Newsgroup: it.hobby.hi-fi
Titolo: SACD e le "ultrasoniche"

http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/2010/01/sacd-and-ultrasonics.html
**
SACD and ultrasonics 
Maybe one needs a full frequency system to hear the gigantic
improvement SACD brings to digital sound?
My Infinity Kappa 7 Reference speakers are flat to within 3dB to
45kHz, my tubed preamp to 80kHz and my power amp to 100kHz, so I am
reproducing SACDs ultrasonics up to 45kHz which makes me wonder how
SACDs sound on frequency response limited systems which cannot
reproduce SACDs ultrasonics?
Any high-end manufacturer making SACD players, and there are now a lot
of them, the SACD playback is always superior to the CD playback. To
suggest CD playback can even come close to SACD playback is ludicrous.
My journey to high resolution digital is chronicled here:  High
resolution comes first, build quality second.
I believed at the time that SACD would wholesale replace CD as I was
sure everyone could hear the difference and want SACDs only going
forward. I never believed there would be a strong backlash of CD
supporters who grabbed a stronghold on Sony/Philips outdated and low
resolution CD format based on the propaganda of a few high end
companies who refused to pay the licensing fee to manufacture
state-of-the-art SACD players.
As I have said before if there is a CD player that a listener thinks
sounds good, just get the manufacturer to add SACD compatibility to it
and be totally blown away! As on every single player ever manufactured
SACD always, without a single exception, sounds better than low
resolution CD.
My stereo system has a high frequency limit of 45kHz, the limiting
factor being my EMIT tweeters that are down 3 dB at 45kHz. However
45kHz is high enough to reproduce the ultrasonics on LPs, 24 bit 96kHz
DVDs and 24 bit 96kHz DVD-Audio. The frequency response of SACDs can
go out to 100kHz although only a few microphones go out the far. Also
DVD-Audio at 24/192 can go out to 88kHz. Someday perhaps I shall try
one of those new super tweeters that goes to 100kHz. Then my limiting
factor would be my tubed preamp that goes out to 80kHz.
To really appreciate any high resolution music on any format: SACD,
DVD-Audio, or LP look for acoustic music recorded in a real live
acoustic space such as a concert hall, jazz club, or church.   Look
for pure DSD or analog masters preferably tubed analog 2-track 15/30
IPS masters especially from "audiophile" companies. In my opinion the
best SACDs are the Classical recordings from Telarc.
And not only are CDs low resolution but so are SACDs from low
resolution PCM masters. No new recording should be made with anything
less than 88.2kHz PCM, DSD or 2 Track 15 IPS analog. Anything less is
a crime to the music.
The original Redbook CD was a high crime against music lovers and Sony
should have waited at least a year for 50kHz PCM or five years for
100kHz PCM card as recommended by Soundstream in 1980 when the specs
for the upcoming laser read analog format were being worked out. CD
didn't have to be low resolution and I blame Sony for rushing it to
market too soon. After decades I have finally gotten 44.1kHz CD
playback that is not painful and to think this could have all been
avoided if Sony had only waited a year for consumer lever 50kHz
sampling.
In my experience with 24 bit 48kHz on both SACD and DVD-Audio the
resulting sound quality is not much better than Redbook CD and nowhere
near the level of the Soundstream 16 bit 50kHz on both SACD and LP.
This is why I consider 50kHz PCM the absolute minimum resolution for
realistic sound quality; of course 192kHz PCM, DSD, and analog are
even better.
**
--
Aliis alia placent
http://i41.tinypic.com/314p93p.gif
http://i49.tinypic.com/4idg1y.jpg

Da ignorante in materia mi domando se l'autore dell'articolo in inglese ha 
ben compreso come funziona il meccanismo del campionamento digitale dei 
suoni.
E' una domanda. 

reproduce SACDs ultrasonics?
Ma questa � metafisica e metafisiologia insieme.
Ciao.
Gian Carlo

Ciao.
Ciao.


 **
?????
Ma chi ï¿œ questo ? Batman. 
Puï¿œ avere un sistema che arriva fino ai 45 Khz ( che ï¿œ la banda passamte
dei suoi diffusori ) ma: 
1) il suo lettore SACD riesce a riprodurre correttamente tutta la banda
ultrasonica ? In un lettore non c'ï¿œ solo un convertitore ( che sulla carta
puï¿œ avere 100 Khz di banda ) ma anche uno stadio di amplificazione che
potrebbe non avere altrettanta banda. 
2) Ammesso che il lettore abbia sufficiente banda passante, fino a che
frequenza arrivano le sue orecchie ? 
E' evidente che la banda passante del CD sia limitata al massimo teorico
di 22,5 Khz (salvo che Nyquist abbia spudoratamente mentito per anni ;-))
e che un DVD-A o un SACD siano superiori. 
Perï¿œ non concordo sulle crociate verso costruttori / editori che non
offrono molta offerta per il SACD. Anche perchï¿œ, come si ï¿œ piï¿œ volte
discusso, non esistono solo gli appassionati di jazz e classica ma il
mercato lo fanno gli utenti di musica che difficilmente godrebbe di
sistemi hi-res come SACD e DVD-A. 
 
-- 
Ricky
Scrivimi saltando i cancelletti ( * = . )
mb#ox#*#ric#ky@yah#oo*it
oppure usa il seguente link
http://www.mynewsgate.net/mp.php?u=19024

 dei suoi diffusori )
Perdonami se sono pedante, ormai quella delle unità di misura mi è diventata 
una malattia :)
hertz si abbrevia Hz con H maiuscola e z minuscola e kilo è con la k 
minuscola.
Quindi:
kHz	kilohertz
kW	kilowatt
km	kilometro
kg	kilogrammo
kK	kilokelvin :)
Ciao,
-- 
  Daniele Orlandi						つづく

Perch� citare il messaggio di un tizio che evidentemente non capisce
una cippa? Un tizio insomma che si affida a numeretti che neanche sa
mettere in fila. Ma un p� di logica? Ma questi un microfono l'hanno
mai visto? Hanno una vaga idea di come registra un professionista,
seppur della Telarc??? Ma la scemenza major � sul vinile e la totale
ignoranza della storia...
mm
