Thread: newbie dsd question

Posts: 51
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 next

Post by madde March 2, 2010 (1 of 51)
hi all!

Before joining I read the FAQ, almost all... Quick question though: would the high quality of SACD be attributed mostly to high frequency reach to 100 khz or the better time (impulse?) response or is it the combination of both. At least my speakers can not play very high sounds, only to 25ooo hz or so (say the manual). Thanx!

Post by Fitzcaraldo215 March 2, 2010 (2 of 51)
madde said:

hi all!

Before joining I read the FAQ, almost all... Quick question though: would the high quality of SACD be attributed mostly to high frequency reach to 100 khz or the better time (impulse?) response or is it the combination of both. At least my speakers can not play very high sounds, only to 25ooo hz or so (say the manual). Thanx!

As far as I know, there is no credible evidence of the audibility of frequencies much above 20K. Bats, yes, but humans, no. What hi rez digital does is to shift the anti-aliasing filters way up in the frequency range, so that the filtering does not disturb the audible frequencies, unlike CD.

Post by The Seventh Taylor March 2, 2010 (3 of 51)
OP, if you asked me I'd say the accuracy in the time domain is the more important feature for fidelity.

Post by DSD March 2, 2010 (4 of 51)
Fitzcaraldo215 said:

As far as I know, there is no credible evidence of the audibility of frequencies much above 20K.

No one says that ultrasonic frequencies are "audible" in the traditional sense as our brains perceive inaudible frequencies much differently than audible frequencies. Take for example inaudible subsonic frequencies such as 16Hz organ pipe with is NOT heard but felt in the bones.

Research at Pacific Microsonics and others suggest that ultrasonic frequencies are treated by the brain much differently than audible frequencies. For example they are "felt" on our skin thus making music "feel" live and positively effect the sound of the audible frequencies downline. Even people with severe hearing loss in the audible range can respond to ultrasonics up to 80kHz. Indeed some totally deaf people have been given partial hearing ability by using a device that shifts normal speech to the ultrasonic range where it can be perceived.

However I also believe DSD's superior transient response in the time domain is just as important or even more so.

Post by Kal Rubinson March 2, 2010 (5 of 51)
DSD said:

No one says that ultrasonic frequencies are "audible" in the traditional sense as our brains perceive inaudible frequencies much differently than audible frequencies. Take for example inaudible subsonic frequencies such as 16Hz organ pipe with is NOT heard but felt in the bones.

Research at Pacific Microsonics and others suggest that ultrasonic frequencies are treated by the brain much differently than audible frequencies. For example they are "felt" on our skin thus making music "feel" live and positively effect the sound of the audible frequencies downline. Even people with severe hearing loss in the audible range can respond to ultrasonics up to 80kHz. Indeed some totally deaf people have been given partial hearing ability by using a device that shifts normal speech to the ultrasonic range where it can be perceived.

However I also believe DSD's superior transient response in the time domain is just as important or even more so.

Can you provide any real science references for the abilities and mechanisms for transduction of ultrasonic frequencies?

Kal

Post by steviev March 2, 2010 (6 of 51)
madde said:

hi all!

Before joining I read the FAQ, almost all... Quick question though: would the high quality of SACD be attributed mostly to high frequency reach to 100 khz or the better time (impulse?) response or is it the combination of both. At least my speakers can not play very high sounds, only to 25ooo hz or so (say the manual). Thanx!

SACD is high quality because of multichannel, nothing more. So if you don't have a surround setup and do not intend to get surround speakers, SACD is a waste of your money. Stick with regular stereo CD -- virtually no one can tell the difference in a double blind test.

And now, the usual suspects may fire at will.

Post by rammiepie March 2, 2010 (7 of 51)
steviev said:

SACD is high quality because of multichannel, nothing more. So if you don't have a surround setup and do not intend to get surround speakers, SACD is a waste of your money. Stick with regular stereo CD -- virtually no one can tell the difference in a double blind test.

And now, the usual suspects may fire at will.

Bang, Bang, you're DEAD! This, of course, is utter nonsense. The benefits of SACD can include the following: A definite major upgrade over standard RBCD, if DONE RIGHT. Multi-channel, stereo and RBCD layers on the same disc and if one has the PROPER sound system, a less-fatiguing listening experience than RBCD with a brilliant dynamic range that RBCD can only hint at. SACD is definitely not for listeners with TIN ears where everything sounds the same......the cassette/8~track crowd, that is. And to be charitable, I will acknowledge that not all RBCDs sound dreadful......there are always the pleasant exceptions.

Post by Fitzcaraldo215 March 2, 2010 (8 of 51)
DSD said:


However I also believe DSD's superior transient response in the time domain is just as important or even more so.

The time domain improvement in SACD is one of the byproducts of getting that filter way up in the audio band and out of the way of the audible music. Filters can cause cause time domain problems in frequencies considerably above/below their cutoff frequencies.

Post by Zammo March 2, 2010 (9 of 51)
steviev said:

SACD is high quality because of multichannel, nothing more. So if you don't have a surround setup and do not intend to get surround speakers, SACD is a waste of your money. Stick with regular stereo CD -- virtually no one can tell the difference in a double blind test.

And now, the usual suspects may fire at will.

The world is flat, and if you're not careful, you could fall off the edge.

And now, the usual suspects may fire at will.

Post by xmen269 March 2, 2010 (10 of 51)
Kal Rubinson said:

Can you provide any real science references for the abilities and mechanisms for transduction of ultrasonic frequencies?

Kal

I love u Kal.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 next

Closed