Yes - Close to the Edge 5.1 DVD-A/BluRay in October

[Perp]

Plain and simple. One of the reasons why we need higher resolution audio is to hear those sub-harmonics in music that the human ear is capable of hearing. When are you naysayers going to get that through your thick skulls? mp3, redbook and 24/96 are just not good enough, period. Now, all this has to do with having the proper playback equipment to hear this on and the proper equipment that was used for the original recording in the first place. Yes, microphones have different frequency responses, etc.

 

[ssully]

Plain and simple. One of the reasons why we need higher resolution audio is to hear those sub-harmonics in music that the human ear is capable of hearing.

'Sub harmonics'? What are those, exactly, and how have they managed to elude hearing research for all these years?

When are you naysayers going to get that through your thick skulls? mp3, redbook and 24/96 are just not good enough, period. Now, all this has to do with having the proper playback equipment to hear this on and the proper equipment that was used for the original recording in the first place. Yes, microphones have different frequency responses, etc.

Try developing a coherent and technically informed argument, not one that relies on 'plain and simple' and wild stabs.

 

[0tto]

sadly seems you misread my comparison draft CD (44.1/16) vs. lossless (96/24) in which i cannot find
any hint on the needs to increase of frequencies and bit depth. 96/24 parameter is pretty much
sufficient for usual application albeit for recording with following editing 32 bit floating point more suitable.

and my appology but i won't discuss hearing capacities and how much enough - is enough. from experience
i know, if person cannot distinguish sound from single source as 44/16 vs. 96/24 or lossy compression
vs. lossless - such discussion just pointless.

 

[0tto]

'Sub harmonics'? What are those, exactly, and how have they managed to elude hearing research for all these years?

actually such thing exist. harmonic is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency.
sub-harmonic - undertone frequencies below the main frequency.
in fact harmonic and sub-harmonic is what makes difference in the sound and allows us
to differentiate voices, instruments, etc. without them there won't be violin Stradivary
or Fender Stratocaster guitar, because all of them would have identical, indistinguishable
sound

 

[colsky]

My guess is either mismatched output levels between the two players, or placebo. (I'm assuming he's playing the exact same version on both players, not two different masterings; I'm also assuming no DSP is turned on in the players.)

Yes, I have compared the exact same version on both players, so the difference must be due to different players. "mismatched output levels" - not sure what you mean, I'm not that technically minded! "placebo" - I don't think so. I got my wife (who has little interest in music, and even less in sound reproduction!) to listen to the comparison, and she said, without doubt the Naim player sounds better. The sound from the Naim is much warmer, less clinical.

I don't unfortunately listen to vinyl any more (mmm, memories of record shops, records and hair, those were the days..... but I digress!!) but my friends that do swear blind that records played on a decent system sound way better than any form of remastered/flat transfer versions played on a cd/sacd/blu ray player. I can't comment on this, as I say I don't listen to vinyl, but I guess its a similar point to what I'm making. It would be interesting to compare record player v cd player v universal player, but to do this I would need to get rid of the wife and kids!!

 

[DennisMoore Jr.]

How come? Science. Human hearing frequency band extends at most , 22-24kHz (and the vast majority of adults far less). Thus sample rates beyond 44.1khz are for overcoming technical obstacles in DACs and ADC, not for hearing per se. Even Bob Stuart of Meridian agrees that those obstacles (which are likely not even audible) are overcome by the time you reach a 60kHz sample rate. So beyond that it is truly pointless. 88.2kHz -- the convenient, first multiple of 44.1 -- is more than sufficient to address even theoretical concerns.

Similarly, 24 bits has real utility during recording and processing, but for home delivery formats, not so much. (Though most our AVRs are going to convert audio to 24 bits anyway, to perform DSP). 16 bits with dither and noise shaping already gives us a dynamic range over 110dB. Try finding CDs, SACDs, DVD-As, BluRays,as well as supremely quiet home listening environments, that can take advantage of that.

In short, more bits and more samples than 88/24 are not going to get you closer to live sound.

