Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
I found this article on another newsgroup:
http://www.diamondcenter.net/digitalstress.html Here are (to me) the most significant paragraphs: "With the advent of Direct Stream Digital (DSD) recording, it is now possible to conclude that the negative effects I have stated above are due not to the digital process per se but to the mode of achieving it, Pulse Code Modulation (PCM). For DSD recordings do not have these negative effects. "Although it was suggested, unfortunately the record industry did not make analog backups of their digital (PCM) sessions. So now there is a (very expensive) twenty year hiatus. Hence some SACDs (the CD format for DSD) are being released which have gone through the PCM process and are as negative as regular CDs." I have two questions: I wonder whether it is possible to find pure DSD recordings, and how to recognize them. Also, are DSD CDs -- as opposed to DSD SACDs -- as likely to be free of the negative artifacts Diamond cites? Thanks. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Farrell8882" wrote in message
news:ddeQb.104704$Rc4.713016@attbi_s54... I found this article on another newsgroup: http://www.diamondcenter.net/digitalstress.html Here are (to me) the most significant paragraphs: "With the advent of Direct Stream Digital (DSD) recording, it is now possible to conclude that the negative effects I have stated above are due not to the digital process per se but to the mode of achieving it, Pulse Code Modulation (PCM). For DSD recordings do not have these negative effects. "Although it was suggested, unfortunately the record industry did not make analog backups of their digital (PCM) sessions. So now there is a (very expensive) twenty year hiatus. Hence some SACDs (the CD format for DSD) are being released which have gone through the PCM process and are as negative as regular CDs." I have two questions: I wonder whether it is possible to find pure DSD recordings, and how to recognize them. Look carefully at the recording notes on the back of the SACD's. Most SACD's that were recorded in DSD mention this fact somewhere on the back cover. Not there? Assume it is high bit rate, high res pcm...probably 96/20 or better...most recently 192/24. Also, are DSD CDs -- as opposed to DSD SACDs -- as likely to be free of the negative artifacts Diamond cites? In my experience most irritation is as a result of the filters used in decoding...thus SACD avoids the problem at the consumer level. A lot depends on what equipment/how carefully the transfer from PCM to SACD was done at the mastering level. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On 23 Jan 2004 22:49:31 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:
Kalman Rubinson Why bother dealing with this nonsense! There's no scientific evidence for anything he purports to prove. But wait - he's a doctor so he has science on his side, doesn't he? Not necessarily. Parading lists of degrees means only that he should know better. I have read his stuff and the experimental data to back it is never offered. Unfortunately a lot of people have experienced discomfort listening to CDs, especially early ones on early equipment and his theories were as good as any others back in the 1980s. Now we know a lot more about jitter and digital recording, but...maybe he's on to something ;-) Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Kal (teacher of doctors) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
1. Any SACD which was mastered from analog source material will be fine.
Moreover, you can usually tell whether a recording was made using pure DSD from the label. You should be aware, though, that a number of new SACD's which have been released come from PCM masters. For example, all of the new Deutsche Grammophon releases were originally recorded in PCM format, although the originals were originally 24/48 or 24/96. The DG releases which were mastered in 24/96 sound, at least to me, every bit as good as pure DSD recordings. 2. CD's mastered from DSD originals are supposed to be better than CD's mastered from PCM originals. "Farrell8882" wrote in message news:ddeQb.104704$Rc4.713016@attbi_s54... I found this article on another newsgroup: http://www.diamondcenter.net/digitalstress.html Here are (to me) the most significant paragraphs: "With the advent of Direct Stream Digital (DSD) recording, it is now possible to conclude that the negative effects I have stated above are due not to the digital process per se but to the mode of achieving it, Pulse Code Modulation (PCM). For DSD recordings do not have these negative effects. "Although it was suggested, unfortunately the record industry did not make analog backups of their digital (PCM) sessions. So now there is a (very expensive) twenty year hiatus. Hence some SACDs (the CD format for DSD) are being released which have gone through the PCM process and are as negative as regular CDs." I have two questions: I wonder whether it is possible to find pure DSD recordings, and how to recognize them. Also, are DSD CDs -- as opposed to DSD SACDs -- as likely to be free of the negative artifacts Diamond cites? Thanks. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On 23 Jan 2004 22:49:31 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:
Kalman Rubinson Why bother dealing with this nonsense! There's no scientific evidence for anything he purports to prove. But wait - he's a doctor so he has science on his side, doesn't he? So did Harold Shipman............ Qualifications are no indicator of the scientific accuracy of an argument. Unfortunately a lot of people have experienced discomfort listening to CDs, especially early ones on early equipment and his theories were as good as any others back in the 1980s. Which is where they should have stayed. Basically, he's talking rubbish which has no basis in reliable and repeatable observations. Now we know a lot more about jitter and digital recording, but...maybe he's on to something ;-) And, maybe he's not. I pick the latter. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
