兩聲道
CD機 | MD機 | SACD機 | DAC | CAS | 合拼擴音機 | 前級擴音機 | 後級擴音機 | 接線 | 喇叭線 | 揚聲器 | 耳機 | 耳機擴音機 | LP產品 | 膽機產品 | 開卷式錄音機 | 音響配件 | DIY音響 | 電源 | 家庭影院
電視機 | 投影機 | 錄影機 | DVD影碟機 | Blu-ray影碟機 | 多媒體播放器 | 機頂盒 | 多聲道擴音機 | 多聲道揚聲器 | 多聲道影音組合 | Mini音響組合 | 重低音揚聲器 | 輔助設備 | 同好會
同好會 | Accuphase | B&W | Burmester | Denon | Jadis | KEF | KRELL | Luxman | Marantz | Nuforce | OPPO | Pioneer | TEAC | WEISS | News
News | Blog | 其他
其他 | 所有 |
| 影音天地主旨 ﹝請按主旨作出回應﹞ 上頁 下頁 首頁 尾頁 | 寄件者 | 傳送日期
|
| [#21] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback that's is not about the quality of the engineer... simple fact finding..and it is quite truth..for some people...CD is no worst than HRP such report does help some manufacture to understand how they locate their R&D resources for some good but not hi end application compared to many different natural parameters..Sound, light.. radiation etc ... ,we do not understand too much about sound, and we know better for imaging ,and a lot of resources to understand radiation hearing is something can be trained.. 最後修改時間: 2013-05-31 14:45:29 |
hahayanyan 正式會員202.xxx.xxx.2 |
2013-05-31 14:43 | |
|
|
|||
| [#22] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback haha hing, this test does not provide quality comparison, it just let you listen A sound and B sound, and the third sound X is picked up from either A or B. Listener is required to tell it's A or B. The condition for the test is listener need to confirm that there is a clear difference between A and B, then it goes on for X. |
hkborn 正式會員 112.xxx.xxx.16 |
2013-05-31 14:51 |
| [#23] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback ABX TEST一樣可以有好多盲點！有心人絕對可以操控結果！ 曾經睇過雷明的文章話Linn 的 老細 都玩AB Blind test出左事！題目係LP vs CD！當年Linn 堅持LP係好聲過CD....... 今時今日！大家都會明白規格其實好死！一隻軟件好唔好聲 用SACD規格定CD規格影響好細！簡單講！CD低規格一樣大把 靚聲碟！SACD規格高！一樣大把唔靚聲的產品！加上Sony的 運已經行完！SACD係大好形勢下仍不能獨當一面！ 證明市場上仍然係用家為主！而唔係"科學家"..... |
thomasl 正式會員 118.xxx.xxx.194 |
2013-05-31 16:30 |
| [#24] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback my point of view again... hiend is talking about marginal different high quality is more about C/P ratio depending on ...u are talk about high quality or hi end.. same control .., may be just a swap of a head phone ... etc..the result may be completely different however their effort has made a statement which worth to keep in mind.. ..for certain set up. ..a large sum of people..CD is not much worst.. , this is how''s i kept in mnd..but nothing further than that.. that report is talking about " Clear " differences personally..i will pay for HRP system... i will admire how nice red book system is..respect there are still people invest on that too..but will not pay for them.. 最後修改時間: 2013-05-31 17:12:36 |
hahayanyan 正式會員 202.xxx.xxx.2 |
2013-05-31 17:08 |
| [#25] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback ABX TEST一樣可以有好多盲點！有心人絕對可以操控結果！ ========================================== ABX應該是比較客觀的blind test,盲點是什麼？操控結果是另一回事，再好的工具也會被利用。 曾經睇過雷明的文章話Linn 的 老細 都玩AB Blind test出左事！題目係LP vs CD！當年Linn 堅持LP係好聲過CD....... ＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝ 很多品牌都不願意做blind test,怕的就是不利的結果。 今時今日！大家都會明白規格其實好死！一隻軟件好唔好聲 用SACD規格定CD規格影響好細！簡單講！CD低規格一樣大把 靚聲碟！SACD規格高！一樣大把唔靚聲的產品！加上Sony的 運已經行完！SACD係大好形勢下仍不能獨當一面！ 證明市場上仍然係用家為主！而唔係"科學家"..... ＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝ 聲音保存及重播肯定是科學，黑膠有百年歷史了，今天仍未淘汰，數碼音頻歷史尚短，要求改善是必然的，沒有科學研究又怎會有進步。高級音響市場愈來愈細，其實是兩聲道重播到了樽頸，停滯不前。 |
hkborn 正式會員 112.xxx.xxx.16 |
2013-05-31 18:32 |
| [#26] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback Maybe, one of the intended reasons (for me) to play CAS (in place of CD) is that one can build up your own favourite songs/music in one database. The fact that, in most cases, there are just 1-2 songs you like in a CD. Provided that you have your own music library, you don't have to change CD a few times in an hour. You just need to sit down & enjoy & do whatever you like i.e. reading/gaming/interneting/coffee... |
MacaroonNg 正式會員 202.xxx.xxx.106 |
2013-06-07 14:24 |