I did not say there is no room for audio improvement. I said the situation is different from video, where resolution is still an issue. My point is that the improvements are not going to come from the equivalent of increasing video resolution. Real, as opposed to snake-oil, improvement in home audio, will come from better digital room/speaker correction, better room treatment , better loudspeakers. Improvement of the product we buy comes from better mixing and mastering. Chasing higher bit depths and sample rates is ridiculous in this day and age; it is sheer marketing.

While I await confirmation from Mr. Wilkes that Tales from Topographic Oceans 5.1 is emminent, I would like to pause and give credit where I think it is due:

Though the sharply witted yet certainly cerebral Mr. Sully won't win ambassador of the year, any time soon, I dare say his post here is spot on, logicaly offered and quite to the point. Having studied digital sampling for work 30 years ago and having worked in technology for all those years: I must say that everything he said is exactly how I understand the technologies to be. In addition I could refer us all to a published piece of science that proves 44.1 @16 bit is just dandy, but that will probably start WW3 around here... Obviously if a person "feels" that a scratchy plastic disc read though a vibrating piece of rock(with the original source being metal oxide bits on a long plastic band) produces "warmer" sound, I can do nothing to prove or deny such a claim.

However, my props to the young lad having made his case so succintly & clearly.

By the way: It sure doesn't look like our cousins in the UK are very adept at driving:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/world/europe/uk-huge-chain-reaction-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Oh, is anybody game for YES - On The Silent Wings Of Freedom in 5.1?

 

[ssully]

actually such thing exist. harmonic is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency.
sub-harmonic - undertone frequencies below the main frequency.
in fact harmonic and sub-harmonic is what makes difference in the sound and allows us
to differentiate voices, instruments, etc. without them there won't be violin Stradivary
or Fender Stratocaster guitar, because all of them would have identical, indistinguishable
sound

That's called timbre. It's typically the upper harmonics (overtones) that impart timbre to an instrument, not 'subharmonics'.

What's a mystery is why digital would fail to capture frequencies *lower than* the fundamental (subharmonics) -- which is what you are suggesting. Fundamantals and overtones and subharmonics in the range of 0-20kHz are fully captured at 44.1 kHz sample . So again, what is the issue?

 

[ssully]

Yes, I have compared the exact same version on both players, so the difference must be due to different players. "mismatched output levels" - not sure what you mean, I'm not that technically minded!

It is possible the players have different native 'volume' levels for their outputs. The 'louder' one of the two will tend to sound better. This applies if one or both of your players is connected to your AVR with analog (RCA) cables.

If your players are both connected digitally (HDMI or optical) then that would tend not be an issue, *unless* one of your players is doing some internal processing (levels, EQ, bass management) that the other is not, before sending out the signal digitally.

"placebo" - I don't think so. I got my wife (who has little interest in music, and even less in sound reproduction!) to listen to the comparison, and she said, without doubt the Naim player sounds better. The sound from the Naim is much warmer, less clinical.

That's not really a definitive test, sorry. For one, it's too easy for your wife to have been influenced by you in some way, even if you don't mean to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans#The_Clever_Hans_effect
"As Pfungst's final experiment makes clear, Clever Hans effects are quite as likely to occur in experiments with humans as in experiments with animals. For this reason, care is often taken in fields such as perception, cognitive psychology, and social psychology to make experiments double-blind, meaning that neither the experimenter nor the subject knows what condition the subject is in, and thus what his or her responses are predicted to be."

I don't unfortunately listen to vinyl any more (mmm, memories of record shops, records and hair, those were the days..... but I digress!!) but my friends that do swear blind that records played on a decent system sound way better than any form of remastered/flat transfer versions played on a cd/sacd/blu ray player. I can't comment on this, as I say I don't listen to vinyl, but I guess its a similar point to what I'm making. It would be interesting to compare record player v cd player v universal player, but to do this I would need to get rid of the wife and kids!!

The placebo effect still in play here, *plus* the effects of various 'warmth' producing distortions that vinyl technology is prone to, *plus* mastering differences between vinyl and digital versions. All of those 'warmth' additions and mastering differences can be captured completely if you digitally record the output of a record player/preamp. That by itself demonstrates that vinyl has no intrinsic advantage in terms of capture and playback accuracy.

