| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Volume and dynamic range question.
Hi all. Here's a question that came to my mind recently while listening to my
stereo. Let's say i set the volume knob to #3 for example. What loudness of the music does this represent? It seemed to be set to a particular level, but when a dynamic peak of the music came along, the volume increased accordingly. So, what does a #3 setting mean? Is this the maximum volume level the music will play at? If so, why do short term dynamic peaks sound louder? -Bob Bernstein. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
Thanks Kal... i THINK i "get the concept". If i understand correctly, each
numbered volume setting corresponds to a range of loudness depending upon the dynamic range of the signal from the recording, right? So, if my preamp is set to #3 is there any way to determine in db the corresponding volume range this setting will produce given a particular signal? In other words, can we say that setting #3 corresponds to a range between 10db minimum to 30db maximum depending upon the dynamic range of the signal? And that setting #4 corresponds to a range between 20db minimum to 40db and #5 even more, etc? And, is this range always the same for every amp combination (ie. a fixed value), or, does the range differ between different pre-amps? -Bob Bernstein. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
|
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
Kalman Rubinson wrote in message ...
On 18 Dec 2003 20:15:13 GMT, (RBernst929) wrote: Thanks Kal... i THINK i "get the concept". If i understand correctly, each numbered volume setting corresponds to a range of loudness depending upon the dynamic range of the signal from the recording, right? So, if my preamp is set to #3 is there any way to determine in db the corresponding volume range this setting will produce given a particular signal? In other words, can we say that setting #3 corresponds to a range between 10db minimum to 30db maximum depending upon the dynamic range of the signal? And that setting #4 corresponds to a range between 20db minimum to 40db and #5 even more, etc? And, is this range always the same for every amp combination (ie. a fixed value), or, does the range differ between different pre-amps? The answer is that each setting determines a particular gain and it can usually be defined by a single number, e.g., +22dB. That means that all input is increased by 22dB and comes out 22dB louder. As for the number for your amp/preamp, you would have to measure it unless it was calibrated in some way. There are no specific standards, so each amp/preamp is somewhat different. Kal the dynamic range is set by the initial recording (the CD) it is the same at level#3 on your preamp as it is on level 4 as it is on level 10. just the volume level at an individual point in time on the recording changes when you turn up the volume. eg when you turn it up from 3 to 4 the volume increases by say 10dB, then the loud peak increases by 10dB and the quiet passage increases by 10dB and, importantly, the noisefloor increases by 10dB. The dynamic range possible on a CD is about 96dB ( some manufacturers say its more) this seems good until you realise that a lot of classical and jazz recordings have long passages at 40dB or more below the peak level. When you turn it up so that these parts are nice and clear the noise floor becomes audible(and CD noise floor is a lot more ugly than a vinyl or cassette). This is why new formats such as DVDA and SACD have a much larger possible dynamic range. Thats the theory anyway. In actuality hifi equipment usually doesn't allow the full dynamic range through especially on percussive sounds. This is called compression and as you turn the volume up on your preamp the sound is compressed more. Better hifi equipment (not necessarily more expensive)compresses the sound less. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
Pardon me for jumping in with a tangential topic, but the noise floor of a
*properly dithered* CD should *not* be any more "ugly" than that of vinyl or cassette. In fact, it should be much lower (number one) and it should be much more consistent (number two). Even the best vinyl, excruciatingly well maintained and cared for, has clicks and pops which I consider to be extremely ugly and very distracting. The noise (distortion) increases dramatically during loud passages. Cassette noise (especially with noise reduction, even Dolby S, which is quite good) is modulated by the signal. Furthermore, any frequency response and gain errors are magnified by the expander circuitry. If I'm going to be listening to an extended passage recorded at -40, I'd much rather it be on a CD than on vinyl or cassette. The CD noise floor will still be 50dB below the signal, compared to -20 or -30 with the best vinyl or cassette. My hearing isn't what it used to be, but I'd be hard pressed to hear a -90dB noise floor with my amplifier gain set to any sane playback level -- Unless the CD noise floor was highly correlated noise, like a tone or something (which I have *never* heard even on my worst CDs). Again, if it's properly dithered, the noise floor should be completely uncorrelated. As for whether SACD is really better than the CD format, there is another thread on this newsgroup which points out a problem with the SACD standard which makes it *impossible* to properly dither SACD audio. It appears the creators might be fixing this problem, but only after it was pointed out to them by a couple of the best engineers in the digital audio field. We may have dodged a bullet there... "Ben Hoadley" wrote in message ... Kalman Rubinson wrote in message ... On 18 Dec 2003 20:15:13 GMT, (RBernst929) wrote: Thanks Kal... i THINK i "get the concept". If i understand correctly, each numbered volume setting corresponds to a range of loudness depending upon the dynamic range of the signal from the recording, right? So, if my preamp is set to #3 is there any way to determine in db the corresponding volume range this setting will produce given a particular signal? In other words, can we say that setting #3 corresponds to a range between 10db minimum to 30db maximum depending upon the dynamic range of the signal? And that setting #4 corresponds to a range between 20db minimum to 40db and #5 even more, etc? And, is this range always the same for every amp combination (ie. a fixed value), or, does the range differ between different pre-amps? The answer is that each setting determines a particular gain and it can usually be defined by a single number, e.g., +22dB. That means that all input is increased by 22dB and comes out 22dB louder. As for the number for your amp/preamp, you would have to measure it unless it was calibrated in some way. There are no specific standards, so each amp/preamp is somewhat different. Kal the dynamic range is set by the initial recording (the CD) it is the same at level#3 on your preamp as it is on level 4 as it is on level 10. just the volume level at an individual point in time on the recording changes when you turn up the volume. eg when you turn it up from 3 to 4 the volume increases by say 10dB, then the loud peak increases by 10dB and the quiet passage increases by 10dB and, importantly, the noisefloor increases by 10dB. The dynamic range possible on a CD is about 96dB ( some manufacturers say its more) this seems good until you realise that a lot of classical and jazz recordings have long passages at 40dB or more below the peak level. When you turn it up so that these parts are nice and clear the noise floor becomes audible(and CD noise floor is a lot more ugly than a vinyl or cassette). This is why new formats such as DVDA and SACD have a much larger possible dynamic range. Thats the theory anyway. In actuality hifi equipment usually doesn't allow the full dynamic range through especially on percussive sounds. This is called compression and as you turn the volume up on your preamp the sound is compressed more. Better hifi equipment (not necessarily more expensive)compresses the sound less. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message news:8iIEb.402325$Dw6.1250359@attbi_s02...
