"chung" wrote in message
news:nQgSb.178767$I06.1840788@attbi_s01...
Harry Lavo wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always
whipsawed
by
the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response
is a
benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A,
the
increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making
DSD/SACD
"inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like
SACD's
despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise
inherent in the SACD format.

What some of the more technically inclined are saying is that even
though the ultrasonic noise from SACD's may not be audible on its
own,
there is a possibility that such noise may cause problems in
amplifiers
and speakers, which result in intermodulation and other effects that
are
audible.


Except the *only* complaint i've heard about SACD sound comes from
DVD-A
advocates who claim that SACD sounds *soft*. That certainly doesn't
sound
like IM.

So, who are the DVD-A advocates that claim SACD sounds soft? On the
other hand, SACD advocates such as yourself keep claiming that PCM
sounds irritating, gritty, etc., when all evidence points to hi-rez PCM
as being the more accurate process.

No, *some* technical data supports DVD-A as having cleaner ultrasonics.

OK, so are there any technical data supporting SACD as having cleaner
ultrasonics? That should tell you that SACD is not superior as a
technology, which you seem to keep believing.


I have made no such claim. I have said "dirty" ultrasonics are of little to
no audible consequence. And I have cited lower noise levels in bass and
midrange as a result of the noise shaping as potential end-user benefits.
That is all.

I also noted that you were unable to cite people who claim SACD's sound
soft.


I told you exactly where that information came from. Go to Audio Asylum to
the DVD-A hi-res forum. Look up "soft" and "sacd" and "sacd flaws" and
similar and you'll see lots of discussion by lots of people.

You
are ignoring needed user-end DAC quality, the analog output quality of
the
companies promoting DVD-A,

Seems like a mastering issue, and an implementation issue, and not a
technology issue to me. You just like the SACD's because of the way they
were mastered or recorded.


Quit putting words/motives in my mouth and brain, please. I think no such
thing. I have listened, own, and use DVD-A's as well as SACDs. I have made
careful comparisons, having bought some disks simply so I could make careful
comparisons. At this point, to me, SACD sounds better for the most part.
Simple as that. I have several DVD-A's where I cannot fault the mastering
at all. Good as they are, they simply don't sound nearly as "real" by
comparison to my best SACD's.

the fact that in practice DVD-A disks have no
greater quieting throughout the bass and mid-range region than ordinary
cd's, etc.

Proof? Are you questioning the fact that 24/96 does not have a higher
S/N over *all* audio frequencies than 16/44? That's an unusual claim.


Take a look at the actual CD and DVD-A curves for actual DVD-A players
published in Stereophile and some English mags, and you will see what I
mean. That is the case.

Then compare to SACD.


The issue is not clear-cut, but in either case the systems are superior
to
cd, both technically and from a subjective sound standpoint.

Technically, it is clear that 96/24 (or 192/24) is superior to SACD or
CD. Whether that technical superiority translates into an audible
superiority is not clear cut, since it should be obvious that recording
and mastering contribute much, much more to the final quality.


That is a strawman. It is obviously true of all media. However, it brushes
off those of us who have done careful comparisons using identical mixes.
And there are plenty of people who have done good comparisons, as well as
those who have done plenty of bad ones. If you stayed around Audio Asylum
more instead of just poo-pooing it, you would actually run into some of
those.

Actually, only several days ago I got the impression that you believed
the issue was clear-cut, that SACD's beat PCM... Hmmm.


I believe it does as a commercial end product. And that is my *only*
concern. Technical quibbles have never interested me if it doesn't show up
in a better end result.

However,
high-res PCM continues basically to be described as CD-quality with
smoother
highs; SACD is described as "softer" and "more natural" and having more
depth; whether or not you view this as a good thing or not depends in
part
on where you are coming from with your musical reference point.

Actually, it seems to me that you care a lot about who (or how many)
prefer which format, given your continuous deference to popular vote at
Audio Asylum.


No, I care about my own opinion. But when i can read of others who have
done careful worked and reached similar opinions, it is gratifying because
it is not easy to do meaningful comparisons. I also try to pay attention to
those who prefer DVD-A, and pay careful attention to their arguments and
concerns about SACD. I think about these things, I listen, I compare...and
I continue to refine my own conclusions. I'd much rather do that than
quibble over theoretical technical "purity" here.

I'm glad, however, that you agree that preference for one format over
another is *personal*.


I've never argued otherwise. It is Stewart and yourself and a few others
who keep on insisting on a technical "winner".

It seems
most classical music lovers prefer SACD as sounding more natural.

Again, OSAF.


And again, i cited my source, like it or not. I should amend it to say
"classical lovers interested in hi-res".

I prefer CD's because of the huge library. SACD's may sound better in
some cases due to more careful mastering. They may also sound worse, if
you compare bad SACD's vs good CD's. Just like an excellent vinyl LP can
be more enjoyable than a poorly mastered CD (or SACD/DVD-A).


We agree on this and have from the beginning.

That
includes me.