hi-def audio vs. CD

[dZeus]

I'm sure this'll create some response from the regulars:

Double blind test of SACD and DVD-A vs. playback through a 16 bit / 44KHz loop

Conclusion:
no difference could be detected with the loop installed, except at unpleasantly high volume levels;

the loop didn't even use noise shaping (which should further improve the noise floor)

[az]

Doesn't surprise me.

[Mehen]

I think the only readily apparent bonus from either is that you can have 5.1 on DVD-A (not sure about SACD).

The problem I have with a lot of these tests is that the people listening aren't experienced with the music and the system they are listening to. If you do a double blind test on someone with their own home stereo and with a record they are very familiar with I can assure you the subtle differences will be more apparent. Unfortunately when tests like the one linked above are done, the results aren't really reflective of the average hifi listener - who has been tweaking their stereo for years and know every little detail, strength, and flaw.

So their results don't suprise me either - but I really don't think you can use those results and generalize them to say "there is no audible difference" between them.

I'm not saying every hifi gimmick actually does something (speaker cable risers? - cmooon) but some do. I've been able to tell the difference between digital cables (between transport and DAC) on my Dad's stereo - and I was honestly not expecting to. But would someone who had never listened to the record we tested with or his stereo before be able to tell? - not likely.

The real question is - is there a big enough difference to make it worth while to spend the extra $? In MY opinion, usually not. But I am far from rich.

edit: I should note - I have never actually tried testing between DVD-A/SACD and regular CD, but I know there are some on the forum that will automatically bash almost anything "hifi" - so call my post a pre-emptive defence to hifi, even if we are just talking about CDs, even though I cannot really defend CDs/DVD/SACD.

[az]

Unfortunately when tests like the one linked above are done, the results aren't really reflective of the average hifi listener - who has been tweaking their stereo for years and know every little detail, strength, and flaw.

The "average hifi listener" most assuredly does not tweak his stereo any little bit (apart from pushing the loudness button).

Also, I think if differences in sound quality are not noticeable under ordinary circumstances, they're negligible. This is the real "problem" with the CD: It's too good. It was astoundingly better than vinyl or cassette or even reel to reel stereo records, and there simply isn't enough headroom in our listening for any medium to provide such a leap in quality ever again.

[Mehen]

lol - yeah definitely don't buy those. Unless you are Bill Gates, any TINY difference they may make aren't worth it.

The "average hifi listener" most assuredly does not tweak his stereo any little bit (apart from pushing the loudness button).

Also, I think if differences in sound quality are not noticeable under ordinary circumstances, they're negligible. This is the real "problem" with the CD: It's too good. It was astoundingly better than vinyl or cassette or even reel to reel stereo records, and there simply isn't enough headroom in our listening for any medium to provide such a leap in quality ever again.

There are those that still say Vinyl sounds better - particularily re-releases that have been remasted. They say that typically a CD will sound better than an old record, but that it is mostly due to remastering. If you remaster and re-release a record though...

I think our definitions of "hifi listener" greatly differs.

[Marshmallowman]

never really had the chance to listen and check this myself.

But CD are at a fixed bit rate and the quality never varies as you replay the CD.

A well mastered vinyl disk on the other hand is purely in the ananlogue domain so the resolution and accuracy can actually exceed that of a CD since it does not actually have discrete reproduction that is inherent in a CD.

So you can get a pure analogue(sound) to analogue(groove) and visa versa, with only the intervening (analogue) electronics to add distortion, whereas CDs always have at the least distortion introduced due to the digitizeing of sound.

Then of course you play the record once and the disk is slightly altered by the stylus etc, so the more you play the disk the more distortion you add(not to mention dust)

Well that's the theory and in a way I believe to be true, but given the given the 100% reproducabilty of CD's and some of the post processing/filtering psycho acustic adjustment possible in modern digital sounds systems I would take the CD every time, but in theory.....

[Mehen]

Or you can use a laser-based record player - but that sort of defeats the purpose. And it defeats your wallet

[Technoid]

If you do a double blind test on someone with their own home stereo and with a record they are very familiar with I can assure you the subtle differences will be more apparent.

And then it wouldent be a double blind test

Listening to a audiophilac explaining why his stereo sounds best is like listening to a religous fanatic explaining why his religion is best.

[Jammrock]

And then it wouldent be a double blind test

Listening to a audiophilac explaining why his stereo sounds best is like listening to a religous fanatic explaining why his religion is best.

That's because we know our God and our stereo are better than yours



Jammrock

[Taz]

It was astoundingly better than vinyl...

When the first CD players came out they sounded worse Even now I wouldn't say CD's were vastly superior to records.