Pardon me for jumping in with a tangential topic, but the noise floor of a *properly dithered* CD should *not* be any more "ugly" than that of vinyl or cassette. In fact, it should be much lower (number one) and it should be much more consistent (number two). Even the best vinyl, excruciatingly well maintained and cared for, has clicks and pops which I consider to be extremely ugly and very distracting. The noise (distortion) increases dramatically during loud passages. Cassette noise (especially with noise reduction, even Dolby S, which is quite good) is modulated by the signal. Furthermore, any frequency response and gain errors are magnified by the expander circuitry. If I'm going to be listening to an extended passage recorded at -40, I'd much rather it be on a CD than on vinyl or cassette. The CD noise floor will still be 50dB below the signal, compared to -20 or -30 with the best vinyl or cassette. My hearing isn't what it used to be, but I'd be hard pressed to hear a -90dB noise floor with my amplifier gain set to any sane playback level -- Unless the CD noise floor was highly correlated noise, like a tone or something (which I have *never* heard even on my worst CDs). Again, if it's properly dithered, the noise floor should be completely uncorrelated. As for whether SACD is really better than the CD format, there is another thread on this newsgroup which points out a problem with the SACD standard which makes it *impossible* to properly dither SACD audio. It appears the creators might be fixing this problem, but only after it was pointed out to them by a couple of the best engineers in the digital audio field. We may have dodged a bullet there... Ok your points are valid if you want to get technical. I was simply trying to explain the limitations of the format without getting too far into it. However the noisefloor on a cd is more ugly than vinyl/cassette/analog tape, that is why we cover it with dither. Dither is simply noise similar to cassette noise that is ADDED to the audio signal it is not the noise floor of the cd. As far as SACD (and I really think we are getting away from the spirit of the initial post) people are way too worried about the technicalities of the format. The noise floor of most microphones is higher than that of sacd so it will be sort of dithered anyway. Also a lot of people who are mastering for sacd use 192/24 equipment to edit, dither, normalise etc and then make the final dsd conversion last thing. This may seem like an impure path but at that resolution it is fine. 192khz is deliberatly over-spec'd to allow for a bit of give and take unlike cds which are a bare minimum spec. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:8iIEb.402325$Dw6.1250359@attbi_s02... snip, not relevant to discussion below As for whether SACD is really better than the CD format, there is another thread on this newsgroup which points out a problem with the SACD standard which makes it *impossible* to properly dither SACD audio. It appears the creators might be fixing this problem, but only after it was pointed out to them by a couple of the best engineers in the digital audio field. We may have dodged a bullet there... As best I can determine, Sony's engineer's had already built eight-bit processing into their workstations to deal with just this problem well before "it was pointed out". Obviously since Sony's marketing people were stressing "single-bit DSD" processing they didn't go out of their way to publicize it. But that doesnt' change the fact that DSD processing through the record/decode cycle offers more natural sound than either cd or dvd-a. I look forward to the day we understand why....I expect it has to do with types of distortion as decoded by our ears (or more precisely lack thereof)..but that's just a guess. Something besides just noise floor is at work, that's for sure. "Ben Hoadley" wrote in message ... Kalman Rubinson wrote in message ... On 18 Dec 2003 20:15:13 GMT, (RBernst929) wrote: Thanks Kal... i THINK i "get the concept". If i understand correctly, each numbered volume setting corresponds to a range of loudness depending upon the dynamic range of the signal from the recording, right? So, if my preamp is set to #3 is there any way to determine in db the corresponding volume range this setting will produce given a particular signal? In other words, can we say that setting #3 corresponds to a range between 10db minimum to 30db maximum depending upon the dynamic range of the signal? And that setting #4 corresponds to a range between 20db minimum to 40db and #5 even more, etc? And, is this range always the same for every amp combination (ie. a fixed value), or, does the range differ between different pre-amps? The answer is that each setting determines a particular gain and it can usually be defined by a single number, e.g., +22dB. That means that all input is increased by 22dB and comes out 22dB louder. As for the number for your amp/preamp, you would have to measure it unless it was calibrated in some way. There are no specific standards, so each amp/preamp is somewhat different. Kal the dynamic range is set by the initial recording (the CD) it is the same at level#3 on your preamp as it is on level 4 as it is on level 10. just the volume level at an individual point in time on the recording changes when you turn up the volume. eg when you turn it up from 3 to 4 the volume increases by say 10dB, then the loud peak increases by 10dB and the quiet passage increases by 10dB and, importantly, the noisefloor increases by 10dB. The dynamic range possible on a CD is about 96dB ( some manufacturers say its more) this seems good until you realise that a lot of classical and jazz recordings have long passages at 40dB or more below the peak level. When you turn it up so that these parts are nice and clear the noise floor becomes audible(and CD noise floor is a lot more ugly than a vinyl or cassette). This is why new formats such as DVDA and SACD have a much larger possible dynamic range. Thats the theory anyway. In actuality hifi equipment usually doesn't allow the full dynamic range through especially on percussive sounds. This is called compression and as you turn the volume up on your preamp the sound is compressed more. Better hifi equipment (not necessarily more expensive)compresses the sound less. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
I realize this may be drifting off-topic, but I don't know how to move it
somewhere else. I do have to take issue with a couple of your statements, however. ... the noisefloor on a cd is more ugly than vinyl/cassette/analog tape, that is why we cover it with dither. Dither is simply noise similar to cassette noise that is ADDED to the audio signal it is not the noise floor of the cd. All reputable digital audio engineers agree that dither must be added for a digital audio system to be complete. In other words, if you build a digital audio system without dither, you haven't finished the job. It would be like building a car without the tires. You might be able to drive it that way, but you can't say "rubber is just the thing we add to make the ride bearable". It is for this reason that the inability to properly SACD is a fatal flaw in my opinion. It's like building a supercharged 12-cylinder 64 valve auto without enough leaving enough room in the fender wells for tires. "Ben Hoadley" wrote in message ... "Karl Uppiano" wrote in message news:8iIEb.402325$Dw6.1250359@attbi_s02... Pardon me for jumping in with a tangential topic, but the noise floor of a *properly dithered* CD should *not* be any more "ugly" than that of vinyl or cassette. In fact, it should be much lower (number one) and it should be much more consistent (number two). Even the best vinyl, excruciatingly well maintained and cared for, has clicks and pops which I consider to be extremely ugly and very distracting. The noise (distortion) increases dramatically during loud passages. Cassette noise (especially with noise reduction, even Dolby S, which is quite good) is modulated by the signal. Furthermore, any frequency response and gain errors are magnified by the expander circuitry. If I'm going to be listening to an extended passage recorded at -40, I'd much rather it be on a CD than on vinyl or cassette. The CD noise floor will still be 50dB below the signal, compared to -20 or -30 with the best vinyl or cassette. My hearing isn't what it used to be, but I'd be hard pressed to hear a -90dB noise floor with my amplifier gain set to any sane playback level -- Unless the CD noise floor was highly correlated noise, like a tone or something (which I have *never* heard even on my worst CDs). Again, if it's properly dithered, the noise floor should be completely uncorrelated. As for whether SACD is really better than the CD format, there is another thread on this newsgroup which points out a problem with the SACD standard which makes it *impossible* to properly dither SACD audio. It appears the creators might be fixing this problem, but only after it was pointed out to them by a couple of the best engineers in the digital audio field. We may have dodged a bullet there... Ok your points are valid if you want to get technical. I was simply trying to explain the limitations of the format without getting too far into it. However the noisefloor on a cd is more ugly than vinyl/cassette/analog tape, that is why we cover it with dither. Dither is simply noise similar to cassette noise that is ADDED to the audio signal it is not the noise floor of the cd. As far as SACD (and I really think we are getting away from the spirit of the initial post) people are way too worried about the technicalities of the format. The noise floor of most microphones is higher than that of sacd so it will be sort of dithered anyway. Also a lot of people who are mastering for sacd use 192/24 equipment to edit, dither, normalise etc and then make the final dsd conversion last thing. This may seem like an impure path but at that resolution it is fine. 192khz is deliberatly over-spec'd to allow for a bit of give and take unlike cds which are a bare minimum spec. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:16:03 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: "Karl Uppiano" wrote in message news:8iIEb.402325$Dw6.1250359@attbi_s02... snip, not relevant to discussion below As for whether SACD is really better than the CD format, there is another thread on this newsgroup which points out a problem with the SACD standard which makes it *impossible* to properly dither SACD audio. It appears the creators might be fixing this problem, but only after it was pointed out to them by a couple of the best engineers in the digital audio field. We may have dodged a bullet there... As best I can determine, Sony's engineer's had already built eight-bit processing into their workstations to deal with just this problem well before "it was pointed out". Which of course blew the whole 'pure and simple' DSD philosophy out of the water. Obviously since Sony's marketing people were stressing "single-bit DSD" processing they didn't go out of their way to publicize it. But that doesnt' change the fact that DSD processing through the record/decode cycle offers more natural sound than either cd or dvd-a. What, when (as you admit above) it starts as high-oversampled 8-bit PCM and is then *converted* to DSD? Illogical, Captain................ look forward to the day we understand why....I expect it has to do with types of distortion as decoded by our ears (or more precisely lack thereof)..but that's just a guess. Something besides just noise floor is at work, that's for sure. Yup, it's called marketing......................... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:16:03 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Karl Uppiano" wrote in message news:8iIEb.402325$Dw6.1250359@attbi_s02... snip, not relevant to discussion below As for whether SACD is really better than the CD format, there is another thread on this newsgroup which points out a problem with the SACD standard which makes it *impossible* to properly dither SACD audio. It appears the creators might be fixing this problem, but only after it was pointed out to them by a couple of the best engineers in the digital audio field. We may have dodged a bullet there... As best I can determine, Sony's engineer's had already built eight-bit processing into their workstations to deal with just this problem well before "it was pointed out". Which of course blew the whole 'pure and simple' DSD philosophy out of the water. Obviously since Sony's marketing people were stressing "single-bit DSD" processing they didn't go out of their way to publicize it. But that doesnt' change the fact that DSD processing through the record/decode cycle offers more natural sound than either cd or dvd-a. What, when (as you admit above) it starts as high-oversampled 8-bit PCM and is then *converted* to DSD? Illogical, Captain................ look forward to the day we understand why....I expect it has to do with types of distortion as decoded by our ears (or more precisely lack thereof)..but that's just a guess. Something besides just noise floor is at work, that's for sure. Yup, it's called marketing......................... Eh, Stewart.....what SACD machine is in your system that you are basing your perceptions on, huh? Three years ago, two years ago, one year ago more people shared and promulgated your views...most now own SACD players. They don't say these kinds of things anymore. You would be better off buying a machine and disks, hearing the difference, and then spending your engineering talents trying to determine *why* SACD sounds better rather than denying that it does. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 20 Dec 2003 17:16:06 GMT, (Ben Hoadley) wrote: snip, not relevant to my comments As far as SACD (and I really think we are getting away from the spirit of the initial post) people are way too worried about the technicalities of the format. Aside from the technicalities, what is there to discuss? How about the sound quality? The noise floor of most microphones is higher than that of sacd so it will be sort of dithered anyway. It's higher than that of CD also, so what exactly is your point here? Also a lot of people who are mastering for sacd use 192/24 equipment to edit, dither, normalise etc and then make the final dsd conversion last thing. This may seem like an impure path but at that resolution it is fine. 192khz is deliberatly over-spec'd to allow for a bit of give and take unlike cds which are a bare minimum spec. CDs do however have a 'bare minimum' spec which exceeds that of *any* analogue master, and converting to DSD from PCM makes a mockery of the whole principle of DSD. This is your assertion. It simply doesn't stand up to the listening experience of SACD users. SACD's are almost always made from direct DSD recordings (best) or high quality original master tapes (second best). Some newer pop releases are recorded at 24/192 on a DAW, which also seems to work. Stuff that was mastered at 24/48 and even some at 24/96 and then converted to SACD have their "digititus" come through...and these disks are generally scorned by SACD users for their clearly perceived poor sound compared to SACDs produced from the other sources. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
On 21 Dec 2003 16:19:02 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... Eh, Stewart.....what SACD machine is in your system that you are basing your perceptions on, huh? I have access to a Sony DVP-NS900V, a machine of unusual talent at the price. Three years ago, two years ago, one year ago more people shared and promulgated your views...most now own SACD players. Correction - most own DVD players which can play SACDs. It's a fine example of convergent technogy, but it's uncertain how long SACD will survive on its own. They don't say these kinds of things anymore. Sure they do - if they have any engineering knowledge. Note that a senior Philips engineer has now also joined in 'blowing the whistle' on the fatal flaws of SACD, now that it's all out in the open and company loyalty is no longer an issue. You would be better off buying a machine and disks, hearing the difference, and then spending your engineering talents trying to determine *why* SACD sounds better rather than denying that it does. As ever, you have it back to front, Harry. Having determined that there is in fact no detectable audible difference, the interesting thing is why SACD does not sound noticeably *worse*, given its obvious technical inferiority............... Of course, if you have an amp which is sensitive to the horrific and endemic RF noise of SACD, then it probably *does* sound worse! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message This is your assertion. It simply doesn't stand up to the listening experience of SACD users. SACD's are almost always made from direct DSD recordings (best) or high quality original master tapes (second best). Some newer pop releases are recorded at 24/192 on a DAW, which also seems to work. Stuff that was mastered at 24/48 and even some at 24/96 and then converted to SACD have their "digititus" come through...and these disks are generally scorned by SACD users for their clearly perceived poor sound compared to SACDs produced from the other sources. Surely, Harry, you see that such anecdotal arguments aren't going to carry weight -- 'SACD users' seem no less immune to expectation biases than others. Their 'listening experience' is too often not backed up by anything substantial. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:47:12 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 20 Dec 2003 17:16:06 GMT, (Ben Hoadley) wrote: snip, not relevant to my comments As far as SACD (and I really think we are getting away from the spirit of the initial post) people are way too worried about the technicalities of the format. Aside from the technicalities, what is there to discuss? How about the sound quality? It directly descends from the technicalities, otherwise why bother with 'hi-res' formats at all? The noise floor of most microphones is higher than that of sacd so it will be sort of dithered anyway. It's higher than that of CD also, so what exactly is your point here? I notice that you neatly avoid answering this question..... Also a lot of people who are mastering for sacd use 192/24 equipment to edit, dither, normalise etc and then make the final dsd conversion last thing. This may seem like an impure path but at that resolution it is fine. 192khz is deliberatly over-spec'd to allow for a bit of give and take unlike cds which are a bare minimum spec. CDs do however have a 'bare minimum' spec which exceeds that of *any* analogue master, and converting to DSD from PCM makes a mockery of the whole principle of DSD. This is your assertion. It simply doesn't stand up to the listening experience of SACD users. SACD's are almost always made from direct DSD recordings (best) or high quality original master tapes (second best). Actually, *no* current SACD recordings are made from DSD masters - they are made from DSD-Wide masters, which as previously noted, are just high-oversampled PCM. Hence, while they may certainly be fine recordings, they have no possible advantage over conventional 24/96 PCM, let alone 24/192. Also, any analogue master is adequately served by 'Red Book' CD, as the excellent JVC XRCDs amply demonstrate. Some newer pop releases are recorded at 24/192 on a DAW, which also seems to work. Stuff that was mastered at 24/48 and even some at 24/96 and then converted to SACD have their "digititus" come through...and these disks are generally scorned by SACD users for their clearly perceived poor sound compared to SACDs produced from the other sources. Only when the listener *knows* the source was a 'low-res' digital master. As with most things audiophilic, it's all in the mind........ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:47:12 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 20 Dec 2003 17:16:06 GMT, (Ben Hoadley) wrote: snip, not relevant to my comments As far as SACD (and I really think we are getting away from the spirit of the initial post) people are way too worried about the technicalities of the format. Aside from the technicalities, what is there to discuss? How about the sound quality? It directly descends from the technicalities, otherwise why bother with 'hi-res' formats at all? No room for finding out anything new about the ear/brain function as it relates to reproduction, huh Stewart. Oh, I forgot, we already know *everything* we need to know. The noise floor of most microphones is higher than that of sacd so it will be sort of dithered anyway. It's higher than that of CD also, so what exactly is your point here? I notice that you neatly avoid answering this question..... No I didn't. You dissed it in an earlier post when I said "there is more going on here than noise floor". But your missing it doesn't make it an any less valid observation. The secret of SACD's sound is not just noise floor, I am convinced. Either that, or our ability to hear differences in noise floor (or to have it affect our perceptions of the naturalness of recorded music) is much greater than previously thought. Also a lot of people who are mastering for sacd use 192/24 equipment to edit, dither, normalise etc and then make the final dsd conversion last thing. This may seem like an impure path but at that resolution it is fine. 192khz is deliberatly over-spec'd to allow for a bit of give and take unlike cds which are a bare minimum spec. CDs do however have a 'bare minimum' spec which exceeds that of *any* analogue master, and converting to DSD from PCM makes a mockery of the whole principle of DSD. This is your assertion. It simply doesn't stand up to the listening experience of SACD users. SACD's are almost always made from direct DSD recordings (best) or high quality original master tapes (second best). Actually, *no* current SACD recordings are made from DSD masters - they are made from DSD-Wide masters, which as previously noted, are just high-oversampled PCM. Hence, while they may certainly be fine recordings, they have no possible advantage over conventional 24/96 PCM, let alone 24/192. Also, any analogue master is adequately served by 'Red Book' CD, as the excellent JVC XRCDs amply demonstrate. I and most others with SACD machines can put an orchestral SACD or a stringed group of pop musicians on the machine and almost immediately tell you whether it is a DSD recording or not. DSD recordings have a depth, ease, and "naturalness" that *no* other medium has. Not tape (which has a pleasant but artificial "warmth" to it). Not high-rez pcm (which has a certain flatness to it). Some newer pop releases are recorded at 24/192 on a DAW, which also seems to work. Stuff that was mastered at 24/48 and even some at 24/96 and then converted to SACD have their "digititus" come through...and these disks are generally scorned by SACD users for their clearly perceived poor sound compared to SACDs produced from the other sources. Only when the listener *knows* the source was a 'low-res' digital master. As with most things audiophilic, it's all in the mind........ Absolutely not! In many cases the source of the recording was "speculated about" before it was confirmed. If you hung out around the Hi-Rez group on Audio Asylum once in a while you might learn something. A case in point is Sony's SACD of Glenn Gould's Well Tempered Klavier. I bought the disk early on in my SACD explorations and thought "what the....". It sounded bright and sterile like a poor cd, totally unlike any other SACD I had heard. Well, guess what? It *was* a 16/48 "master" from the early eighties (Sony doesn't say that on the disk). Others had the same experience who pursued Sony, who finally admitted it was the digital "master". Why Sony chose it only they know, but they got so much flack over the sound that in a later release of a boxed set including both of his recorded versions, they reverted to the taped master of the session. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 21 Dec 2003 16:19:02 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... Eh, Stewart.....what SACD machine is in your system that you are basing your perceptions on, huh? I have access to a Sony DVP-NS900V, a machine of unusual talent at the price. "Having access" is not the same as listening in your own system, is it Stewart? And what disks have you listened to? Come on, share a little! Three years ago, two years ago, one year ago more people shared and promulgated your views...most now own SACD players. Correction - most own DVD players which can play SACDs. It's a fine example of convergent technogy, but it's uncertain how long SACD will survive on its own. Last I heard, SACD was a subset of the DVD standard, and SACD players are therefore logical mates with DVD players. Your point? They don't say these kinds of things anymore. Sure they do - if they have any engineering knowledge. No they don't. They know and enjoy SACD as a superior music reproduction system. They may be puzzled and not understand why, but they generally shut up and enjoy. Note that a senior Philips engineer has now also joined in 'blowing the whistle' on the fatal flaws of SACD, now that it's all out in the open and company loyalty is no longer an issue. "Fatal flaw" because it requires SACD-wide to do signal processing? The whole system and its ability to deliver music is what counts. If the system using SACD-wide still produces superior studio recordings, fine. If it gives better classical and jazz recording even better. If SACD decoding results in much less assault on our ears than redbook cd, even better still. And all three seem to be the case. Bruno's comments add nothing to what was already known. And you continue to ignore the end result. A "fatal flaw" that doesn't affect the end result is not all that "fatal", now is it? Semantics are not a substitute for listening. I repeat, Stewart, what SACD machine and what SACDs do you listen to at home, on your reference system? You would be better off buying a machine and disks, hearing the difference, and then spending your engineering talents trying to determine *why* SACD sounds better rather than denying that it does. As ever, you have it back to front, Harry. Having determined that there is in fact no detectable audible difference, the interesting thing is why SACD does not sound noticeably *worse*, given its obvious technical inferiority............... I listen. I don't have to concoct convulted theories. Of course, if you have an amp which is sensitive to the horrific and endemic RF noise of SACD, then it probably *does* sound worse! Fortunately, I have avoided such amps for years, as it generally doesn't take SACD to make them sound unmusical. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:lIJFb.456163$275.1338554@attbi_s53... "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:47:12 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 20 Dec 2003 17:16:06 GMT, (Ben Hoadley) wrote: snip, not relevant to my comments more snippage Absolutely not! In many cases the source of the recording was "speculated about" before it was confirmed. If you hung out around the Hi-Rez group on Audio Asylum once in a while you might learn something. A case in point is Sony's SACD of Glenn Gould's Well Tempered Klavier. I bought the disk early on in my SACD explorations and thought "what the....". It sounded bright and sterile like a poor cd, totally unlike any other SACD I had heard. Well, guess what? It *was* a 16/48 "master" from the early eighties (Sony doesn't say that on the disk). Others had the same experience who pursued Sony, who finally admitted it was the digital "master". Why Sony chose it only they know, but they got so much flack over the sound that in a later release of a boxed set including both of his recorded versions, they reverted to the taped master of the session. If it was from the early eighties, it's quite possible it was poorly done. There was a lot of *really* bad digital audio equipment out there in that era. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
On 22 Dec 2003 22:07:23 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 21 Dec 2003 16:19:02 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... Eh, Stewart.....what SACD machine is in your system that you are basing your perceptions on, huh? I have access to a Sony DVP-NS900V, a machine of unusual talent at the price. "Having access" is not the same as listening in your own system, is it Stewart? And what disks have you listened to? Come on, share a little! I'm referring to a player I can (and have) borrow to use in my own system. I've listened to DSOTM - which is a superb re-master, even in 2-channel, Ray Brown Trio Soular Energy, Isaac Hayes Hot Buttered Soul, Billy Joel An Innocent Man, Bruno Walter Beethoven 6, Charlotte Church, Ormandy Carmina Burana, Szell Peer Gynt/l'Arlesienne/Pictures at an Exhibition, Michael Jackson Thriller, and Santana Abraxas. In all cases, the SACD did not sound the same as the CD, due to remastering, and sometimes the SACD was 'better', sometimes not. Certainly, there was no *consistency* in the differences, such as would indicate what one might expect from the technical differences, such as a more natural percussion on the jazz and rock tracks. Personally, I'd stack 'Red Book' JVC XRCDs against any of those for sheer sound quality. Three years ago, two years ago, one year ago more people shared and promulgated your views...most now own SACD players. Correction - most own DVD players which can play SACDs. It's a fine example of convergent technogy, but it's uncertain how long SACD will survive on its own. Last I heard, SACD was a subset of the DVD standard, and SACD players are therefore logical mates with DVD players. Your point? SACD is *not* a substandard of the DVD standard, and most SACD players are not DVD players. Ownership of a 'universal' player indicates no preference for SACD, which is what you're trying to claim. They don't say these kinds of things anymore. Sure they do - if they have any engineering knowledge. No they don't. Yes, they do. They know and enjoy SACD as a superior music reproduction system. That's a belief system, not a reality. They may be puzzled and not understand why, but they generally shut up and enjoy. That would be because they *believe* that it sounds 'better', which is fine. If only others would shut up when they have nothing to offer but mere assertion....................... Note that a senior Philips engineer has now also joined in 'blowing the whistle' on the fatal flaws of SACD, now that it's all out in the open and company loyalty is no longer an issue. "Fatal flaw" because it requires SACD-wide to do signal processing? There's no such thing - you mean DSD-Wide, which is after all just another form of PCM, and much more difficult to work with than the allaround superior 24/192 PCM. The whole system and its ability to deliver music is what counts. If the system using SACD-wide still produces superior studio recordings, fine. So can CD, so who needs DSD-Wide? If it gives better classical and jazz recording even better. If SACD decoding results in much less assault on our ears than redbook cd, even better still. And all three seem to be the case. No Harry, you just *claim* that they are. Have you ever listened to the superb jazz releases on JVC XRCD? Bruno's comments add nothing to what was already known. Quite so - but they come from a senior engineer closely associated with SACD. And you continue to ignore the end result. Nope, you are the one who is attempting to ignore reality. A "fatal flaw" that doesn't affect the end result is not all that "fatal", now is it? No, but it *does* affect the end result, which is of course why even Sony does *not* use DSD for recording. Semantics are not a substitute for listening. Neither are your baseless claims............ I repeat, Stewart, what SACD machine and what SACDs do you listen to at home, on your reference system? Asked and answered. You would be better off buying a machine and disks, hearing the difference, and then spending your engineering talents trying to determine *why* SACD sounds better rather than denying that it does. As ever, you have it back to front, Harry. Having determined that there is in fact no detectable audible difference, the interesting thing is why SACD does not sound noticeably *worse*, given its obvious technical inferiority............... I listen. I don't have to concoct convulted theories. But you do make wild assertions based on your personal perception under uncontrolled conditions. Of course, if you have an amp which is sensitive to the horrific and endemic RF noise of SACD, then it probably *does* sound worse! Fortunately, I have avoided such amps for years, as it generally doesn't take SACD to make them sound unmusical. Largely true, but once again you fail to answer the point. Where the mastering is identical, *no one* has yet shown an ability to tell SACD from CD under controlled conditions. Given the poor technical performance of SACD, that's actually pretty good......... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
And you continue to ignore the end result. A "fatal flaw" that doesn't affect the end result is not all that "fatal", now is it? Semantics are not a substitute for listening. \ I strongly agree, I don't claim to have golden ears, but I can hear the improvement. It's not subtle. I listen. I don't have to concoct convulted theories. You're right but his theories aren't that bad. They're kind of convincing actually, but my ears are a lot more convincing! |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
remastering, and sometimes the SACD was 'better', sometimes not.
Certainly, there was no *consistency* in the differences, such as would indicate what one might expect from the technical differences, such as a more natural percussion on the jazz and rock tracks. Do you think that the remastering folks might ever turn up and down the dials, switches, etc. in an attempt to produce a sound that would offer what they believe to be the most pleasing result? If so are there (m)any available examples. I'd like to lay me ears on a couples of them! |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
Kalman Rubinson wrote in message news:7%HEb.432024$ao4.1371792@attbi_s51...
It is more a limitation of the way the recording is made. 96dB is pretty decent but rarely acheived. Very true. A recent discussion between a couple of mastering engineers said that they're lucky to produce about 40 dB of dynamic range in a live, acoustic recording, with no compression or any other funny business going on. A recent review of a DVD-A on highfidelityreview.com mentions that the producers were very happy to achieve nearly 70 dB of dynamic range in their recording. Having said that, there are venues where large dynamic range, beyond human audible limits, is achievable, if proper precautions are taken (recording late at night, AC off, hall in a certain configuration). Two examples are Skywalker Ranch's soundstage and the Meyerson Symphony Hall in Dallas. The new Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles may have similarly impressive figures, given its construction specs (the hall is decoupled from the streets around it through a floating concrete slab the hall sits on, for example) and apparent clarity, but no one's measured it yet. Having said those two things, one has to be careful with single numbers like "40 dB", because that number, like SNR and THD+N and dynamic range equipment specs, is perceptually useless. It doesn't tell us what the spectrum of the noise is, and hence, beyond the grossest things, we can't really predict what its effect will be. For example, in many homes, the measured noise level may be relatively high, but the distribution tends to be skewed towards the lower frequencies, so the noise may not necessarily affect midrange frequencies as much as a single number may lead you to believe. One also has to be careful about how that number is measured --- is it relative to digital silence, or only the most silent recorded part of the recording? --Andre |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:52:17 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:47:12 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 20 Dec 2003 17:16:06 GMT, (Ben Hoadley) wrote: snip, not relevant to my comments As far as SACD (and I really think we are getting away from the spirit of the initial post) people are way too worried about the technicalities of the format. Aside from the technicalities, what is there to discuss? How about the sound quality? It directly descends from the technicalities, otherwise why bother with 'hi-res' formats at all? No room for finding out anything new about the ear/brain function as it relates to reproduction, huh Stewart. Oh, I forgot, we already know *everything* we need to know. Given more than 100 years of research into the ear/brain function, we certainly know the basic abilities of human hearing. We also know about the uselessness of sighted testing. In fact, while one can never know everything about anything, we certainly know more than enough to determine whether there is any *audible* advantage to 'hi-res' formats. Since the debate is still raging among the professionals, it's hardly likely that some overenthusiastic amateur is hearing things that industry pros are missing, now is it? The noise floor of most microphones is higher than that of sacd so it will be sort of dithered anyway. It's higher than that of CD also, so what exactly is your point here? I notice that you neatly avoid answering this question..... No I didn't. You dissed it in an earlier post when I said "there is more going on here than noise floor". Largely becauise there isn't, aside from possible HF IMD effects from the horrific rising noise floor of SACD................. But your missing it doesn't make it an any less valid observation. The secret of SACD's sound is not just noise floor, I am convinced. I believe that the poor audio performance of SACD (on those occasions where it really does sound different from CD) is entirely due to the poor RF noise performance. Either that, or our ability to hear differences in noise floor (or to have it affect our perceptions of the naturalness of recorded music) is much greater than previously thought. Oh, I can hear noise at 20-30dB below the signal, although not *directly* at the frequencies where this occurs with SACD. IMD products in the baseband are of course highly audible......... Also a lot of people who are mastering for sacd use 192/24 equipment to edit, dither, normalise etc and then make the final dsd conversion last thing. This may seem like an impure path but at that resolution it is fine. 192khz is deliberatly over-spec'd to allow for a bit of give and take unlike cds which are a bare minimum spec. CDs do however have a 'bare minimum' spec which exceeds that of *any* analogue master, and converting to DSD from PCM makes a mockery of the whole principle of DSD. This is your assertion. It simply doesn't stand up to the listening experience of SACD users. SACD's are almost always made from direct DSD recordings (best) or high quality original master tapes (second best). Actually, *no* current SACD recordings are made from DSD masters - they are made from DSD-Wide masters, which as previously noted, are just high-oversampled PCM. Hence, while they may certainly be fine recordings, they have no possible advantage over conventional 24/96 PCM, let alone 24/192. Also, any analogue master is adequately served by 'Red Book' CD, as the excellent JVC XRCDs amply demonstrate. I and most others with SACD machines can put an orchestral SACD or a stringed group of pop musicians on the machine and almost immediately tell you whether it is a DSD recording or not. Can you do this when you don't *know* that it's a DSD recording? BTW, you *do* know that most 'DSD' recordings are actually DSD-Wide (which is really PCM), don't you? Do you actually know of *any* commercially available recordings that use *real* DSD? DSD recordings have a depth, ease, and "naturalness" that *no* other medium has. Not tape (which has a pleasant but artificial "warmth" to it). Not high-rez pcm (which has a certain flatness to it). Harry, this is mere assertion, and you know it. Some newer pop releases are recorded at 24/192 on a DAW, which also seems to work. Stuff that was mastered at 24/48 and even some at 24/96 and then converted to SACD have their "digititus" come through...and these disks are generally scorned by SACD users for their clearly perceived poor sound compared to SACDs produced from the other sources. Only when the listener *knows* the source was a 'low-res' digital master. As with most things audiophilic, it's all in the mind........ Absolutely not! In many cases the source of the recording was "speculated about" before it was confirmed. If you hung out around the Hi-Rez group on Audio Asylum once in a while you might learn something. I learn that lots of people make wild claims about things which have no factual basis, and I learn that no one uses bias-controlled listening, hence there's nothing but lip-flapping going on. Asylum, indeed......... A case in point is Sony's SACD of Glenn Gould's Well Tempered Klavier. I bought the disk early on in my SACD explorations and thought "what the....". It sounded bright and sterile like a poor cd, totally unlike any other SACD I had heard. Well, guess what? It *was* a 16/48 "master" from the early eighties (Sony doesn't say that on the disk). Others had the same experience who pursued Sony, who finally admitted it was the digital "master". Why Sony chose it only they know, but they got so much flack over the sound that in a later release of a boxed set including both of his recorded versions, they reverted to the taped master of the session. There have always been, and always will be, poor recordings. This instance will of course have had nothing to do with the original being 16/48, unless it was an old recording made with poor converters. Hey, guess what - it was made at the dawn of digital audio, so there's every chance that it was indeed a technically poor recording - it might even be undithered. You'll have to do *much* better than that, Harry! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
|
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
What are being referred to as "convoluted theories" actually have a very
firm mathematical and digital signal processing basis. I will say that the "fatal" flaws in SACD might be so small as to be irrelevant in everyday use. Ten years ago, some respected engineer said that by the time Digital Audio was all "true" 24-bit, we wouldn't need dither. I don't know if they'd make the same statement today, but perhaps it's true for all practical purposes. On the other hand, if I were designing a system, I would want it to be theoretically flawless, even if the current technology leaves room for improvement. Otherwise, guaranteed, some group of audiophiles or high-end mag would "discover" the flaw and make a big deal out of it. Or -- more likely -- a manufacturer with a marketing agenda would trot the flaw all over their sales literature, showing how their technology is audibly better. All of a sudden a whole bunch of high-end enthusiasts would "hear" the difference! Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing anybody. I'm a high-end enthusiast myself. Unfortunately (for me) I'm also an engineer, which takes all the fun out of it. You can't have opinions about the truth. "Ben Hoadley" wrote in message news:TH%Fb.183724$_M.836208@attbi_s54... And you continue to ignore the end result. A "fatal flaw" that doesn't affect the end result is not all that "fatal", now is it? Semantics are not a substitute for listening. \ I strongly agree, I don't claim to have golden ears, but I can hear the improvement. It's not subtle. I listen. I don't have to concoct convulted theories. You're right but his theories aren't that bad. They're kind of convincing actually, but my ears are a lot more convincing! |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
Ben Hoadley wrote:
And you continue to ignore the end result. A "fatal flaw" that doesn't affect the end result is not all that "fatal", now is it? Semantics are not a substitute for listening. \ I strongly agree, I don't claim to have golden ears, but I can hear the improvement. It's not subtle. And assuming it isn't, you know it's due to SACD...how? I listen. I don't have to concoct convulted theories. You're right but his theories aren't that bad. They're kind of convincing actually, but my ears are a lot more convincing! It's one thing to be convinced that you hear something; it's another to be convinced you know *why* you're hearing it. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 22 Dec 2003 22:07:23 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 21 Dec 2003 16:19:02 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... Eh, Stewart.....what SACD machine is in your system that you are basing your perceptions on, huh? I have access to a Sony DVP-NS900V, a machine of unusual talent at the price. "Having access" is not the same as listening in your own system, is it Stewart? And what disks have you listened to? Come on, share a little! I'm referring to a player I can (and have) borrow to use in my own system. I've listened to DSOTM - which is a superb re-master, even in 2-channel, Ray Brown Trio Soular Energy, Isaac Hayes Hot Buttered Soul, Billy Joel An Innocent Man, Bruno Walter Beethoven 6, Charlotte Church, Ormandy Carmina Burana, Szell Peer Gynt/l'Arlesienne/Pictures at an Exhibition, Michael Jackson Thriller, and Santana Abraxas. In all cases, the SACD did not sound the same as the CD, due to remastering, and sometimes the SACD was 'better', sometimes not. Certainly, there was no *consistency* in the differences, such as would indicate what one might expect from the technical differences, such as a more natural percussion on the jazz and rock tracks. Decent list, but no DSD mastered disk among them, so you are not getting the best SACD has to offer. Were you comparing to separate redbook cd's? To a hybrid layer? What titles did you find cd superior to SACD on, and how would you describe the difference? Personally, I'd stack 'Red Book' JVC XRCDs against any of those for sheer sound quality. A lot of people have done that .... and with one exception among several dozen...they prefer SACD. Again, hang around Audio Asylum Hi-Rez for awhile...and if you want to challenge them, challenge them. Three years ago, two years ago, one year ago more people shared and promulgated your views...most now own SACD players. Correction - most own DVD players which can play SACDs. It's a fine example of convergent technogy, but it's uncertain how long SACD will survive on its own. Last I heard, SACD was a subset of the DVD standard, and SACD players are therefore logical mates with DVD players. Your point? SACD is *not* a substandard of the DVD standard, and most SACD players are not DVD players. Ownership of a 'universal' player indicates no preference for SACD, which is what you're trying to claim. Most SACD players today are DVD players as well. The earlier ones (mine among them) were not but that did not mean that SACD is not a substandard of the DVD standard....the DVD standard allows for it. They don't say these kinds of things anymore. Sure they do - if they have any engineering knowledge. No they don't. Yes, they do. They know and enjoy SACD as a superior music reproduction system. That's a belief system, not a reality. It seems to be a belief system then that spontaneously strikes 9 out of 10 who have heard SACD. They may be puzzled and not understand why, but they generally shut up and enjoy. That would be because they *believe* that it sounds 'better', which is fine. If only others would shut up when they have nothing to offer but mere assertion....................... I see. I see. They believe it sounds better but they refuse to talk about it because they can't explain it to their engineering brethren like yourself. Is that what you are saying? I say good for them...they trust their ears over dogma. Note that a senior Philips engineer has now also joined in 'blowing the whistle' on the fatal flaws of SACD, now that it's all out in the open and company loyalty is no longer an issue. "Fatal flaw" because it requires SACD-wide to do signal processing? There's no such thing - you mean DSD-Wide, which is after all just another form of PCM, and much more difficult to work with than the allaround superior 24/192 PCM. Yes, DSD-wide, sorry. And they use it because it (the whole DSD/SACD sytem sounds better). In the early days they went to tape and back. Nowadays, some use 192/24 on a one-time basis. But where available all-DSD is still the first choice. The whole system and its ability to deliver music is what counts. If the system using SACD-wide still produces superior studio recordings, fine. So can CD, so who needs DSD-Wide? Anybody who wants better sound. If it gives better classical and jazz recording even better. If SACD decoding results in much less assault on our ears than redbook cd, even better still. And all three seem to be the case. No Harry, you just *claim* that they are. Have you ever listened to the superb jazz releases on JVC XRCD? I haven't, but many people have. And they virtually all feel SACD is superior to XRCD, even XRCD24, even though that is in turn better than ordinary cd. Bruno's comments add nothing to what was already known. Quite so - but they come from a senior engineer closely associated with SACD. Yep, so? All he is testifying to is that they have to use DSD-wide for signal processing. And you continue to ignore the end result. Nope, you are the one who is attempting to ignore reality. The reality is most people who have heard SACD end up buying a SACD player. A "fatal flaw" that doesn't affect the end result is not all that "fatal", now is it? No, but it *does* affect the end result, which is of course why even Sony does *not* use DSD for recording. Bull****. Virtually all their classical recording done in the last three years has been DSD. Semantics are not a substitute for listening. Neither are your baseless claims............ I see...my opinion supported by fact in some aspects is worthless, while your opinion supported by fewer facts and incomplete listening is superior, is that it? I repeat, Stewart, what SACD machine and what SACDs do you listen to at home, on your reference system? Asked and answered. Good. Now fill in the blanks, please. You would be better off buying a machine and disks, hearing the difference, and then spending your engineering talents trying to determine *why* SACD sounds better rather than denying that it does. As ever, you have it back to front, Harry. Having determined that there is in fact no detectable audible difference, the interesting thing is why SACD does not sound noticeably *worse*, given its obvious technical inferiority............... I listen. I don't have to concoct convulted theories. But you do make wild assertions based on your personal perception under uncontrolled conditions. Wild only to you, Stewart. Not to most who have heard SACD. Of course, if you have an amp which is sensitive to the horrific and endemic RF noise of SACD, then it probably *does* sound worse! Fortunately, I have avoided such amps for years, as it generally doesn't take SACD to make them sound unmusical. Largely true, but once again you fail to answer the point. Where the mastering is identical, *no one* has yet shown an ability to tell SACD from CD under controlled conditions. Given the poor technical performance of SACD, that's actually pretty good......... Well, where I own identical recordings from identical mixes (Swing Live, and 3 Doors Away from the Sun), the SACD is even superior to DVD-A, but this might be due to the difference in players. And on current remixes using the Meitner Box which usually outputs DSD and high-rez PCM simultaneously, the SACD layer beats the CD layer (listen to Vince Guardi's Charlie Brown Christmas and you'll see what I'm talking about). I'm seeking opinions from Universal Player owners now on the Audio Asylum to see what they might have to say about this phenomenon. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
Maybe you're hearing the "fatal flaw" and you *like* the sound. Sort of like
tubes and vinyl... (ducking and running)... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message news:U25Gb.629326$HS4.4583838@attbi_s01... Ben Hoadley wrote: And you continue to ignore the end result. A "fatal flaw" that doesn't affect the end result is not all that "fatal", now is it? Semantics are not a substitute for listening. \ I strongly agree, I don't claim to have golden ears, but I can hear the improvement. It's not subtle. And assuming it isn't, you know it's due to SACD...how? I listen. I don't have to concoct convulted theories. You're right but his theories aren't that bad. They're kind of convincing actually, but my ears are a lot more convincing! It's one thing to be convinced that you hear something; it's another to be convinced you know *why* you're hearing it. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
On 23 Dec 2003 23:57:46 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" wrote:
remastering, and sometimes the SACD was 'better', sometimes not. Certainly, there was no *consistency* in the differences, such as would indicate what one might expect from the technical differences, such as a more natural percussion on the jazz and rock tracks. Do you think that the remastering folks might ever turn up and down the dials, switches, etc. in an attempt to produce a sound that would offer what they believe to be the most pleasing result? If so are there (m)any available examples. I'd like to lay me ears on a couples of them! From Sony itself? That would be *all* of them.................. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
... What are being referred to as "convoluted theories" actually have a very firm mathematical and digital signal processing basis. I will say that the "fatal" flaws in SACD might be so small as to be irrelevant in everyday use. Ten years ago, some respected engineer said that by the time Digital Audio was all "true" 24-bit, we wouldn't need dither. I don't know if they'd make the same statement today, but perhaps it's true for all practical purposes. On the other hand, if I were designing a system, I would want it to be theoretically flawless, even if the current technology leaves room for improvement. Otherwise, guaranteed, some group of audiophiles or high-end mag would "discover" the flaw and make a big deal out of it. Or -- more likely -- a manufacturer with a marketing agenda would trot the flaw all over their sales literature, showing how their technology is audibly better. All of a sudden a whole bunch of high-end enthusiasts would "hear" the difference! Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing anybody. I'm a high-end enthusiast myself. Unfortunately (for me) I'm also an engineer, which takes all the fun out of it. You can't have opinions about the truth. I'm not speaking of the presence of high-frequency noise....in the ultrasonic range or the need for dsd-wide for signal processing. I'm saying it is convoluted to use those arguments to claim that SACD doesn't sound any better than CD. The proof is in the listening...and a growing number of audiophiles are reaching the conclusion that SACD sounds more like real music than cd. This seems especially true of the older generation raised on vinyl and whom appear more experienced with attending classical and acoustic concerts. Those among the younger generation who seem not to have heard much music other than CD and rock concerts sometimes don't like SACD because they find it "soft". They lament the lack of "edge" that many CDs have...they think music should have this edge. It should not and in real life does not. Nobody in the engineering community has yet explained *why* SACD strikes most experienced acoustic concert goers as more lifelike both upon first hearing and upon repeated hearing. Yet this is the most common reaction among people when they first hear it. Until this phenomenon is explained, the assertion that SACD is inferior because of its shifted noise level and use of SACD-wide signal processing is just irrelevant to the real issue that interests audiophiles. Why does it sound so good? The`only`obvious explanation is the reduced mid-frequency and lower-frequency noise floor. Yet conventional theory says the CD noise level is already below the level of audible perception..as Stewart keeps pointing out. Something is amiss in our knowledge base. So don't have opinions about the truth. But find the truth. My only gripe is that the energy spent by people like Stewart trying to convince us that we are hearing things because he can't explain it with current engineering knowledge is misplaced: it would be better spent honestly seeking to get at the answer as to "why". And that is especially annoying when he has hardly the experience with it that many others do. Perhaps the neurophysioligists and auditory specialists rather than engineers will have to be the ones to provide the answers. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:26:46 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 22 Dec 2003 22:07:23 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... "Having access" is not the same as listening in your own system, is it Stewart? And what disks have you listened to? Come on, share a little! I'm referring to a player I can (and have) borrow to use in my own system. I've listened to DSOTM - which is a superb re-master, even in 2-channel, Ray Brown Trio Soular Energy, Isaac Hayes Hot Buttered Soul, Billy Joel An Innocent Man, Bruno Walter Beethoven 6, Charlotte Church, Ormandy Carmina Burana, Szell Peer Gynt/l'Arlesienne/Pictures at an Exhibition, Michael Jackson Thriller, and Santana Abraxas. In all cases, the SACD did not sound the same as the CD, due to remastering, and sometimes the SACD was 'better', sometimes not. Certainly, there was no *consistency* in the differences, such as would indicate what one might expect from the technical differences, such as a more natural percussion on the jazz and rock tracks. Decent list, but no DSD mastered disk among them, so you are not getting the best SACD has to offer. Yeah fine, Harry, you'll always move the goalposts, just as with the DBT threads. Did you miss my comment that there's no such thing as a true DSD recording? Were you comparing to separate redbook cd's? To a hybrid layer? What titles did you find cd superior to SACD on, and how would you describe the difference? Both to separate CDs and the hybrid layer, where available. I'm not going to get into a detailed breakdown, it would be pointless with you. Personally, I'd stack 'Red Book' JVC XRCDs against any of those for sheer sound quality. A lot of people have done that .... and with one exception among several dozen...they prefer SACD. Again, hang around Audio Asylum Hi-Rez for awhile...and if you want to challenge them, challenge them. I've done my own listening comparisons, and I'm well aware of the technical drawbacks of SACD, so I'm not interested in the weird and wonderful opinions of the inmates of the Audio Asylum. They know and enjoy SACD as a superior music reproduction system. That's a belief system, not a reality. It seems to be a belief system then that spontaneously strikes 9 out of 10 who have heard SACD. The MacDonalds argument never works, and the jury is certainly out among audio industry professionals............. They may be puzzled and not understand why, but they generally shut up and enjoy. That would be because they *believe* that it sounds 'better', which is fine. If only others would shut up when they have nothing