Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all 'digital'
music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to know why
exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the equivalent
CDs?

Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks out
like a chapel hatpeg....

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:47:33 +0100, Keith G wrote:

Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all
'digital'
music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to know
why
exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the
equivalent
CDs?

Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks out
like a chapel hatpeg....


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. There is also a simpler method of encoding, although what effect
this has on the sound I'm not sure.

That's not to say analogue is ideal, there's a trade off between analogue
accuracy and digital precision. On my current system I prefer cd, but then
my tt is nothing special.

--
Jim H

"Jim H" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:47:33 +0100, Keith G wrote:

Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all
'digital'
music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to know
why
exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the
equivalent
CDs?

Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks out
like a chapel hatpeg....


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. There is also a simpler method of encoding, although what effect
this has on the sound I'm not sure.

That's not to say analogue is ideal, there's a trade off between analogue
accuracy and digital precision. On my current system I prefer cd, but then
my tt is nothing special.


OK, give us the spec. then and we'll tweak it up for you - wotcha got?

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).

If you agree with that, can you also appreciate that in the case of
audio, there will come a point where further increasing the sample
rate is pointless because it is beyond the ear's ability to
distinguish the improvement?

What's left for debate is whether the sampling frequency used for CD
is already at or beyond the limits of human hearing - if it is, then
the higher sampling rate used in SACD is redundant.

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.

- if it is, then the higher sampling rate used in SACD is redundant.

For the end user, absolutely.

--
*When it rains, why don't sheep shrink? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

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

A certain Jim H, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

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.

AFAIK (Dave P would know more about this than me) the early ADCs weren't
capable of 16 bits of resolution; they clocked in around 14 bits. I
always thought this was another good reason why remastered recordings
often sound so much better.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

Hi,

In message , Jim H
writes
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.

I don't think that DAC speed would have been a problem, even in the
early days of digital. Even in the early to mid 80's there were video
DACs that could run in the tens of megahertz range, though they were
admittedly only 8 bit units, rather than 16 bit.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

"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

"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.