|
Video Asylum TVs, VCRs, DVD players, Home Theater systems and more. |
|
|
|
Video Asylum TVs, VCRs, DVD players, Home Theater systems and more. |
|
In Reply to: Ahh ...thanks :-). Couple more questions.. ;-) posted by DJ Mo on October 24, 1999 at 23:42:41:
ok, i think it goes something like this:for each sample, you have to record amplitude
amplitude ranges from positive X to negative X.
the number of levels of volume is determined by a 16 bit number, something between -(2^15) and 2^15
44khz is the number of those 16 bit numbers per second.cd's can go up to 20khZ (freq) and maybe higher. the 24bit/96khZ means that you have a greater accuracy in saying exactly how loud any particular sound is. (kind of like 65k colors vs. 256) the 96khZ means that you have more of those measurements per second. (roughly double what regular cd's do)
how that translates into perceived improvement in sound quality is not that simple, though. a poorly recorded 96/24 dvd will still sound bad. people have reported that 96/24 is definitely better than cd, but it still has some of that "electronic haze" associated with it. supposedly sacd is good enough to finally surpass vinyl for "musicality" whilst retaining an extremely low noise floor.
i don't know why dvd audio or sacd will be the next standard instead of 96/24 audio dvds. maybe 96/24 is not enough of an improvement so people want to just leapfrog that step? it will probably benefit consumers in the long run. i'm not entirely sure, but i think at the present, sacd's are available as hybrids, where they have two layers. one can be read at the standard 16/44 by regular cd players, and the other layer takes advantage of the sacd technology and can only be played by an sacd player. dvd-audio does not have provisions for a similar "backward compatability." with such an enormous installed base of cd players, things seem to favor sacd. i think sacd is supposed to sound better too. though it is only two-channel at the moment. moreover, i am doubtful as to the benefits of multi-channel music. if i were making the decision, i would make sacd the standard, keep it at 2 channel, and if people want more ambience, use "5-channel stereo" or "circle surround" on your receiver/pre-amp.
the pioneer plays cd's fine. my cd player is a non-es sony jukebox (cdp-cx220), so it's not that great. i am using them both as transports (optical from sony, coax from pioneer) to my denon receiver (decent quality 96/24 DACs). i couldn't tell a difference switching between the two with the same cd playing in each, but that's not surprising. for one, i'm only comparing their performance as transports, not as whole cd players. i bet there's a greater difference between the two if i was using their built-in DACs instead of just as transports. also, the receiver and speakers (denon avr-1700, infinity rs-5) might not be capable of demonstrating the differences. that being said, it sounds great to my ears, and that's what counts, right?
richard h
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- here goes... - RichardH 11:14:16 10/25/99 (3)
- Times are getting interesting. - BobH 16:35:46 11/04/99 (0)
- Re: here goes... - Jim Saxon 06:41:56 10/26/99 (0)
- Thanks thanks thanks :-) (nt) - DJ Mo 14:44:58 10/25/99 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
