After reading that CD vs Vinyl thread, it's only right if I do this....

[sillymofo]

It sadden me to see so many "experts" got their shiets ass backwards, please allow me to provide you with some information that if you have taken your time to actually read, you'd know more about the subject.

SACD (Super Audio CD):
SACD white paper in PDF.

In plain English

Super Audio CD uses a new and radically different technology called Direct Stream Digital (DSD) to convert music into a digital signal that can be stored on a disc. Compared to the traditional PCM method (the technology used for CD), DSD offers a much higher resolution by following more closely the original wave form of music. With a frequency response of over 100kHz and a dynamic range over 120dB across the audible frequency range ? some 64 times higher resolution then CD - Super Audio CD offers music reproduction that reveals details you just can?t hear on a normal CD.

The Direct Stream Digital? pulse train "looks" remarkably like the analog waveform it represents. More pulses point up as the wave goes positive and down as the wave goes negative. The result of DSD's simplified signal path, and of its ultra-high 2.82 MHz sampling rate, is a more faithful reproduction of the original source material and richer, warmer sound.

Oh, and SACD's sampling rate is ~ 2.8 MHz (read ~2824 KHz), much higher than 10 - 24 bit data @ 192 KHz (that of DVD-Audio) like some "expert" pointed out.

DVD-A (DVD Audio):

DVD-Audio uses completely different technology to achieve its ultra-high-resolution performance. Instead of abandoning the PCM audio technology, they've improved it. DVD-Audio discs take advantage of higher sampling rates ? up to 192 kHz, compared to 44.1 kHz for standard CDs. Plus, DVD-Audio discs use the Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP) system that allows discs to hold up to seven times as much information as standard PCM CDs. The result is richer, more detailed sound.

Nearly all DVD-Audio discs are engineered for surround sound with up to six discrete channels of high-definition audio, though there are some ultra-high-resolution 2-channel recordings, too. Most DVD-Audio discs also contain a compressed Dolby? Digital version of the music for backwards compatibility with standard DVD players.

To experience everything DVD-Audio discs have to offer, it's best to use them with your television. (Since all DVD-Audio players also play DVD-Video discs, your component will probably be hooked up to your TV anyway.) DVD-Audio discs typically contain added video and graphics content. Though the onscreen features vary from disc to disc, you may be treated to brief video clips, interviews, lyrics, and slide shows. But don't expect extended concert footage or full-length videos for all the tracks ? there's only so much room on the disc, and DVD-Audio is primarily a hi-fidelity audio format.

(I'm sure you can google yourself more information on DVD-A)

The reason I've highlighted the text is so that you can see what's a better format. For those of you that have listened to DVD-A, particularly the Bluemen's Group would know that DVD-A is anything but musically sound. Sound stage presence is definitely not what DVD-A was designed for, but rather a swoosh and buzz of the surround speakers. Most of the time, I feel like the freaking drummer was running around and playing the drum on all 5 speakers on a drum roll. /

There were talks of format incompatibility, now, you would require special players to play either format. The only difference is that with SACD, there are hybrids, meaning there is also a PCM track embeded on the disk. The players will chose the appropriate track for playback, depends on ability. Try to get a DVD player to do that.

With the same setup, between an SACD player and turn table, I challenge any sane person to tell me that their freaking vinyl of the same song sounds better (unless the freaking voice in their heads tell them so). Most people say that "Oh, vinyl is better!" is because they want to look and sound knowlegeable, when infact they're just nut cases. There are no freaking way your human ear can perceive the difference when computers can barely tell. (Yes, my friend has a recording studio and we did look at the freaking waves). Actually, most can't even tell the difference between MP3s and SACD, and that's a fact.

 

[Anubis]

SACDs are sinmply amazing

that is all

 

Still not exact replication.

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Still not exact replication.

Exact replication of what? Unless you spend $30K on a tube amp system with a suspended turn table, and even then, you won't get the "exact replication" of a real life voice. (And that's not counting speakers)

 

[MikeMike]

tube amps dont give exact replication, they add noise to the sound, sometimes good, sometimes bad, depends on the judge.

thats just what ive heard.

MIKE

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
tube amps dont give exact replication, they add noise to the sound, sometimes good, sometimes bad, depends on the judge.

thats just what ive heard.

MIKE

Nah... you have to let them warm up first my friend, at least half an hour, then the sound will be consistent.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
tube amps dont give exact replication, they add noise to the sound, sometimes good, sometimes bad, depends on the judge.

thats just what ive heard.

MIKE

IMHO tube > transistor

but thats just me

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Still not exact replication.

yeah, and guess what? "exact" replication is impossible.

 

[vshah]

i like my ipod

 

[beatmix01]

i like my records.

 

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: SampSon
Still not exact replication.

Exact replication of what? Unless you spend $30K on a tube amp system with a suspended turn table, and even then, you won't get the "exact replication" of a real life voice. (And that's not counting speakers)

So what is the point of your post? Another typical analog vs digital thread? Or just a digital format vs digital format thread? Seen quite a few of these on audiophile sites.

yeah, and guess what? "exact" replication is impossible.

Thank you capn. obvious.

 

[Ornery]

You've GOT to be kidding! We've got folks on this very board, who can hear the difference between 12-ga. wire, and 14-ga., as well as Monster Cable VS generic. This is no challenge at all for them!

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: SampSon

yeah, and guess what? "exact" replication is impossible.

Thank you capn. obvious.

sorry, didn't mean to come off like I did. It's been a long day at work.

 

Originally posted by: Ornery
You've GOT to be kidding! We've got folks on this very board, who can hear the difference between 12-ga. wire, and 14-ga., as well as Monster Cable VS generic. This is no challenge at all for them!

Do you still have your anti monster cable post, or was it too outdated at this point?

 

[Zenmervolt]

I don't argue that records are better. I argue that I LIKE them better. There's a difference between the two.

More to the point though, a theoretically perfect analogue recording will always be superior to a digital approximation. The thing is, there's no such thing as a perfect analogue recording in the real world.

ZV

 

[spidey07]

well duh...of course SACD sounds better than vinyl.



heck I've got DVD-audio in my car and love it, SACD/vinyl on the two channel system and DVD-a/SACD on the multichannel system. Love them all.

but the CD gets smacked down compared to the three.

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: Ornery
You've GOT to be kidding! We've got folks on this very board, who can hear the difference between 12-ga. wire, and 14-ga., as well as Monster Cable VS generic. This is no challenge at all for them!

Hey, I've got plenty of Monster cables, only because I got them at great discount, and Monster does deliver the signal better. This has been proven with high bandwidth video signals (side by side comparisons, between regular analog, and Monster analog; regular DVI vs Monster DVI)

And this thread is not about analog vs digital, it's about edumacating yourselves, since there was so much misinformation flying around.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Ornery
You've GOT to be kidding! We've got folks on this very board, who can hear the difference between 12-ga. wire, and 14-ga., as well as Monster Cable VS generic. This is no challenge at all for them!

Do you still have your anti monster cable post, or was it too outdated at this point?

I agree with the guys that mentioned that even cheap toslink cable will work as well as any. Might as well throw this in here, since everybody is sharing wire and cable info. I stumbled onto this Wonderful Wire Hype Post by a guy in the Audio Review message boards that goes by the handle "A".

• "Before you buy any expensive wires..."
  
  Before you buy any expensive wires, you might want to look at the following:
  
  Some double blind tests.
  
  What's the Placebo Effect?
  (Why Double Blind Testing is needed. Someone may easily believe they hear a difference when they do not actually hear a difference; the more impressive LOOKING thing usually is believed to "sound" better. Consequently, listening when you can see what you are hearing is unreliable for testing any controversial matter. Double blind tests can indicate whether it is the appearance of the thing {rather than the actual sound it makes} that influences people to believe that it sounds better. Many people hate double blind tests, because they do not always give the person the result they wanted; i.e., they often believe they hear things that they cannot. It is an unfortunate characteristic of humans that they tend to blame the test rather than to consider that they may have been mistaken about what they can actually hear. There have even been some fun tests where nothing is changed, but people swear they hear a difference!)
  
