View Full Version : Audio Revolution - Meridian 568.2 review
01-10-2003, 08:54 AM
<u>For all those that have asked about the 568.2</u>
New review of the 568.2 can be found here (http://www.revolutionhometheater.com/equip/meridian568/index.html)
02-10-2003, 01:27 PM
Hmmm, I hate those inconclusive reviews that don't tell you whether the product is any good or not... :lol:
05-10-2003, 04:10 PM
Audio Evolution - Meridian 568.2 Review at avtalk Audio
They seem to like it though - which is something, I guess - but wouldn't have filled much column space ... The <font color="limegreen">48bit</font> processing sounds sensible if you're going to manipulate the data a lot, but a maximum <font color="crimson">96kHz</font> sample rate is nearly a decade out of date - see 96/16 SuperDAT from Pioneer. I know it's not 24 bit, but <font color="royalblue">DVDA192</font> has been out since DVDA's inception at the end of the last millennium - and it's only space and bandwidth issues that limit it to 6/96/24. It could probably just about manage 4/192/24 with very limited video, but who wants 4.0 quadraphonic sound these days - and this is a £5,000 product!
It's not as if all the serious reviews don't acknowledge how much more transparent and impressive 192 is than 96, and at least SACD uses its full sample rate (2822) across all six channels. But we've known that wideband sources produce much better audio fidelity since at least the fifties, so the limitations of 6/96/24 should come as no surprise - just a big disappointment. Of course, in comparisons with SACD they always compare 192/24 and 2822/1, ignoring the fact that the format they're really pushing - multichannel - is 96/24. Cynical I'd say if I was a cynic. ... but I'm not.
For a logical development of existing technology (after all, 192/24 chips exist on the mass market), a product that can easily support 6/192/24, 12/192/24 (even 6/384/24 when the chips are available on the commercial marketplace), and their DSD equivalents - 12/2822 and 6/5644 - is discussed under the <font color="royalblue">Kind of blu</font> topic for one, along with a chance to vote for what's included in the first product release at <font color="royalblue">blu-raytalk.com</font>. This is <font color="orange">re-recordable</font> as standard, less than £3,000, supports CD, DVD and its variants and can record over ten hour of top DVD quality or two hours of HDTV (wouldn't that be great for rental with any high resolution display 1280 by 1024 or similar display such as good TFTs/Plasmas, for example?)
<font color="royalblue">how kind of blu</font>
<font color="limegreen">Miles ahead ...</font>
06-10-2003, 12:00 AM
I get the feeling you really like Blu-Ray...
No arguments from me, 192KHz material is technically better than 96KHz and blows SACD so far out of the water there's time to peel the barnacles off the hull before it hits the ground. :P~:-P~:razz:
However, with so much cack mastered so poorly that only the Euphonic qualities of Vinyl can save it, do we really need to keep increasing data rates? I don't know of many people that can hear as high frequencies as I can, and even I can't hear anything beyond 30KHz - so the Nyquist cutoff of 96KHz is perfectly fine for me.
What we really need is to get away from that horrible cutoff that 44.1KHz/16Bit imposes, use more bits to describe the samples and get the top end of the reproduceable frequency band outisde the hearing range of freaks like me, let alone regular people. We also need better recordings and recording techniques, and a music industry that cares more about long term rather than short term sales.
BTW the future is Solid State and NAS mate ;)~;-)~:wink: :lol:
06-10-2003, 08:06 AM
I don't care what it's called as long as it gets the job done - it's just the higher resolution of blue lasers, and thus the much higher capacity - coupled to HDTV and above bandwidths - plus commercial realisability, of course, that makes it worthwhile for me. Anyway, Kind of blu is one of my favourite albums - or did you think I was talking about something else? blu-ray miles ahead? :)~:-)~:smile:
Regarding Shannon's sampling theorem, I think 2 means two, and B means the bandwidth of the signal - not the receiver (this distinction can have important consequences). Assuming we stick to the rules, B for real musical instruments is around 100kHz. Of course, you might be talking about the half-power bandwidth, but Shannon is talking about all the bandwidth over which the signal exists - a slightly different thing. Without that, you need anti-aliasing filters on the input - either brickwalls as in CD, minidisc, DAB, NICAM, MP3 nd so on, or, at least, clear in-band phase modulation products. Hence most good engineering solutions when we really need to preserve the signal go up to 10B (where B is the half power bandwidth). But then there's the out of band noise, so we need an anti-aliasing filter for that anyway. How do we apply it without affecting the in-band response, I ask you?