| [#27] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback 高級音響市場愈來愈細，其實是兩聲道重播到了樽頸，停滯不前。 === what a silly comment ! Hifi market is getting smaller because a) people don't care about the highest quality because they are OK with lowest quality, b) sadly, most music are now played online, rather than live, so not many people understand what real music playing is about, so they simply cannot tell, c) even more sad, most pop music is played thru electronic equipment, or, made by computers, not authentic music instruments - electronic piano is not a piano. I agree though convenice is a key. However, assuming that everyone pays for the software, it is still cheaper to store the software in a piece of plastic and in your harddrive. |
Kenny 正式會員 146.xxx.xxx.16 |
2013-06-07 14:40 |
| [#28] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback My personal opinion is, the playback equipment matters more than the medium holding the content. Only recently I recommenced ripping CDs again, because I simply have too many CDs and more are coming. After ripping, I did two tests. One was streaming the file via my only streaming device, which was a cambridge 752BD, and my CDP, which was a Naim CDX2+555PS. Both players were connected to the same amp and speakers, using interconnect of the same quality. The CD playback via the CDP was better than the file via the streamer. Via the streamer there were simply more jitters, the background was not as dark. Then I used the 752BD to play back both the CD and the file. The result was the quality of the sound from the file won by a mile. After the test, I still couldn't tell if file or CD playback is better, I can only conclude that I won't use the 752BD again to play back CD. Another point I would like to make is, from my perspective Hi-fi is about quality of the sound being reproduced, not quality of music. Music is a collection of sound. |
whizmika 正式會員 202.xxx.xxx.45 |
2013-06-07 16:39 |
| [#29] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback Thx for the sharings. Maybe, we could have a simple test, using earphone to listen CD by notebook (via i.e. foobar) compared to listen wav by notebook to see if CD & wav playback have any differences. |
MacaroonNg 正式會員 202.xxx.xxx.106 |
2013-06-07 17:01 |
| [#30] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback glad to see posts of this nature, hopefully more truth will be revealed. there are so many myths and psuedo science in hifi, just like the cosmetic industry. lots of people including myself 交很多學费 before understanding a bit of what hifi is really about. perhaps some might be interested in issue no.26 below, written by Peter Aczel (surely he is not a big fan of Stereophile) years ago: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/cwo/Back_Issues/ 最後修改時間: 2013-06-07 22:55:37 |
mr.paul 正式會員 27.xxx.xxx.129 |
2013-06-07 22:51 |
| [#31] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback Dear; headphone is not hifi. Headphone does not create a sound image. It just produces music notes clearly – no depth, no width, no emotions – it is like looking at a photo. With a speaker system, it has depth, width, bass impact, acoustic interactions with your room, so if it is good, it is like you sitting in the front row watching a great music performance in a music hall. Well, with a high resolution format, it produces a little bit more information (CD is 1.44M bit, while SACD is 5.6M so you can do the math) to add the details required for a good image. There is a very nice Elvis 24K hits recording in Analogue Productsion SACD, DCC Gold CD (considered the very best CD, and mine was from ebay for more than USD 100), and 24/192 DVD-audio (Elvis' #1's @ 9.2M bit). You can go hear if there is a difference. And yes, you need a good hifi system to hear the difference. If you listen to Lady Gaga, a headphone is good enough. By the way, the Elvis recording was made 50 years old. It just proves the point that even without technology advancement, hifi was already there.  最後修改時間: 2013-06-07 23:20:59 |
Kenny 正式會員 112.xxx.xxx.159 |
2013-06-07 23:18 |