  Speaker Wire - A History
  
  ************
  (This one has a chart recommending wire gauges. Don't use wire that is too small. Because 'generic' 12 gauge wire is so inexpensive, I recommend not using anything smaller, unless you absolutely have to {as, for example, you are running it through a conduit that is not large enough}. Also, the entire article is interesting and informative.)
  ************
  
  Cable Nonsense
  
  http://www.audioreview.com/reviews/Cable/product_3854.shtml
  
  Reviews of Radio Shack RS Gold Interconnects.
  (For this one, you should scroll down to the review by Christopher Fucik. Read a review? Read it, and you should understand why. His review is long, but well worth reading. His measurements are enlightening.)
  
  http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html
  (A wire manufacturer unwilling to have his claims actually tested. Why is it that, after so many years, there has been NO wire manufacturer who has actually bothered to prove their claims about their wires being audibly superior to ordinary ones? No, it is NOT a lack of money; see the next link.)
  
  http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214066a.htm
  "A $100 stereo cable is something like undercoating on a car. To move the product, you have to motivate the salesman."
  (There is plenty of profit for wire salespeople. Why don't they spend some of that money to prove their claims? Wouldn't that really help sell the wires? And no, it is not that expensive or difficult; many manufacturers already use double blind procedures for testing various equipment, including speakers. The only explanation that I have found plausible is that their claims are false, but you should think carefully about the matter for yourself.)
  
  http://www.magnani.net/~al/DigitalWireLabTest.html
  "A delicate digital AC-3 signal originating from my $4500.00 Theta DaViD transport THROUGH A WIRE HANGER...the Dolby Decoder reported ZERO errors..."
  
  Science and Subjectivism in Audio.
  (A very good read.)
  
  Audio Distortions
  
  (Another very good read. This one illustrates 'technobabble'. If you don't understand something, it could be something important, or merely marketing hype with a few facts thrown in to sound impressive.)
  
  
  What's All This Hoax Stuff, Anyhow?
  
  What's All This Splicing Stuff, Anyhow?
  
  I Am As Mad As Hell - Find Out Why
  
  Seven Shiny Pennies
  (I am not the only one annoyed by BS marketing of audio products. Do you want to buy some magic beans with your hard earned money, or do you want to face facts?)
  
  
  For the following two, you must subscribe (it's free) to The New York Times on the Web.
  http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/12/circuits/articles/23down.html
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/12/circuits/articles/23wire.html
  
  
  Wires are one of the big controversies at this site. I think expensive wires are a waste of money, but you should THINK about the issue carefully for yourself. If expensive wires are better, why is there no proof that they are?
  
  "Proof," of course, is more than just some people making some claims; many have claimed to be abducted by aliens, but that does not prove that they have been. "Proof" requires scientific evidence. In this case, double blind listening tests would probably be the most satisfactory type of test, which should be repeated by others, as one person could cheat (or make a mistake) in one test, and that would not be proof of anything. (Remember the claims of "cold fusion?" When the tests were repeated, it was shown that the original testers had made a mistake.)
  
  Do NOT confuse something being measurable with something being audible. Many things can be measured but not heard. 100 kHz can be measured, but is not audible to humans. (No, I am NOT saying that no measurements are relevant to what can be heard; I am saying that not all measurements are relevant.)
  
  When someone says, "Trust your ears" or "Hearing is believing", consider this: Do you thoughtlessly trust your eyes when you see a stick inserted halfway in water? If you don't trust your eyes without thinking, why would you trust your ears without thinking? I recommend not mindlessly trusting your sensory organs, but engaging your brain before you make a decision.
  
