Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
RobH
wrote:
The original Quad ESL saw the light of day in the '50s. Within its
limitations, I don't think anything can beat it today.

Hey, within my limitations I'm the fastest sprinter in the world.

Seriously, nice though the ESLs are they are seriously lacking in
the
lower registers.

No more so than many modern speakers. Because the bass is so clean and
resonance free, it can seem lacking to those not used to them. Of
course,
they are also very room and position sensitive.
This is true.
Many people want "impressive" bass response and they won't get that from
the ESLs.


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

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

In article , Jim H
wrote:

When I talk about analogue/digital here is really in the less specific
context of continuous and discrete data. This is going OT, and maybe
I've got it wrapped around my head the wrong way, so I reserve the
right to be wrong...

OK. :-)

For me anything that is discrete may be said to be digital, since it may
be expressed as a number (in any radix, as binary if it helps).

The problem for me, here, is that - as in some other places in what you
write - you seem to use terms in ways that differ from the standard
definitions employed by metrologists and information theorists/engineers in
textbooks, etc.

Whereas for anything which is continuous, any value, possibly between
extremes, I think of as analogue. A continuous value is almost certainly
an irrational number, and so can not be expressed numerically without
approximation. It is not to the nearest anything, but it will always
contain errors.

The problem is that any sampled digital signal pattern which was sourced
from an 'analog' sound-pattern original will then normally be reconverted
back into an 'analog' form when you come to listen to it. This process, if
carried out according to the requirements of basic information theory,
results again in a 'continuous' output waveform that can convey as much
information as was in the original.

Unless we can measure things with infinite precision and accuracy (we
probably can't since the random processes in this universe make this
meaninless if our current understanding of physics and information theory
are correct) it becomes meaningless in practice to think of the orginal as
being 'irrational' (by which I suspect you actually mean a 'real' which
requires an infinite number of digits, as opposed to a finite 'integer').

*Any* measurement or recordings (including analog ones) will contain
'errors' (imperfections limiting the information content) in the forms of
noise, distortions, etc. One of the basic axioms of information theory is
that 'analog' and 'digital' systems have the possibility of being
indistinguishable in this respect when conveying signal pattern *provided
they are done adequately*. In both cases, therefore, the problems are in
the domain of engineering, not an inherent theoretical difference.


You can, however, say the accuracy to which you can measure the analogue
thing with reasonable precision.

When I talk about things being atomic/axiomic I didn't always mean atoms
(although in one case I did) I was mostly referring to the smallest
possible unit of sound for music storage, for cds this is the 32 bits
that are played at any one time.

However any musical pattern consists of a series of such values. Provided
these are processed correctly (dithered, etc) the output results have the
same characteristics as an 'analog' recording being replayed - i.e. a
signal whose information content is limited by noise, bandwidth, etc.
Again, one of the axioms of information theory is that this may be the
case.


For vinyl it is less clear what the smallest possible unit is, because
for most day to day purposes we consider solid objects to be continuums,
so I suggested vinyl atoms as a side point.

In practice, if you work out the random noise levels that would arise due
to the molecular size of the material used, the stylus area, and thermal
effects, you should find you end up with a noise level not very far below
the best LPs. The problem here is that many LPs are relatively poorly made
compared with this physical limit. Hence many LPs produce more noise than
this.

Accuracy and precision are similar ideas, degree of approximation. Very
simply accuracy is 'to the nearest x' whilst precision is the presence
of errors.

I can't recall the standard definition of 'precision' and 'accuracy' as
used by metrologists and information theorists. However the following
example should help clarify this.

Consider wishing to measure a signal level which (for simplicity) we can
imagine being a d.c. voltage plus some random noise.

We have two DVMs available. One only gives a few digits on its display, We
connect this and it shows "1.054 Volts".

The other is a more costly DVM with more displayed digits. When we connect
this it shows "1.06482 Volts".

IIRC a metrologist would say the second reading "has more precision" as it
offers a higher number of places in the value to provide a better nominal
resolution.

However we don't know which reading is "more accurate". To do that, we'd
need more information about the actual level. It may be closer to 1.054
than 1.06482. The question here is one of calibration and reliability. It
may also be that the value changed (due to noise) between the two
measurements, so both readings might be 'accurate' even though they have
differing levels of precision.

Hence the "1.054 V" might be more accurate, despite having a lower
precision. Thus there is a difference in the meanings of these terms.

However, the above is nothing to do with 'digital' as such. That just makes
the explanation easier. We could just as easily have used two analog dial
meters - one with a tiny, cramped scale, the other with a much larger scale
with finer divisions and longer pointer. Similarly, as an example, we could
also have compared a wooden stick metre rule with a clock gauge when trying
to measure a physical length.

When measureing an enduring signal pattern in the presence of noise we can
also employ dithering techniques to obtain a better effective resolution.
This is how, for example, a 16bit CD can still record and replay signals
which are 100dB or more down on fullscale. The resolution for patterns need
not be limited to the level of a single sample.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

In article , Andrew
Walkingshaw wrote:
In article , Jim H wrote:
Accuracy and precision are similar ideas, degree of approximation.
Very simply accuracy is 'to the nearest x' whilst precision is the
presence of errors.

To put it another way, if I understand you correctly: there's a tradeoff.

Vinyl has more noise, in the statistical sense:

Probably.

however, it also has a theoretically higher resolution than CDs.

Not so far as I am aware.

Therefore, the question of which is "better" depends on three things:

a) What is the maximum resolution of the ear?

