[SurroundSound] Re: Bit Rate Resolution, Sampling Rate, Upsample, and Lossless vs. Lossy ....

The problem I have - is that to my ears AC3 and DTS sounds like MP3
(AC3 being the worst version). To my ears it doesn't sound "right" and
this makes it a poor experience. And my analogy is thus - I cannot
understand that if we make a photocopy of an old master (painting) it
becomes a rendition of it. It looks like it, in other words.

People accept it as that and the resolution of the copy is something
that we can all measure. Therefore you can have a high resolution copy
and a low resolution copy and most people can see the difference. It
is still a copy and aknowledged as a copy but people gete a sense of
pleasure from a good quality copy as it is better to see and we don't
need to be experts to tell the difference .

The issue to me is that what is obvious to some of us, that the poor
quality copy is just that, is denied in some audio circles and that
plain common sense cannot prevail. Hey if you like AC3, please enjoy
it but I cannot and telling me I can is downright patronising.

Onto the music - I agree with the Genesis SACD could've been a lot
better and I'm beginning to think that with SACD in general there is
not much of a difference from straight RBCD.

With SACD it always appears to sound better with muli-channel versions
though. I think this is due to the efffect that more channels with
correctly mixed surround, thins the mix somewhat (i.e. less multi
track density per channel) and gives an improved soundstage. Meaning
that invariably good surround (to my ears note) should sound better
than plain stereo.


On Jun 20, 1:39 pm, Britre <britre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually the Genesis reissues are a perfect example of what we are sort of
> refering to. If you are familiar with the original vinyl LP's they sound
> quite good despite the format issues. Duke had issies of noise and
> compressoin as well as the noisy vinyl  on almost every copy of Abacab. I
> bought at least 1o copies of each with only one sounding acceptable. I also
> have the SACD copies and they are LOUD and missing much detail. But... Yea
> to the untrained ear they sound excellent compared to.....
>
> My last statement above is I thing part of Steven's point. If you have
> nothing to use as a base how can you state an AC3 is better or worse than
> DTS or RBCD or what have you? And then why make a bold statement such as
> you will never buy anything unless it is MLP high rez as all other formats
> are inferior?
>
> Another point not made. Part of this hobby was to get to the best sound you
> could get from recordings made on software and with technology availiable.
> Unfortunately not only have we gone backwards in that manner, we also seem
> to as a society and hobbiest given up on that idea claiming most current
> technology is the best there will be when in effect to most past technology
> seems to sound better to most I.E. vinyl and surround/Quadraphonic sound.
>
> This is however the most interesting discussion we seem to have here on
> this site so we should for sure continue it without getting personal of
> course :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 18, 2012 1:33:49 PM UTC-5, Grayhawk wrote:
>
> > On Monday, June 18, 2012 8:26:18 AM UTC-4, Britre wrote:
>
> >> I think it was mentioned before, this thread was started in regard to
> >> people who claimed they would only purchase so called "Hi Rez" material and
> >> DTS, AC3, Ect... was taboo. Steven claimed most subjects could not tell the
> >> difference, Looks created a test where a certain percentage could on their
> >> own gear identify the files correctly, Steven admitted there is an audiable
> >> difference but the test is not scientific enough to have realistic
> >> conclusions. bottom line is all agreed what sounds good to the individual
> >> is good. If some choose to avoid certian resolution it is a free world. I
> >> personally have given up on most modern releases as to me they siply are
> >> dissapointing regardless of format and resolution.
>
> > I must have missed the part where all agreed that all that matters is what
> > sounds good to the individual.  Can't argue with that.  Just hard for me to
> > imagine passing on e.g. the Genesis surround releases simply because they
> > are DTS (bad example, since you could always search out the sacd, but my
> > point being that these sound so good to me, I find it hard to believe
> > others who like Genesis would pass on them if the sacd's weren't
> > available).  But then there are many things I find hard to believe that are
> > true.  I find it hard to believe that some would prefer to listen to the
> > stereo layer of an sacd over the mch layer, even when they have a mch
> > system.  Perhaps if I had a high-end system, it might make more sense, but
> > to me mch (assuming a good mix) blows stereo out of the water.  Different
> > strokes.
>
> > When you say modern releases, do you mean new music releases or all modern
> > releases?  That is, do you find even modern releases of back
> > catalog disappointing (e.g. Genesis, Aqualung, KC, Talking Heads, etc)?  I
> > agree that the loudness wars have ruined many new releases- and some
> > remasters- but there are a lot of modern re-releases that sound awesome to
> > me.
>
> On Monday, June 18, 2012 1:33:49 PM UTC-5, Grayhawk wrote:
>
> > On Monday, June 18, 2012 8:26:18 AM UTC-4, Britre wrote:
>
> >> I think it was mentioned before, this thread was started in regard to
> >> people who claimed they would only purchase so called "Hi Rez" material and
> >> DTS, AC3, Ect... was taboo. Steven claimed most subjects could not tell the
> >> difference, Looks created a test where a certain percentage could on their
> >> own gear identify the files correctly, Steven admitted there is an audiable
> >> difference but the test is not scientific enough to have realistic
> >> conclusions. bottom line is all agreed what sounds good to the individual
> >> is good. If some choose to avoid certian resolution it is a free world. I
> >> personally have given up on most modern releases as to me they siply are
> >> dissapointing regardless of format and resolution.
>
> > I must have missed the part where all agreed that all that matters is what
> > sounds good to the individual.  Can't argue with that.  Just hard for me to
> > imagine passing on e.g. the Genesis surround releases simply because they
> > are DTS (bad example, since you could always search out the sacd, but my
> > point being that these sound so good to me, I find it hard to believe
> > others who like Genesis would pass on them if the sacd's weren't
> > available).  But then there are many things I find hard to believe that are
> > true.  I find it hard to believe that some would prefer to listen to the
> > stereo layer of an sacd over the mch layer, even when they have a mch
> > system.  Perhaps if I had a high-end system, it might make more sense, but
> > to me mch (assuming a good mix) blows stereo out of the water.  Different
> > strokes.
>
> > When you say modern releases, do you mean new music releases or all modern
> > releases?  That is, do you find even modern releases of back
> > catalog disappointing (e.g. Genesis, Aqualung, KC, Talking Heads, etc)?  I
> > agree that the loudness wars have ruined many new releases- and some
> > remasters- but there are a lot of modern re-releases that sound awesome to
> > me.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound