[AdamM]

Here's an article comparing Redbook VS fancier formats .  Not sure if anyone has posted it already.  Apparently there's 'no audible difference' between standard CD and the higher resolution discs, according to their tests.

http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=41&blogId=

"Incontrovertible double-blind listening tests prove that the original 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard yields exactly the same two-channel sound quality as the SACD and DVD-A technologies."

A bit more here:  http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

Numerous valid questions regarding the testing panel, listening volumes, etc., can be easily raised (as always...)  but it is interesting regardless.

[mcullinan]

then its still worthwhile for cd player owners to buy sacr for the cd layer? I guess it depends on recording. Interesting though
mike

[JohnR]

Inserting an A/D/A convertor in the chain is not the same as playing a redbook CD. Without having seen the actual paper, it seems that the true result would more likely be that the bandwidth limit and quantization noise of a 16-bit 44.1 kHz signal were not sufficient to enable listeners to statistically distinguish between a signal with and a signal without.

I think a more interesting test might be to digitally alter a high-rate 24-bit signal, and determine at what point listeners *are* able to distinguish the altered signal from the original.

[*Scotty*]

I have found that if you dumb things down far enough everything sounds the same. They will no doubt next prove that there is no audible difference between SACD ,CD and MP3 files.
And so they march bravely backwards into the future.
Scotty

[TONEPUB]

So much of it is about the recording and mastering...

Having a great example of all three formats, I prefer the Naim 555 for most
everything (even over LP most of the time), but when I find the rare SACD
or DVD-a that's been well mastered, what I hear a bit more of in the high
res formats is mostly dynamic range and the hi res discs (the good ones)
have an even lower noise floor.

Id say from a tonality standpoint, well mastered anything sounds about
the same.

[Photon46]

If you are interested, there's been a thread on this subject that's been running for some time over at Audiogon, "Study say no difference CD/SACD/DVD stereo streams."

[BrianM]

So much of it is about the recording and mastering...

I believe the point of this study was that they used the same recording/master and compared the SACD layer vs. the 16-bit layer.  Someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

[zako]

What do you expect from a 80 yr guy trying to compair formats...The whiskers in his ears block most of the sound.

[opaqueice]

Inserting an A/D/A convertor in the chain is not the same as playing a redbook CD. Without having seen the actual paper, it seems that the true result would more likely be that the bandwidth limit and quantization noise of a 16-bit 44.1 kHz signal were not sufficient to enable listeners to statistically distinguish between a signal with and a signal without.

It's not the same, I agree - it's actually more interesting, at least for those of us using digital files from a computer for music.  What I would like to know (and this is the question that will become increasingly relevant in the future) is whether it's worth storing/listening to music with resolution above 16/44.1. 

This result says no.

[BrianM]

What I would like to know (and this is the question that will become increasingly relevant in the future) is whether it's worth storing/listening to music with resolution above 16/44.1. 

This result says no.

I'm now, thanks to my 16-bit R2R DAC, a firm believer that it is not necessary. I have been surprised more than a few times at how "wet" and extended redbook CDs can sound.  No not every CD is recorded well (duh) but many are better than you might have guessed, and if your D/A converter does what it should you shouldn't be missing the SACD or HDCD formats. I used to have an HDCD-capable player, and my current DAC certainly gives the impression of reproducing at least as much of a "24-bit" disc as it did.  Much of the secret, of course, lies in the analog stage...

[BrianM]

Oh, and if you want a real 16-bit 4x DAC, I heard Frank's is like the only one around these days. 

[BrianM]

Good read:

http://www.mother-of-tone.com/conversion.htm

[MikeC]

John Atkinson describes a "blind" test where there were audible differences between hi-res, red-book and MP3 formats, keeping playback datastream and equipment constant. See here: http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1007awsi/. From Stereophile, October 2007 issue.

Mike

[TheChairGuy]

The only differences I have heard between CD and DVD-A (I find something irritating in the sound of SACD...perhaps it's the weird phase issue I have read that it has) is between original analog masters that have been recorded to both CD and DVD-A discs.

One listen to Neil Young's 'Harvest' on a very modest player tells you all you need to know...DVD-A is better...at least when the original recording is captured in full analog essence.  The CD is lethargic sounding and the DVD-A recording is soulful, extended, and energetically captures the nuances in the landmark recording.

Most of the music the last 25 years (starting with Ry Cooder's disc in 1979 or so if memory from my college radio station days suits me) has been recorded at 16/44.1.  Nothing you can do on the playback side will improve upon the shortfall of 44,100 samples per second and other issues associated with the technology now some 30 years old.

Some don't mind it - and some have invested in great DAC's, players and hard drives to mostly overcome - but it's got it's share of issues.  I think the real major one is that 44,100 samples per second isn't enough to capture the essence of the original recording...most often noted in the midrange thru (most notably) treble range.