| [#32] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback glad to see posts of this nature, hopefully more truth will be revealed. there are so many myths and psuedo science in hifi, just like the cosmetic industry. lots of people including myself 交很多學费 before understanding a bit of what hifi is really about. perhaps some might be interested in issue no.26 below, written by Peter Aczel (surely he is not a big fan of Stereophile) years ago: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/cwo/Back_Issues/ ＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝ while the audio reproduction is based on science, the audio market is based on blind faith, hearsay. People rarely spend a bit of time to understand what's behind the gear they purchase, then changing the gears from time to time to get a good sound. Apart from training your ears for critical listening, there is a lot to learn on the music, the way it is recorded and stored and the playback system from the source to listening environment. |
hkborn 正式會員 203.xxx.xxx.106 |
2013-06-07 23:49 |
| [#33] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback glad to see posts of this nature, hopefully more truth will be revealed. there are so many myths and psuedo science in hifi, just like the cosmetic industry. lots of people including myself 交很多學费 before understanding a bit of what hifi is really about. perhaps some might be interested in issue no.26 below, written by Peter Aczel (surely he is not a big fan of Stereophile) years ago: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/cwo/Back_Issues/ ＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝ This is something I discussed with a friend just a few days ago. I don't really see vinyl is superior than CD. I tend to agree old LP recordings are better than their CD reissues. The thing is, those old analog recordings were tailored for vinyls, and best to be reproduced by vinyl and vinyl equipment. On the other hand, just my personal opinion nothing scientifically proved, the modern digital recordings don't sound as great on LPs as comparing to CD/SACD, because they are tailored for the digital medium. Some of my vinyl loving friends also agreed to this. The digitally recorded sounds still sound digital but with less resolution when on vinyl. |
whizmika 正式會員 119.xxx.xxx.189 |
2013-06-08 07:33 |
| [#34] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback Honestly speaking, I am not interested on pursuing so-called 'high fidelity' anymore. What's original sound? When attending a concert, the instrument sounds a bit different according to the hearing position. In fact, by the time the sound picked up by the microphone and recorded in certain medium, it's no longer original, it's a copy. It is probably already carrying the characteristic of the microphone hardware, position technique, recording technology, etc. Also not to mention so many different mastering technique that would be applied afterwards, and then different pressing technique, and then come up a consumer medium that we hear though another complex playback system. Probably only person was an adult in 1950 can tell us the difference between a recording and 'live' of the Evlis's voice or Heifetz's violin. So, original sound is kind of mysterious concept to me. I tell myself, why should I bother something that there is no way to get even close to the goal? BTW, I believe both headphone and speaker are both good listening devices. They are just different animal. Sometimes, I saw audiophile hearing 'HiFi' and window/door is opened, or not-so-quiet air conditioner/fan is turned on, and then talking about LP, CD, SACD and which one is superior. Man, how much harmonic and reverberation are corrupted by the background noise, not to mention the footstep on the corridor, water flowing through the pipe, bird whispering, etc. Headphone does not have the impact, stage, 'live' experience as speaker, but the details, separation between instrument are much better preserved, in term of similar price range product, mainly because headphone cuts off background noise a lot and it's much easier to concentrate and focus to the music. Talking about the medium, there are a few recordings that I've different versions of LP, CD, SACD . Certainly they sound different, but is one really 'superior' than the other? I'm not so sure. In the moment, I like DSD a lot. Maybe when I'm getting older, my hearing habit or ability changes, or gear is changed, my preference may change again. Conclusion is not necessary. Happy listening. 最後修改時間: 2013-06-08 10:52:55 |
dvmrp 正式會員 116.xxx.xxx.227 |
2013-06-08 10:41 |