This depends upon the circumstances.

b) What's the lowest practical noise-floor of vinyl?

One aspect of this is covered in the "Scots Guide" (part 12 of the
"Information and Measurement" section).

c) How much (or, indeed, *is* it?) higher is the *practical* resolution
of vinyl than CD under typical circumstances?

I think you will find that in practice it tends to be lower.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"Chesney Christ" wrote in message


A certain Andrew Walkingshaw, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Vinyl has more noise, in the statistical sense: however, it also has
a theoretically higher resolution than CDs.

No it doesn't.

a) What is the maximum resolution of the ear?

The million dollar question.

No, its well known.

At any one point in time its about 60 dB, but the ear's dynamic range window
can slide up and down another 40 dB or so. IME it takes about 80 dB to have
a practically transparent recording medium, and ideally it takes about 100
dB or a bit more.

The CD format has about 93 dB dynamic range in practice. So its generally
good, even overkill.

b) What's the lowest practical noise-floor of vinyl?

Around about -55db on the best ? (guess)

On a really good day about 10 dB better than that, on other days, about 10
dB worse. IOW the measured dynamic range of LP recordings ranges from about
45 to 65 dB.

(O/T) - Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"RobH" wrote in
message ...

snip


But then I wouldn't go to pop/rock events for quality sound.


And there you go, the most telling phrase of them all.

Why do you go to the concert if it isn't for the sound quality? There must
be something else there that grabs you by the short and curlies. The sound
may not be up to a sound system at home but the atmosphere, colours,
ambience overcome any sound issues.

Keith also made a telling remark - why are black and white movies so good?
Sctratches, bad contrast and no colour yet the movie can still pull you in.
Within a few seconds of the movie starting you don't care about the colour.
Watched any Laural and Hardy recently - was the humour spoilt because of a
lack of colour and some scratchy sound?

For me, vinyl has a certain ambience about it that pulls me in to the
performance in a different way to cd. Yes, there are some scratches and
colour but a certain 'feeling' is there that I find cd can't reproduce.

MrBitsy.

(O/T) - Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"MrBitsy" wrote in message

"RobH"
wrote in message ...

snip


But then I wouldn't go to pop/rock events for quality sound.


And there you go, the most telling phrase of them all.

Why do you go to the concert if it isn't for the sound quality?

The music.

The ambiance.



OK, that's it, I'll 'break cover' for this one.......

There it is folks, the teutonically-titled transatlantic **** has finally
admitted that music (or 'musicality' as we often prefer to say here) doesn't
necessarily depend on (or directly relate to) perceived/measured 'sound
quality'......

Now, perhaps, he'll pull that Rega plank out of the closet, slap a slice o'
summat nice on it, pump up the volume and just listen to the 'music'. (Maybe
for the first time in his entire life.....???)

(O/T) - Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

Keith G wrote:
"Chris Isbell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:16:42 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

Tech Spec:
PCM -1600 Digital Recording system
Sampling Rate: 44,056

Why the very strange sample rate?

No idea - all details were copied straight from the record sleeve.

It's because NTSC frame rate is usually not 30 frames (60 fields) per
second but 29.97 (59.94 fields), a ratio of 1000/1001.[*] The PCM-1600
used a broadcast quality NTSC video recorder, so

59.94 x 245 lines x 3 (samples/line) ~= 44.056 kHz

Andrew.
[*] This is done in order to minimize beating between the coulor
subcarrier and the sound subcarrier.

(O/T) - Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:
"Chris Isbell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:16:42 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

Tech Spec:
PCM -1600 Digital Recording system
Sampling Rate: 44,056

Why the very strange sample rate?

No idea - all details were copied straight from the record sleeve.

It's because NTSC frame rate is usually not 30 frames (60 fields) per
second but 29.97 (59.94 fields), a ratio of 1000/1001.[*] The PCM-1600
used a broadcast quality NTSC video recorder, so

59.94 x 245 lines x 3 (samples/line) ~= 44.056 kHz

Andrew.

[*] This is done in order to minimize beating between the coulor
subcarrier and the sound subcarrier.



Respeck! :-)

(O/T) - Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:17:25 +0100, Keith G used
to say...

Now, perhaps, he'll pull that Rega plank out of the closet, slap a slice
o'
summat nice on it, pump up the volume and just listen to the 'music'.
(Maybe
for the first time in his entire life.....???)

That is if he actually does have that mythical Rega.



Yeah, sorry about that Kurt - kinda lifted the lid on your ****bin for a
moment there! ;-)

(Rega? Personally, I ain't too eager for Rega.....)


* JAPANESE MINIMALISM: The most frequently offered interior design
aesthetic used by rootless career-hopping young people. -- Douglas Coupland


Lovely! :-)

(O/T) - Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"MrBitsy" wrote in message

"RobH"
wrote in message ...

snip


But then I wouldn't go to pop/rock events for quality sound.


And there you go, the most telling phrase of them all.

Why do you go to the concert if it isn't for the sound quality?

The music.

The ambiance.



OK, that's it, I'll 'break cover' for this one.......

There it is folks, the teutonically-titled transatlantic **** has
finally admitted that music (or 'musicality' as we often prefer to
say here) doesn't necessarily depend on (or directly relate to)
perceived/measured 'sound quality'......

The word *finally* shows how little you know, Keith.

Now, perhaps, he'll pull that Rega plank out of the closet, slap a
slice o' summat nice on it, pump up the volume and just listen to the
'music'. (Maybe for the first time in his entire life.....???)

Why do that when I can listen to live music, or live music reproduced well,
as opposed to obsoletely?