You may want to look at further initial comments in the October issue of Hi-Fi World magazine (available from the hi-fiworld.co.uk website). PCM192 is certainly more impressive than DSD2822, but it also has many more in-band artifacts, unfortunately (we won't mention PCM96). Both are compromises. With more space and pace you don't need to compromise unless you want to.
<font color="royalblue">how kind of blu</font>
06-10-2003, 08:39 AM
With more space and pace you don't need to compromise unless you want to.
Agreed, but if we're talking DSP, the pace simply isn't there at any reasonable cost. Chucking 192KHz data around at any acceptable bit depth is a non-trivial exercise.
And whilst AD and co may have chips which are enabled for such high data rates, well, most of them still have a fatal flaw in their bass management routines, which they have known about for years. If I'm not mistaken jitter from these ICs is also higher at really high data rates, or rather the effects of jitter get progressively worse in bit-uncertainty terms as you increase the sampling rate. Meridian's philosophy has been 'Digital Done Right' for almost two decades now. I'll trust that when 192KHz data streams in their processors sounds convincingly better than 96KHz, it'll be there.
BTW Blue lasers are old hat, it's the chemistry of the disc surfaces that is taking the time to catch up. Yet another example of the 'sexy' aspect of a technology over-shadowing the important breakthroughs.
06-10-2003, 08:57 AM
Where would one find a loudspeaker capable of reproducing sounds at 96kHz, and what would be the point of a 192kHz recording without such a speaker?
06-10-2003, 09:09 AM
A fully active electrostatic speaker could reproduce 96KHz with ease, and would drive the Bats in the Belfry wild. :lol:
Unfortunately, I can't even build the power supply necessary for such a speaker without going way over my limited budget :(
06-10-2003, 09:21 AM
and what would be the point of a 192kHz recording without such a speaker?
I thought part of the reason is related to the filters a processor performs adding extra information lower down that the frequencies it is meant to filter, but with a higher sample rate this is reduced.
06-10-2003, 01:24 PM
... as an example of one of the reasons for recording the signal rather than looking exclusively at the human auditory system frequency domain response characteristics, consider recording a violin in isolation (how exciting). It produces harmonics well above 20kHz. Along with oher instruments, beat frequencies are generated - many of which are well below 20kHz. Now many modern recordings are of individually captured instruments and then combined in the mixing desk. If the electronics doesn't capture all that may beat between instruments, then it is not possible to reproduce the holistic experience that a live performance as a group would allow. Assuming that people are not going to give up their 64 track and more mixers in a hurry, the only way around this is to record (or at least attempt to record) everything that each instrument produces. Again, more reasons for going to 192kHz and beyond to really capture the experience are summarised in the October issue of Hi-Fi World ...
<font color="royalblue">Nyquist adore</font>
<font color="royalblue">entropy R Us</font>
08-10-2003, 05:52 PM
Meridian do an excellent job with what they're given in DVDA96, but as 192 is so much better than 96, and Sony released commercial product in March that would easily support even 6/384/24 - let alone 6/192/24, it seems a bit of a shame to accept mid-nineties technology. And, of course, because Meridian have to work so hard to get the best out of 96kHz, their equipment costs more than it could - a bit like the Linn CD12 and CDs sounding much worse than a good SACD or DVDA192 player playing their respective discs, yet costing nearly ten times as much. I guess it's all a question of balance, and 96kHz simply isn't it anymore. Great for legacy support of multichannel DVDA though ... If you've got the money.
<font color="crimson">red knows</font>
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.