  Curiously, sometimes people will say "trust your ears", and then they themselves will make judgments without listening for themselves, like saying that an interesting article (about a cheap RCA CD player being audibly indistinguishable from players costing over $1000 in a blind test) must be wrong, without ever listening to the cheap CD player. (See: The $ensible $ound, # 74, Apr/May 1999, pg. 28-30.) People often buy expensive things not for their function, but for their status, but they may convince themselves that it is function. No one, for example, buys a watch that costs thousands of dollars just because they want to know what time it is, though some may claim that that is their motive. Do you think the same idea could apply to the world of audio equipment and accessories? The status of a thing is very important to many people, and often clouds their judgment. For more on the human psychology of this, you can start by reading Hans Christian Anderson's "The Emperor's New Clothes". There is a reason why certain children's stories have such an enduring appeal; it is because they illustrate real traits of humans. See: http://deoxy.org/emperors.htm Or: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7008/index31.html Or: http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type1620.html
  
  This brings to mind another lie, that everyone knows is a lie, yet, strangely, some people believe it is true: "You get what you pay for." Everyone knows this is false; if it were true:
  • 
    1) you would not need to think (or listen) at all in order to know what to buy; always, the more expensive the item, the better;
    2) buying things on sale would not help, as the same product would be worse than it is at full price;
    3) looking for a bargain would always be foolish, because the lower priced item would always be worse;
    4) product brands would be totally irrelevant; always, the more expensive the item, the better;
    5) looking for advice on what to buy would be foolish once one knew, the more expensive the item, the better;
    6) those "white van" speakers would be worth every penny one paid for them (there could not possibly be any kind of con, because "You get what you pay for.");
    7) building something yourself to save money would be a waste of time, because it would necessarily be inferior to anything more expensive.
  Need I go on? The simple fact is that price does not correspond to quality; in audio equipment or in anything else. Of course, price is tied in with the prestige of an item, because anything that is very expensive cannot be owned by most people, so it will virtually always, with some people, seem like something wonderful if only it is very expensive. This is true regardless of whether it is audio equipment or anything else.
  
  Beware of 'technobabble'. There is nothing like including a few impressive facts and half-truths while omitting important and relevant facts when someone is trying to convince you of something that is false. This may occur in an advertisement, or in someone's post here; there should be one posted in reply to this any minute now, but I cannot promise that someone will comply and give us a good example (there might, instead -- or in addition to -- be insults like those contained in "The Emperor's New Clothes" against those who cannot see the new clothes). See:http://www.sundial.net/~rogerr/truth.htm
  
  I do NOT suggest that anyone blindly follow anything I or anyone else has said, either on this forum or on any link; I strongly recommend that people think carefully about the issues for themselves AFTER considering different points of view. I leave it to the true believers to post links for the other side, as any such links from me would be regarded by many as a misrepresentation of the other side (as if there were only two sides to this issue).
  
  Indeed, I disagree with some of what is said in the links I have provided. To give you one example, I believe that Christopher Fucik is mistaken in his belief that "...the cables included with your components are crap, and an investment in interconnects that are sturdy, corrosion-resistant, and well-sheilded is wise." I have never had any problems with the included wires breaking or the ends becoming damaged; they are sturdy enough if you do not yank them from the middle -- if you abuse things, then you should expect that you may damage things from time to time. And I do not put my audio system in a very corrosive environment (which would generally be a very bad idea), so corrosion is not a major issue in my case. I have also not had shielding problems that were not fixed by simply moving wires away from other wires. Now, if your conditions differ from mine in relevant ways (e.g., you have your equipment in a corrosive environment), or if you treat your wires differently from the way I treat mine (e.g., if you abuse them), then following his advice on this point is what I would recommend (well, actually, I would recommend getting your equipment out of the corrosive environment and stop abusing your wires, but if you are going to do so anyway, then buying sturdy wires will be a good idea). In any case, his other comments, where he gives reasons for his views, are extremely useful. Be selective in what you believe, and decide these things for yourself.
  
