another reason for choosing this particular sampling
rate - it
allowed storage of approx 1 hour of music on the CD technology
available at
the time?

IIRC it was to get the whole of Beethoven's 9th symphony on a single
disc or is this an urban myth?


--
RobH
The future's dim, the future's mono.

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"Jim H" wrote in message
...

Ok, but I doubt we can do that much on my budget. The tt is a Technics SL-
Q33. Its direct drive and quartz controlled, it seems to spin at perfect
speed from the strobes.

I got this deck for £30 2nd hand, electronically fine but in need of work.
First up, the interconnects were going rusty! so I chopped an IXOS mono
lead in half and soldered the 'middle' bits into the tt. Problem solved!
Then there was no cueing. Turned out to just be a badly decayed band,
couldn't find a spare used a normal rubber band. The biggest problem was
cart/stylus - the stylus was actually bent 90°! Looking up the difficult
to
find stylus was the worst £20 I ever spent, I should have known the cart
was knackered. I've now got an unknown red Audio Technica cart that sounds
much better, but is likely still the weakest point in the system.

Its plugged into the phono input of an integrated amp. I'll maybe get a
seperate preamp one day.

Hope you can help. Some of my records are new, but most of the older ones
are a bit scratched. I've got some great stuff - original Floyd, K.U.K.L,
big pile o' jazz. The biggest problem is that the sound seems confined,
but
the system seems to handle jazz better than anything else.

I originally bought a turntable to just play my records on. I'm sceptical
that it will outperform cd, but hopeful that it might.

I would thoroughly recommend adding a phono preamp. My 13yr-old deck has
survived a long period of toddler and "dusting" abuse - many broken stylii
(and a downgraded cartridge) later I've added a preamp and it sounds better
than ever. Don't know whether it outperforms CD though, it all depends on
how good the recording is. I do have a couple Blue Note releases on both CD
and Vinyl, well recorded on both formats and its very difficult to tell the
difference!

Mike F

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

In article , RobH wrote:

I'm not sure that last sentence makes sense. Are you saying that the
theoretical limit of vinyl recording is at an atomic level?

It probably is if you use an AFM[1] as your stylus. (Pressing the discs
would be a right pain, though. :-) )

Now I've suggested it, someone is probably mad enough to try this...

- Andrew

[1] Atomic Force Microscope; works by dragging a needle over the
surface in question, where it bounces off the electron clouds of the
atoms composing said surface. Materials scientists love them.

--
Andrew Walkingshaw |

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"Andrew Walkingshaw" wrote in message
...
In article , RobH wrote:

I'm not sure that last sentence makes sense. Are you saying that the
theoretical limit of vinyl recording is at an atomic level?

It probably is if you use an AFM[1] as your stylus. (Pressing the
discs
would be a right pain, though. :-) )
Well, if IBM can construct their logo using individual atoms I don't see
why they can't adopt this technology for making records. ;-)



Now I've suggested it, someone is probably mad enough to try this...

- Andrew

[1] Atomic Force Microscope; works by dragging a needle over the
surface in question, where it bounces off the electron clouds of
the
atoms composing said surface. Materials scientists love them.

But then you get into the realms of Quantum Mechanical effects, the
Uncertainty Principle et al
You could then start to debate the probability of the "record" being
accurate but let's not go there.



--
RobH
The future's dim, the future's mono.