| [#35] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback It is OK to say what you feel, what you hear about music, because it is real. It is not OK to quote a source from internet without knowing the data and saying that it is a fact that applies to everything. Probably if you put a Chinese made piano, and then a Yamaha, and then a Steinway grand piano in my tiny home, I have no idea if they sound different, or which one is better. Nevertheless, I cannot say Steinway is a cheater charging so much $$ for a piano that I cannot tell a difference. |
Kenny 正式會員 146.xxx.xxx.16 |
2013-06-08 13:36 |
| [#36] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback Honestly speaking, I am not interested on pursuing so-called 'high fidelity' anymore. What's original sound? When attending a concert, the instrument sounds a bit different according to the hearing position. In fact, by the time the sound picked up by the microphone and recorded in certain medium, it's no longer original, it's a copy. It is probably already carrying the characteristic of the microphone hardware, position technique, recording technology, etc. Also not to mention so many different mastering technique that would be applied afterwards, and then different pressing technique, and then come up a consumer medium that we hear though another complex playback system. Probably only person was an adult in 1950 can tell us the difference between a recording and 'live' of the Evlis's voice or Heifetz's violin. So, original sound is kind of mysterious concept to me. I tell myself, why should I bother something that there is no way to get even close to the goal? ================================================ 其實要追求＂原來的聲音＂是不可能的任務。就算是歷史，也因觀點與角度而有不同詮釋。如果將錄音看成是錄音師對音樂的理解，我們只欣賞他們的製作就可以了。很多錄音已經不是用真實樂器，愈來愈多的合成音樂，單靠一部電腦就完成所有製作，有好的，也有聽不入耳的。古典及爵士是比較接近原來的聲音，但要說是等於現場也不一定可能，現場觀眾有五百人的話，就有五百種主觀體驗，座位不同，聆聽取向不同，相信沒有錄音能重複這五百人的主觀體驗。 |
hkborn 正式會員 116.xxx.xxx.80 |
2013-06-08 17:58 |
| [#37] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback 或者用另一角度來看16/44,24/96，SACD這些制式。 聲音透過咪高峰接收而轉為電能，數碼錄音將電能以數字形式記錄，然後用解碼將數字換算回電能。換句話說，是模擬訊號轉數碼，再將數碼還原為模擬的過程。 將模擬轉為數碼，主要是兩個參數，一是頻率，另一是振幅。 頻率方面，取樣率的二份一就可確定訊號無誤，所以44.1kHz的取樣已保證了22kHz 及其以下頻率是正確的。以DSD為例，它也是用44.1kHz取樣，只用1bit也沒對頻率有影響。用88kHz或更高頻率取樣，最後用的還只是20-20kHz,一來樂器及人聲基音只有幾千Hz,一到二萬Hz大都是泛音，而且泛音振幅一波低於一波，二萬以上已是低不可聞！所以高像素數碼檔案紀錄了有很多沒有用的資料。 電能是無間斷的，而數碼資料有固定數值。要準確將波幅記錄是不可能的，用16bit的話，可以有96dB的動態，24bit有144dB，但重播需要144dB嗎？一般聆聽環境約有50dB的噪音，若聽音樂在100dB左右，只有享受到50dB的動態範圍，16bit焯焯有餘了！同時，一般電子器材也只有100-120dB的訊噪比，所以24bit是用不著的，錄音用20bit已經足夠得很！ 數碼與橫擬的換算必然出現量化差異，24bit比16bit差異少，但現時錄音技術將這些差異轉到20kHz以上的高頻去，所以16 bit及24bit 在量化差異上分別不大。就算DSD技術，也同樣是將量化差異轉到高頻去，所以有人認為SACD高頻有點毛燥感。 |
hkborn 正式會員 116.xxx.xxx.80 |
2013-06-08 20:15 |
| [#38] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback hkborn hing; you write "...所以有人認為SACD高頻有點毛燥感。..." So what do you think about it ? do you agree ? do you make digital photos or musics recordings to realize the importance of high resolution ? 我認為SACD sound very nice. Please quote me too ^_^. 最後修改時間: 2013-06-08 20:36:04 |
Kenny 正式會員 119.xxx.xxx.214 |
2013-06-08 20:32 |
| [#39] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback do you make digital photos or musics recordings to realize the importance of high resolution ? =========================================== high resolution is always better than low resolution. high resolution of music is different from photos. The photos are static, so the more pixels the better. The music is talking about dynamics which translate into level of loudness or dBs. while 24 bit has more dynamics in theory, it's limited by today's technology, like no ADC gears give more than 120dB dynamic range, our listening environment gives us only 50-60dB dynamic range. These all turn 24bit recording limited in playback chain. In the end, it's the recording and mixing technique that determine a good piece of music, not the high/low resolution of the media. You don't need a high resolution camera to make good photos. 最後修改時間: 2013-06-08 21:58:04 |
hkborn 正式會員 116.xxx.xxx.80 |
2013-06-08 21:44 |
| [#40] CD quality no worse than High Resolution Playback Well, for the same good photo, it looks better in high resolution in high resolution monitor, unless you insist to look at that using a VGA monitor, isn't it? |
dvmrp 正式會員 14.xxx.xxx.59 |
2013-06-08 22:57 |