  Regarding the connecting wires that are often included with components: Obviously, the manufacturer regards those wires as good enough for connecting their components, and if you cannot trust them with selecting wires, then you should not buy their components in the first place. Wires are far simpler than audio components, and if they are not capable of selecting satisfactory wire, then they are far too incompetent to design and manufacture components. Besides, take a look at the wires used inside electronic components and speakers; they are usually not much different from supplied connecting wires. If special wires were really needed, then they would need to be inside the components and would also generally be supplied by manufacturers. Given the cost of many components, they would include exotic wire if it really improved the sound, instead of the interconnects that they do include. If the included interconnects made their components sound bad, then many of the components would be returned, wouldn't they?
  
  
  If you decide to listen to wires for yourself, listen "blind" (i.e., have someone else hook up the wires and not tell you what you are hearing; decide if it is good or not, then look and make sure they did not hook up the "inferior" wires too loosely). People who object to listening blind do not want to get the "wrong" answer; they are like the people in The Emperor's New Clothes. Many judge sound quality by price and prestige rather than by sound. This is one reason why many hate double blind tests, because such tests force one to listen with one's ears rather than with one's prejudices. Judge by the sound, not by seeing what it is first.
  
  
  Depending on the type of connectors on your amplifier (receiver) and speakers, you might choose to have different connectors at each end of your speaker wire. What will work best in your case will depend on the types of connectors on your equipment, and how often you plan on disconnecting and reconnecting things. By the way, I suggest that, if you have a soldering iron and are capable of using it, you can 'tin' (i.e., melt solder into) the ends of braided wires instead of buying "pin" type connectors. Retighten your connections after a few days (if you have the type of connections that can be retightened). If you prefer a different type of connector, by all means, buy it.
  
  
  One last thing: If someone claims something that most electrical engineers regard as impossible, and makes the claims here rather than in a scientific forum -- is the person a misunderstood genius or just another quack? (History tells us which of these is more likely....) By all means, read what they say and decide for yourself. YOU decide whether their remarks are 'technobabble' or the truth. But whatever you do, THINK FOR YOURSELF.
  
  
  *****************************
  
  "Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that I've taken the approach of shopping with my brain and not so much with my ears. I have yet to be disappointed." -- Christopher Fucik, from: http://www.audioreview.com/reviews/Cable/product_3854.shtml
  
  *****************************
  
  "Believe only half of what you see and nothing you hear." -- an English proverb
  
  *****************************
  
  My apologies for the length of my explanations, but, unfortunately, I have found that some people who profess to be experts on the subject matter have had difficulty understanding the relevance of the various links. Frankly, I expect that in the future, I will need to make the explanations even longer for these people. On the other hand, there will probably be some who will not like what I post no matter how clear or reasonable the explanations may be.
  
  It's your money; spend it how you like.

Awesome stuff, eh?

Edt: Here's a lot of the links that are broken above...

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: Ornery
You've GOT to be kidding! We've got folks on this very board, who can hear the difference between 12-ga. wire, and 14-ga., as well as Monster Cable VS generic. This is no challenge at all for them!

Hey, I've got plenty of Monster cables, only because I got them at great discount, and Monster does deliver the signal better. This has been proven with high bandwidth video signals (side by side comparisons, between regular analog, and Monster analog; regular DVI vs Monster DVI)

And this thread is not about analog vs digital, it's about edumacating yourselves, since there was so much misinformation flying around.

Good info to know, I'm putting together a mid range system for the appartment in a few months, got a bit more googling to do before I can narrow the selection heh

 

[Goosemaster]

well, SOORRRY.
[nonsens]
[quasi lavatory rant while aquainting Mrs. Jack Daniels with Mr. 151] I just cut and pasted the 100kHz bit, but if you look at posts in the past...WAY WAY in the past, people including myself do understand that SACD is better than DVD-A. However, it is like that damn betamax vs VHS....what the public wants the public gets. What if they are bumbling idiots? Why, they'll just take the special: two for $27.99 instead of one for $12.99. [/quasi lavatory rant while aquainting Mrs. Jack Daniels with Mr. 151] [/nonsense]


Basically, most people understand that SACD is better if they look at the facts....okay, maybe like 3 people, but still, they are 3 INDIVIDUALS who "get it" . DVD-audio, just like a myriad of mirror images in other industries, is winning due to price(at least at DVD-A and SACD's inception) and more importantly, advertising. Most everyone who has a DVD palyer can now play a bunch of DVD-A discs if those discs have a DD or DTS track...err layer..whatever they are called. In addittion, DVD-A offers a host of multimedia features such as the aformentioned surround sound by definition and also video, pictures and more.