Same thing with vinyl.  If you listen to music originally recorded at 16/44.1, then adapted to vinyl, it's generally bad.  No matter what you do on the playback side, analog or not, you cannot overcome the original errors of a 30 year old technology.

If you hear an original analog master or purpose recorded 24/192 recording on even a cheap DVD-A machine(Pioneer, OPPO, etc)......you'll realize there are indeed differences of fairly large magnitude between the formats...but only if they weren't recorded 16/44.1 in the first place. Put a Dakiom stabilizer on your player and you'll be enjoying CD or DVD-A every time...add tubes to your system somewhere to gloss over the digital gaps and it'll be really quite pleasant to listen to

Whether it's worth investing in DVD-A discs and a player without any music from the last 25 years deriving beneift from it is an individual decision...one which I'm not so sure of either way   

[BrianM]

Some don't mind it - and some have invested in great DAC's, players and hard drives to mostly overcome - but it's got it's share of issues.

Interesting way of putting it: a great DAC doesn't "overcome" the 16/44.1 format, it exploits it to its fullest, I would think.

I think the real major one is that 44,100 samples per second isn't enough to capture the essence of the original recording...most often noted in the midrange thru (most notably) treble range.

I wonder about this. Is analog sound to be judged by its sampling rate or by the fact that it is analog and not digital?  Does asking that make any sense?

[BrianM]

John Atkinson describes a "blind" test where there were audible differences between hi-res, red-book and MP3 formats, keeping playback datastream and equipment constant. See here: http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1007awsi/. From Stereophile, October 2007 issue.

Mike

This was interesting:

"This is currently the case with my most recent recording of the vocal group Cantus: after I'd done all the mixing and equalization at 88.2kHz, the CD versions sounded more muddy and less refined than I'd expected, given the care with which I'd downsampled and noiseshaped the hi-rez data. The mix and EQ choices I'd made at 88.2kHz were not optimal for the 44.1kHz versions. My detectives had been misled by the clues. As a result, the release of the CD is horribly late."

I have redbook CDs that sound every bit as good as 24-bit CDs, if not better, some of them.  Does it mainly depend on the original approach to the mixing?  But also I have CDs that were mastered in SACD format and released in parallel as redbooks...and some of them sound superb, too, not that I've been able to compare them to the SACD versions, not having an SACD player.  Either way, I think good redbook can sound awfully, awfully good.

[BrianM]

Also: pretty cynical of me, but there was something a little pat in the way the author recounted how, at the first repeat, he instantly noticed a slight degradation.  Really?? When he wasn't aware he was being tested?  Maybe by the third or fourth repeat, at which point he filled in the rest?  Too cynical, perhaps...

[gme109]

Here's an article comparing Redbook VS fancier formats .  Not sure if anyone has posted it already.  Apparently there's 'no audible difference' between standard CD and the higher resolution discs, according to their tests.

http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=41&blogId=

"Incontrovertible double-blind listening tests prove that the original 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard yields exactly the same two-channel sound quality as the SACD and DVD-A technologies."

A bit more here:  http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

Numerous valid questions regarding the testing panel, listening volumes, etc., can be easily raised (as always...)  but it is interesting regardless.

This is the most unscientific test, posing as a scientific test, that I've ever seen. No mention of how the different formats were recorded for one. If everything was originally recorded at 16-bit/44.1-kHz, then I wouldn't suspect there would be much of a difference. The other question I have is, did the old buzzard save the hair from his ears, before attempting to do any listening?

[opaqueice]

John Atkinson describes a "blind" test where there were audible differences between hi-res, red-book and MP3 formats, keeping playback datastream and equipment constant. See here: http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1007awsi/. From Stereophile, October 2007 issue.

As far as I can tell from reading that there was no test at all.  To do a test you need to collect some data, and here all we have are some unsubstantiated impressions reported after the fact by someone that makes his living off companies that sell this gear.  Not very compelling.

This is the most unscientific test, posing as a scientific test, that I've ever seen. No mention of how the different formats were recorded for one. If everything was originally recorded at 16-bit/44.1-kHz, then I wouldn't suspect there would be much of a difference. The other question I have is, did the old buzzard save the hair from his ears, before attempting to do any listening?

You might want to try reading it before criticizing it.  The musical material is described in detail.  And it wasn't Aczel that was the listener, or even Meyer and Moran mostly (the authors of the paper).  The listeners consisted in part of music program undergrads , not generally known for the hair in their ears, as well as audiophiles and recording industry pros.  There were something like 500 trials over the course of a year, conducted with four different systems.  It was published in a peer-reviewed journal (the Journal of the Acoustic Engineering Society).

Strange that such an unscientific set of tests made it past the reviewers, isn't it?

[darrenyeats]

I've never seen a thread called "DVD looks the same as HD-DVD and Blu Ray".

I leave you to draw your own conclusion.
Darren