to offer but mere assertion....................... I see. I see. They believe it sounds better but they refuse to talk about it because they can't explain it to their engineering brethren like yourself. Is that what you are saying? Nope, I'm saying that they've never done comparisons under controlled conditions. I say good for them...they trust their ears over dogma. No Harry, neither you nor any of your pals actually *trust* their ears, only their eyes................... Note that a senior Philips engineer has now also joined in 'blowing the whistle' on the fatal flaws of SACD, now that it's all out in the open and company loyalty is no longer an issue. "Fatal flaw" because it requires SACD-wide to do signal processing? There's no such thing - you mean DSD-Wide, which is after all just another form of PCM, and much more difficult to work with than the allaround superior 24/192 PCM. Yes, DSD-wide, sorry. And they use it because it (the whole DSD/SACD sytem sounds better). No, they use it because DSD doesn't work, and company pride wouldn't allow them to junk it in favour of the allaround superior 24/192 PCM. In the early days they went to tape and back. Nowadays, some use 192/24 on a one-time basis. But where available all-DSD is still the first choice. As previously noted, straight DSD is *never* used nowadays, and DSD-Wide simply has no rational place when 24/192 is available. A "fatal flaw" that doesn't affect the end result is not all that "fatal", now is it? No, but it *does* affect the end result, which is of course why even Sony does *not* use DSD for recording. Bull****. Virtually all their classical recording done in the last three years has been DSD. No, they use DSD-Wide, which is *not* true DSD. They simply refuse to lose face by switching to the superior (and much simpler) 24/192 PCM. Largely true, but once again you fail to answer the point. Where the mastering is identical, *no one* has yet shown an ability to tell SACD from CD under controlled conditions. Given the poor technical performance of SACD, that's actually pretty good......... Well, where I own identical recordings from identical mixes (Swing Live, and 3 Doors Away from the Sun), the SACD is even superior to DVD-A, but this might be due to the difference in players. And on current remixes using the Meitner Box which usually outputs DSD and high-rez PCM simultaneously, the SACD layer beats the CD layer (listen to Vince Guardi's Charlie Brown Christmas and you'll see what I'm talking about). I'm seeking opinions from Universal Player owners now on the Audio Asylum to see what they might have to say about this phenomenon. Harry, until you listen under DBT conditions, these are mere assertions with *no* evidential base whatever. Take them to the Asylum, by all means.................... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
I'm referring to a player I can (and have) borrow to use in my own
system. I've listened to DSOTM - which is a superb re-master, even in 2-channel, Ray Brown Trio Soular Energy, Isaac Hayes Hot Buttered Soul, Billy Joel An Innocent Man, Bruno Walter Beethoven 6, Charlotte Church, Ormandy Carmina Burana, Szell Peer Gynt/l'Arlesienne/Pictures at an Exhibition, Michael Jackson Thriller, and Santana Abraxas. In all cases, the SACD did not sound the same as the CD, due to remastering, and sometimes the SACD was 'better', sometimes not. Certainly, there was no *consistency* in the differences, such as would indicate what one might expect from the technical differences, such as a more natural percussion on the jazz and rock tracks. Decent list, but no DSD mastered disk among them, so you are not getting the best SACD has to offer. Were you comparing to separate redbook cd's? To a hybrid layer? What titles did you find cd superior to SACD on, and how would you describe the difference? As I've mentioned in this group before (at least a couple of times) it's much easier to demonstrate the inferiority of CDDA rather than the SUperiority of SACD, if indeed that is the case. One does this by recording the output of the SACD recording, and showing that it cannot be re-recorded in CDDA without audible degradation. i.e. you can't slip such a copy by an SACD enthusiast without him noticing. Even better would be comparing the SACD recording to the signal from the analog tape from which it's made. If the SACD output can be reliably identified--and preferred--then we have something interesting to pursue! Merry Xmas, Norm Strong |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:26:46 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 22 Dec 2003 22:07:23 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... "Having access" is not the same as listening in your own system, is it Stewart? And what disks have you listened to? Come on, share a little! I'm referring to a player I can (and have) borrow to use in my own system. I've listened to DSOTM - which is a superb re-master, even in 2-channel, Ray Brown Trio Soular Energy, Isaac Hayes Hot Buttered Soul, Billy Joel An Innocent Man, Bruno Walter Beethoven 6, Charlotte Church, Ormandy Carmina Burana, Szell Peer Gynt/l'Arlesienne/Pictures at an Exhibition, Michael Jackson Thriller, and Santana Abraxas. In all cases, the SACD did not sound the same as the CD, due to remastering, and sometimes the SACD was 'better', sometimes not. Certainly, there was no *consistency* in the differences, such as would indicate what one might expect from the technical differences, such as a more natural percussion on the jazz and rock tracks. Decent list, but no DSD mastered disk among them, so you are not getting the best SACD has to offer. Yeah fine, Harry, you'll always move the goalposts, just as with the DBT threads. Did you miss my comment that there's no such thing as a true DSD recording? Not moving the goalposts. Just common sense if you are going to criticize legitimately. And you know perfectly well there are DSD recordings. The first year or so the workstations were pure one-bit DSD and most recording to this day utilizes no signal processing but records "straight in". Again, you are substituting semantics to obscure the basic truth. Were you comparing to separate redbook cd's? To a hybrid layer? What titles did you find cd superior to SACD on, and how would you describe the difference? Both to separate CDs and the hybrid layer, where available. I'm not going to get into a detailed breakdown, it would be pointless with you. In other words, you've got something to hide. Could it be that you haven't done many (any?) careful comparisons. Could it be that you have avoided DBT but are still offering assertions as "truth". Most of us on this and other forums are perfectly willing to discuss specific recordings and our impressions of them and comparisons to them. And we offer these "opinions" as just that, observations, impressions, opinions. Nobody is "locked in". In that way we can share impressions: in that way consensus or arguments can ensue; and in that way one can judge for themselves how universal or "nicne" a set of impressions are and if there are differences, whether or not there are variables that might explain them. Personally, I'd stack 'Red Book' JVC XRCDs against any of those for sheer sound quality. A lot of people have done that .... and with one exception among several dozen...they prefer SACD. Again, hang around Audio Asylum Hi-Rez for awhile...and if you want to challenge them, challenge them. I've done my own listening comparisons, and I'm well aware of the technical drawbacks of SACD, so I'm not interested in the weird and wonderful opinions of the inmates of the Audio Asylum. In other words, those intelligent listeners on other forums (and there are a lot of them, including some very technically savvy ones) with much more experience with SACD who have reached other points of view are simply not worth listening to? How do you spell "threatened"? If you opened yourself up a little, you might be surprised that there *are* others who share your view....they just happen to be in a distinct minority. They know and enjoy SACD as a superior music reproduction system. That's a belief system, not a reality. It seems to be a belief system then that spontaneously strikes 9 out of 10 who have heard SACD. The MacDonalds argument never works, and the jury is certainly out among audio industry professionals............. That isn't a McDonald's argument. It is rather a Zagot guide....by people who've actually eaten at the restaurants in question. They may be puzzled and not understand why, but they generally shut up and enjoy. That would be because they *believe* that it sounds 'better', which is fine. If only others would shut up when they have nothing to offer but mere assertion....................... I see. I see. They believe it sounds better but they refuse to talk about it because they can't explain it to their engineering brethren like yourself. Is that what you are saying? Nope, I'm saying that they've never done comparisons under controlled conditions. Hasn't kept them from buying machines and SACDs and enjoying them, and for the most part preferring them over ordinary CD. I say good for them...they trust their ears over dogma. No Harry, neither you nor any of your pals actually *trust* their ears, only their eyes................... Ho hum. Ho hum. Same old record, intended to substitute for "where's the proof:" via DBT. Where's you *proof* that SACD is no better than CD? Note that a senior Philips engineer has now also joined in 'blowing the whistle' on the fatal flaws of SACD, now that it's all out in the open and company loyalty is no longer an issue. "Fatal flaw" because it requires SACD-wide to do signal processing? There's no such thing - you mean DSD-Wide, which is after all just another form of PCM, and much more difficult to work with than the allaround superior 24/192 PCM. Yes, DSD-wide, sorry. And they use it because it (the whole DSD/SACD sytem sounds better). No, they use it because DSD doesn't work, and company pride wouldn't allow them to junk it in favour of the allaround superior 24/192 PCM. Except that there is no consensus at all in support of your view. There are at least as many recording engineers who prefer SACD as prefer 24/192 based on an informal sampling at AES. Many work now with 24/192 because that is what they have but are looking forward to getting their SADIE and GENELEC workstations. In the early days they went to tape and back. Nowadays, some use 192/24 on a one-time basis. But where available all-DSD still seems to be the first choice. As previously noted, straight DSD is *never* used nowadays, and DSD-Wide simply has no rational place when 24/192 is available. DSD-wide is still preferred over the alternatives by most of those with access to the technology. They think it sounds better. You don't believe me, go right ahead and ask them. A "fatal flaw" that doesn't affect the end result is not all that "fatal", now is it? No, but it *does* affect the end result, which is of course why even Sony does *not* use DSD for recording. Bull****. Virtually all their classical recording done in the last three years has been DSD. No, they use DSD-Wide, which is *not* true DSD. They simply refuse to lose face by switching to the superior (and much simpler) 24/192 PCM. This is totally irrelevant to the sound of the final product. Largely true, but once again you fail to answer the point. Where the mastering is identical, *no one* has yet shown an ability to tell SACD from CD under controlled conditions. Given the poor technical performance of SACD, that's actually pretty good......... Well, where I own identical recordings from identical mixes (Swing Live, and 3 Doors Away from the Sun), the SACD is even superior to DVD-A, but this might be due to the difference in players. And on current remixes using the Meitner Box which usually outputs DSD and high-rez PCM simultaneously, the SACD layer beats the CD layer (listen to Vince Guardi's Charlie Brown Christmas and you'll see what I'm talking about). I'm seeking opinions from Universal Player owners now on the Audio Asylum to see what they might have to say about this phenomenon. Harry, until you listen under DBT conditions, these are mere assertions with *no* evidential base whatever. Take them to the Asylum, by all means.................... They are assertions and opinions and have never been offered as proof. You are the one making technical claims *aginst* my opinions and assertions. I have offered support and disclosed the basis for my assertions and opinions. Here goes the old "give me proof via DBT" or you are not allowed to present your opinion in opposition to mine gambit. Moderators....??? |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
|
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Volume and dynamic range question.