Does this mean that DVD-A is better for AUDIO[specifically] ? No. In fact, it is quite inferior to SACD, but then again, how many people have stereo's that can produce the dramatic difference in presentation, and more importantly, how many know about it?

Bascically, equate DVDA to windows 98 and SACD to debian woody.

Woody is clearly technically superior, but why do people still use 98? Practicallity.


As for DVDA/SACD vs analog LPs, it is NOT a question of which is better. It has just been fact for many years that digital replication of analog has been unequal. Storage mediums have only just reached the point where you can buya DVD video disc with up to 18GB of information for $20 or even as low as $9 in the bargain bin. With DVDA and SACD, you now have the massive bandwidth capacity of storage mediums and their benefits applied strictly to audio reproduction. Now, the imperfections in a studio or live performance release are ON THE DISC. These previously omitted details are now a reality on digital media, and hopefully it will improve.

Arguing Vinyl vs digital mediums is stupid.

RIGHT now. RIGHT FVKING now, you can have FANTASTIC, BOMBASTIC, AND UNBRIDLED SOUND FROM BOTH THAT IS UNPARALLED to private listening experiences in the past. With perfected manufacturing techniques Vacum tubes are breathtakingly fantastic. With numerous ditigital advancements, digital is catching up if not almost there.



Go put in your damn Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the moon" LP, CD,DVDA, or SACD, go to track 5, light up, and...

STFU...you are killing my buzz and I can't hear my sh!tty 44.1khz 900Kbps recording over the racket.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: Ornery
You've GOT to be kidding! We've got folks on this very board, who can hear the difference between 12-ga. wire, and 14-ga., as well as Monster Cable VS generic. This is no challenge at all for them!

Hey, I've got plenty of Monster cables, only because I got them at great discount, and Monster does deliver the signal better. This has been proven with high bandwidth video signals (side by side comparisons, between regular analog, and Monster analog; regular DVI vs Monster DVI)

And this thread is not about analog vs digital, it's about edumacating yourselves, since there was so much misinformation flying around.

What's "proven", and what's "regular"?

 

[Howard]

http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: Ornery
You've GOT to be kidding! We've got folks on this very board, who can hear the difference between 12-ga. wire, and 14-ga., as well as Monster Cable VS generic. This is no challenge at all for them!

Hey, I've got plenty of Monster cables, only because I got them at great discount, and Monster does deliver the signal better. This has been proven with high bandwidth video signals (side by side comparisons, between regular analog, and Monster analog; regular DVI vs Monster DVI)

And this thread is not about analog vs digital, it's about edumacating yourselves, since there was so much misinformation flying around.

What's "proven", and what's "regular"?

Proven as in hooking up two identical DVD players, with two diffent input methods, split screens (with Mitsu HDTV). While not outputting progressive scan signal and compared the regular "top of the line" factory provided RGB cables vs Monster 3 series component cables, and be able to VISUALLY see a distinct diffence. While hooking up HDTV signals with DVI cables, of the same length and the generic brand can't even carry the signal for the length advertise, where as Monster's came in strong. Now, you can say I'm BSing or I'm not doing the "blind test" right by using my eyes and looked at the pictures, may be what I should have done was close my eyes.

I'm not trying to sell you Monster cables, but, the money you pay for things sometime worth it, up to a certain point. Beyond that point, it's all relatively BS.

And if you believe that the factory actually want to give you the best, then I'm sorry, because they'll give you the cheapest thing they can find that can just barely do the job. This is also true with most products out there, unless you PAY for it, either through accessories or included in the price.