 

[colsky]

Thanks Mr Sully. I'm a bit rusty on Pfungst's experiments (!!) but I know what you mean. However, you haven't met my wife! She is rarely swayed by anything I say, and is more likely to give me an opposite answer to what I wanted, just to be contrary.

Leaving aside the vinyl versus digital discussion. My Naim cd player is connected to the AVR with analog cables, my Denon universal player is connected through HDMI, so that might be the answer. Could it be possible that it is purely the case that the Naim cd player is such a good player, so that, to get equivalent sound from a universal player I would have to seriously upgrade my Denon BDP-4010UD?

 

[ssully]

Thanks Mr Sully. I'm a bit rusty on Pfungst's experiments (!!) but I know what you mean. However, you haven't met my wife! She is rarely swayed by anything I say, and is more likely to give me an opposite answer to what I wanted, just to be contrary.

If you know what I mean, you know that these influences can be unconscious. They can't be discounted.

Leaving aside the vinyl versus digital discussion. My Naim cd player is connected to the AVR with analog cables, my Denon universal player is connected through HDMI, so that might be the answer. Could it be possible that it is purely the case that the Naim cd player is such a good player, so that, to get equivalent sound from a universal player I would have to seriously upgrade my Denon BDP-4010UD?

Probably not. If there is a level difference, and you fixed it (by matching the playback levels to within 0.2dB), there would likely be no audible difference remaining. Of course to test this properly you'd have to compare them blind.

 

[colsky]

I managed to test a few last night, remastered cds on Naim v lossless on Denon. I do agree that the lossless sounds better overall, it has added clarity. But interestingly I do still think that the Naim sounds better for rockier parts of the music. Also though, the other test of remastered cd on Naim v remastered cd on Denon - the Naim definitely sounds superior for pure cd playback.

I'll stop boring you now, and get back to this thread! I have the Close to the Edge BD on order and am so looking forward to it. Can anyone please confirm my understanding that the sound on the BD would not be better than the sound on the DVD-A? The only reason therefore to get the BD is the added extras, I think, which is obviously reason enough.

October is shaping up to be a great musical month :banana::

- releases - Nonsuch, Close to the Edge, Benefit, Road to Red (still undecided about this one though), Steven Wilson Drive Home EP, Joe Bonamassa Tour de Force Live in London,
- gigs - Steven Wilson, Steve Hackett (both Royal Albert Hall) and Camel at the Barbican.

 

[Plan9]

I find these arguments about Redbook vs. Hi-Res incredibly tiring. Often they're down to one person trying very hard to convince everybody else that what they are hearing is wrong and that they are just delusional. Leave it be buddy, you won't change the world.

I work as a mastering engineer and I hear the difference between a final product in 44.1/16 and one in 48/24 or higher every single day under the sun.
Hi-Res is superior sounding and Redbook is not even close and that's in every case.
When you know an Hi-Res mastering inside out and you down-rez it to RedBook you lose so much musical information it is really not funny. You should see the look of disapointment on my face every time the fine tuning I did is blurred and smeared by the inferior resolution.

 

[colsky]

I find these arguments about Redbook vs. Hi-Res incredibly tiring. Often they're down to one person trying very hard to convince everybody else that what they are hearing is wrong and that they are just delusional. Leave it be buddy, you won't change the world.

I work as a mastering engineer and I hear the difference between a final product in 44.1/16 and one in 48/24 or higher every single day under the sun.
Hi-Res is superior sounding and Redbook is not even close and that's in every case.
When you know an Hi-Res mastering inside out and you down-rez it to RedBook you lose so much musical information it is really not funny. You should see the look of disapointment on my face every time the fine tuning I did is blurred and smeared by the inferior resolution.

Ok buddy will do, hope you weren't calling me delusional! My point in the end wasn't about cd v Hi-res, it was just that cds played on a Naim cd player sound better than cds played on a universal player.

 

[DennisMabry]

Ok buddy will do, hope you weren't calling me delusional! My point in the end wasn't about cd v Hi-res, it was just that cds played on a Naim cd player sound better than cds played on a universal player.