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:56:28 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:26:46 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 22 Dec 2003 22:07:23 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... "Having access" is not the same as listening in your own system, is it Stewart? And what disks have you listened to? Come on, share a little! I'm referring to a player I can (and have) borrow to use in my own system. I've listened to DSOTM - which is a superb re-master, even in 2-channel, Ray Brown Trio Soular Energy, Isaac Hayes Hot Buttered Soul, Billy Joel An Innocent Man, Bruno Walter Beethoven 6, Charlotte Church, Ormandy Carmina Burana, Szell Peer Gynt/l'Arlesienne/Pictures at an Exhibition, Michael Jackson Thriller, and Santana Abraxas. In all cases, the SACD did not sound the same as the CD, due to remastering, and sometimes the SACD was 'better', sometimes not. Certainly, there was no *consistency* in the differences, such as would indicate what one might expect from the technical differences, such as a more natural percussion on the jazz and rock tracks. Decent list, but no DSD mastered disk among them, so you are not getting the best SACD has to offer. Yeah fine, Harry, you'll always move the goalposts, just as with the DBT threads. Did you miss my comment that there's no such thing as a true DSD recording? Not moving the goalposts. Just common sense if you are going to criticize legitimately. And you know perfectly well there are DSD recordings. The first year or so the workstations were pure one-bit DSD and most recording to this day utilizes no signal processing but records "straight in". Again, you are substituting semantics to obscure the basic truth. Were you comparing to separate redbook cd's? To a hybrid layer? What titles did you find cd superior to SACD on, and how would you describe the difference? Both to separate CDs and the hybrid layer, where available. I'm not going to get into a detailed breakdown, it would be pointless with you. In other words, you've got something to hide. No Harry, it's a given in any 'debate' with you that you'll jump around all over the place to score points, regardless of the basic truths of the matter. I am only interested in sound quality, and to my ears, SACD simply doesn't offer *any* advantage over straight CD - aside from the multichannel ability. Of course, we have the even better DVD-A for multichannel, so no problem with real progress. DSD has already been shown to be a technical dead end for recording, and I doubt that SACD will last that much longer. Could it be that you haven't done many (any?) careful comparisons. Could it be that you have avoided DBT but are still offering assertions as "truth". Nope, I *always* do DBTs where differences are subtle. While this isn't particularly easy with CD/SACD, I do my best to 'bias-proof' the comparisons. I am *not* going to get into a pathetic 'bar by bar' argument with you, when I know that you have done no such blind comparison. Most of us on this and other forums are perfectly willing to discuss specific recordings and our impressions of them and comparisons to them. Sure you are - and they are pointless lip-flapping. And we offer these "opinions" as just that, observations, impressions, opinions. Nobody is "locked in". In that way we can share impressions: in that way consensus or arguments can ensue; and in that way one can judge for themselves how universal or "nicne" a set of impressions are and if there are differences, whether or not there are variables that might explain them. Personally, I'd stack 'Red Book' JVC XRCDs against any of those for sheer sound quality. A lot of people have done that .... and with one exception among several dozen...they prefer SACD. Again, hang around Audio Asylum Hi-Rez for awhile...and if you want to challenge them, challenge them. I've done my own listening comparisons, and I'm well aware of the technical drawbacks of SACD, so I'm not interested in the weird and wonderful opinions of the inmates of the Audio Asylum. In other words, those intelligent listeners on other forums (and there are a lot of them, including some very technically savvy ones) with much more experience with SACD who have reached other points of view are simply not worth listening to? Not if they haven't done *blind* comparisons, no. How do you spell "threatened"? As above............... If you opened yourself up a little, you might be surprised that there *are* others who share your view....they just happen to be in a distinct minority. You seem to have this impression that I care. Without the results of *blind* comparisons, these opinions, whether agreeing or disagreeeing, are of no value to me. They know and enjoy SACD as a superior music reproduction system. That's a belief system, not a reality. It seems to be a belief system then that spontaneously strikes 9 out of 10 who have heard SACD. The MacDonalds argument never works, and the jury is certainly out among audio industry professionals............. That isn't a McDonald's argument. It is rather a Zagot guide....by people who've actually eaten at the restaurants in question. Industry professionals can't agree on SACD, so the sighted opinions of a vocal few amateurs are hardly of interest to anyone who wants some *real* information on the subject. They may be puzzled and not understand why, but they generally shut up and enjoy. That would be because they *believe* that it sounds 'better', which is fine. If only others would shut up when they have nothing to offer but mere assertion....................... I see. I see. They believe it sounds better but they refuse to talk about it because they can't explain it to their engineering brethren like yourself. Is that what you are saying? Nope, I'm saying that they've never done comparisons under controlled conditions. Hasn't kept them from buying machines and SACDs and enjoying them, and for the most part preferring them over ordinary CD. And your point is? Aside from RF noise, SACD is certainly not *worse* than CD, so why wouldn't they enjoy them? Of course, without proof of *difference*, any expressed preference is simply label snobbery. I say good for them...they trust their ears over dogma. No Harry, neither you nor any of your pals actually *trust* their ears, only their eyes................... Ho hum. Ho hum. Same old record, intended to substitute for "where's the proof:" via DBT. Where's you *proof* that SACD is no better than CD? My blind comparisons suggest that mastering is *vastly* more variable than any differences which you could track down to extended bandwidth. The extended resolution at low frequencies is of course irrelevant, since 16 bits is already much more than is on any master tape. Note that most '24 bit' PCM converters are actually 1-bit devices, so they are in effect just the same as DSD. Note also that the best are low-bit hybrids, just like DSD-Wide, and for the same reasons. Note that a senior Philips engineer has now also joined in 'blowing the whistle' on the fatal flaws of SACD, now that it's all out in the open and company loyalty is no longer an issue. "Fatal flaw" because it requires SACD-wide to do signal processing? There's no such thing - you mean DSD-Wide, which is after all just another form of PCM, and much more difficult to work with than the allaround superior 24/192 PCM. Yes, DSD-wide, sorry. And they use it because it (the whole DSD/SACD sytem sounds better). No, they use it because DSD doesn't work, and company pride wouldn't allow them to junk it in favour of the allaround superior 24/192 PCM. Except that there is no consensus at all in support of your view. Nor in support of yours.................. There are at least as many recording engineers who prefer SACD as prefer 24/192 based on an informal sampling at AES. Quite so - as I said already. Nothing like the '9 out of 10' that you were claiming for your Audio Asylum pals. As previously noted, straight DSD is *never* used nowadays, and DSD-Wide simply has no rational place when 24/192 is available. DSD-wide is still preferred over the alternatives by most of those with access to the technology. They think it sounds better. You don't believe me, go right ahead and ask them. You already said that it's a 50/50 split in the AES - try to keep your story straight, at least in the same post.............. And I have asked them - they are as divided as you earlier suggested. A "fatal flaw" that doesn't affect the end result is not all that "fatal", now is it? No, but it *does* affect the end result, which is of course why even Sony does *not* use DSD for recording. Bull****. Virtually all their classical recording done in the last three years has been DSD. No, they use DSD-Wide, which is *not* true DSD. They simply refuse to lose face by switching to the superior (and much simpler) 24/192 PCM. This is totally irrelevant to the sound of the final product. Not if the final product is a 24/192 DVD-A, it's not! With that excellent standard, you truly can have an *exact* copy of the original studio master, which you can't with SACD. Harry, until you listen under DBT conditions, these are mere assertions with *no* evidential base whatever. Take them to the Asylum, by all means.................... They are assertions and opinions and have never been offered as proof. You are the one making technical claims *aginst* my opinions and assertions. I have offered support and disclosed the basis for my assertions and opinions. No, you've just claimed that others share your opinions. This has no value if those opinions are based only on sighted listening. Here goes the old "give me proof via DBT" or you are not allowed to present your opinion in opposition to mine gambit. Moderators....??? I'm not presenting an opinion - I'm giving you facts about DSD, facts about SACD, and the inconclusive results of my blind comparisons. Just what reliable and repeatable information are you offering in return? Merry Christmas, one and all! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 2/5) | Car Audio | |||
| Adjust volume before or after noise reduction? | Audio Opinions | |||
| Question re. Speaker Sensitvity | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
