Quote:
Originally Posted by john970
In preparation for the 1er, I did another listening test last night to help determine if I would get any benefit out of losslessly encoding my audio collection (I encode at 256Kbps vbr aac and occasionaly buy music at either 128 or more often 256 from the iTunes music store).
Makes it obvious to me why SACD and DVD-Audio failed.
PHEW.
|
Kind of an interesting write up albeit flawed, and the conclusion is a non-sequiter.
SACD has a sampling rate of 2.8224MHz, 64 times the rate of a standard compact disc. The formats and algorithms you tested pale in comparison to that amount of data as content. Since the real debate (settled long ago I believe) was more between analogue and digital than it is between the commercially compromised digital formats you have tested I think your SACD comment at the end is flat wrong.
SACD is the only of the digital formats whose operational waveforms are almost identical to analog versus the typical digital pattern. Assuming responsible dithering to keep noise outside the audible bandwidth, SACD is capable of reproduction quality no other format has been able to come close to. SACD is the only format that can reproduce material in upper octaves sufficiently to preserve the upper harmonic structures that makes music rich. That makes a Stradivarius sound different from a kid’s rental violin. All while keeping odd order harmonics in check.
Evaluating music in this realm involves going way beyond listening for ‘shrillness’ but listening for timbre, transparency, depth, soundstage and space between instruments, their notes and the ‘rosin on the bowstring’.
SACD had clearly won the hearts of audiophiles over DVD-Audio just prior to the entire audiophile format movement collapsing from a commercial standpoint. It was clear today's consumer is more in to quantity and portability than quality.
There is a glimmer in the fact that vinyl has made resurgence and that is a testament to the stubborn holdouts among the audiophile ranks.