I don't think he was referring to you. I'm sure the DAC's in your Naim sound great!

 

[Plan9]

Ok buddy will do, hope you weren't calling me delusional! My point in the end wasn't about cd v Hi-res, it was just that cds played on a Naim cd player sound better than cds played on a universal player.

I really wasn't refering to you.

 

[DennisMoore Jr.]

I have the Close to the Edge BD on order and am so looking forward to it. Can anyone please confirm my understanding that the sound on the BD would not be better than the sound on the DVD-A?

Hi colsky,

Yes, there is no difference.

DVD-Audio is just a container it uses the audio codec which is MLP (Meridian Lossles Packaging) it is a 96K/24 bit sampling tech - lossless obviously

BluRay is a storage container as well and uses either the Hollywood latest spawned DTS 96K/24 or Dolby's HD 96K/24 latest lossless codecs.

Sound quality is equal.

A bad quality for DVD-Audio is that the specification locks in low rez mpg 1 for the graphics, Blu Ray can use all the latest hirez picture & video formats.

DVD-Audio is limited to dual layer 8.5 gigs of data since it uses DVD media
BluRay has over 40gig of space to jam extra goodies on its much larger & newer Bluray container format.

Cheers!

DennisMoore

 

[colsky]

Thanks for your clear answer DennisMoore. The bad quality for BD as far as I am concerned is the interminable set up time (player waking up time and disc loading time)!

Dennis dum, Dennis dee, dum dum dum.....!!! That song's back in my bloomin' head again!!

 

[DennisMoore Jr.]

Thanks for your clear answer DennisMoore. The bad quality for BD as far as I am concerned is the interminable set up time (player waking up time and disc loading time)!

Dennis dum, Dennis dee, dum dum dum.....!!! That song's back in my bloomin' head again!!

RE: BluRay, it is dead already, manufactures already have the nextgen storage optical media, so whatever choice you make you are buying an antique!
The big thing is to get a slice of discrete 5.1 pie, which is priceless!

LOL, about my name:

You are very keen indeed, that is the reason I chose that moniker. Forums have so many anal-retentive specification & pointless trivial data Nazis. If I can bring a smile to someone's face by behaving like a complete idiot, I will consider my work to be have been done.

 

[ssully]

I managed to test a few last night, remastered cds on Naim v lossless on Denon.

CD is already lossless...what are you calling 'lossless'?

I do agree that the lossless sounds better overall, it has added clarity. But interestingly I do still think that the Naim sounds better for rockier parts of the music. Also though, the other test of remastered cd on Naim v remastered cd on Denon - the Naim definitely sounds superior for pure cd playback.

Again, did you closely balance the output levels, and manage to 'blind' the samples?

I'll stop boring you now, and get back to this thread! I have the Close to the Edge BD on order and am so looking forward to it. Can anyone please confirm my understanding that the sound on the BD would not be better than the sound on the DVD-A? The only reason therefore to get the BD is the added extras, I think, which is obviously reason enough.

No, the sound will not be better. But the bonus materials are different, so I'm going with the BD.

 

[ssully]

I find these arguments about Redbook vs. Hi-Res incredibly tiring. Often they're down to one person trying very hard to convince everybody else that what they are hearing is wrong and that they are just delusional. Leave it be buddy, you won't change the world.

More often, it's one or a few people trying to explain the methods of audio research and the basics of psychoacoustics, and the rest refusing to believe that their 'hearing' could ever be wrong, and continuing to offer fundamentally flawed comparisons as 'evidence'.

I work as a mastering engineer and I hear the difference between a final product in 44.1/16 and one in 48/24 or higher every single day under the sun.
Hi-Res is superior sounding and Redbook is not even close and that's in every case.

The man who invented DVD-A disagrees with you.

When you know an Hi-Res mastering inside out and you down-rez it to RedBook you lose so much musical information it is really not funny. You should see the look of disapointment on my face every time the fine tuning I did is blurred and smeared by the inferior resolution.

When you run a comparison with *proper controls in place* it's funny how these claims wither away.