I'm skeptical. I tend to think that PCM will get a lot of negative press
simply because it came around during the birth of digital music, and was the major process used for digital music.If it was bad, there was nothing out there that was better. PCD was the process used with all those bad DA converters, limited sampling etc. One of PCM's finest examples, in CD format, is JVC's XRCD format. Of course, it's still limited by 44.1/16. And how many people even know about XRCD? It's a niche market for the soon to be obsoleted CD format. SACD has arrived and it has the benefit of learning from all the mistakes made in the digital mastering processes. So has DVD audio, a PCM processs. The only fair comparison would be to compare DVD audio to SACD, because they both premiered around the same time and stand to benefit from all that we have learned about the analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog process of digital audio. Here's a link to a site comparing DVD-Audio to SACD using a square wave. Look at how the CD foramt using PCM, jsut falls apart trying to reproduce the wave, but DVD audio, also using PCM reproduces the square wave quite admirably; http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surr.../page_07.shtml Food for thought CD Farrell8882 wrote: I found this article on another newsgroup: http://www.diamondcenter.net/digitalstress.html Here are (to me) the most significant paragraphs: "With the advent of Direct Stream Digital (DSD) recording, it is now possible to conclude that the negative effects I have stated above are due not to the digital process per se but to the mode of achieving it, Pulse Code Modulation (PCM). For DSD recordings do not have these negative effects. "Although it was suggested, unfortunately the record industry did not make analog backups of their digital (PCM) sessions. So now there is a (very expensive) twenty year hiatus. Hence some SACDs (the CD format for DSD) are being released which have gone through the PCM process and are as negative as regular CDs." I have two questions: I wonder whether it is possible to find pure DSD recordings, and how to recognize them. Also, are DSD CDs -- as opposed to DSD SACDs -- as likely to be free of the negative artifacts Diamond cites? Thanks. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:43:33 GMT, Codifus
wrote: I'm skeptical. I tend to think that PCM will get a lot of negative press simply because it came around during the birth of digital music, and was the major process used for digital music.If it was bad, there was nothing out there that was better. PCD was the process used with all those bad DA converters, limited sampling etc. One of PCM's finest examples, in CD format, is JVC's XRCD format. Of course, it's still limited by 44.1/16. And how many people even know about XRCD? It's a niche market for the soon to be obsoleted CD format. SACD has arrived and it has the benefit of learning from all the mistakes made in the digital mastering processes. Unfortunately, it did *not* learn, as 'pure' DSD has a fatal technical flaw. As a result, all modern SACDs are made either from conventional 'hi-res' PCM masters, or from so-called DSD-Wide, which is merely a hybrid form of PCM. Hence, SACD is basically just a marketing exercise, since it is always derived from some form of hi-res PCM, aka DVD-A. So has DVD audio, a PCM processs. The only fair comparison would be to compare DVD audio to SACD, because they both premiered around the same time and stand to benefit from all that we have learned about the analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog process of digital audio. Well, since no one has yet shown absolute proof that either of those 'hi res' formats sounds different from basic 16/44 CD, that could be a little difficult........................ Here's a link to a site comparing DVD-Audio to SACD using a square wave. Look at how the CD foramt using PCM, jsut falls apart trying to reproduce the wave, but DVD audio, also using PCM reproduces the square wave quite admirably; http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surr.../page_07.shtml What does this prove, other than that CD has a restricted bandwidth of 22kHz, which we already knew? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:06:09 GMT, (Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote: Unfortunately, it did *not* learn, as 'pure' DSD has a fatal technical flaw. I guess that - again - you mean the peculiar overloading behavior of the modulator when theorically perfect dither is used? This point is very easy to solve: don't use perfect, but optimal dither. That's what every hardware/firmware company associated with DSD does... IMO 1-bit DSD has other significant shorcomings for professionnal applications - try to design equalizers of filters running on pure DSD streams w/o LPCM or DSD-Wide parallel index guides, for instance - hence DSD-Wide. As a result, all modern SACDs are made either from conventional 'hi-res' PCM masters, or from so-called DSD-Wide, which is merely a hybrid form of PCM. That's totally incorrect. A large number of "purist" recordings are made direct to 1-bit DSD. As they don't need to be manipulated in the digital domain, DSD's limitations aren't a problem. Furthermore, most recent DSD recordings are done using DSD-Wide, not LPCM. Just have a look at what a typical etailer offers for sale. For instance Acoustic Sounds lists 112 pure SACD discs, from a number of labels such as DMP, Telarc, Bis, Sony and others. http://store.acousticsounds.com/dsd.cfm?section=sacd It's only when it comes to back catalogue titles, with ageing or long disappeared analog masters, that LPCM is used. For instance, the DSD editions of Roxy Music's classic albums are derived from the sole remaining digital master, in Sony PCM 1630 format if I do remeber correctly - the original Ampex MT tapes have long been baked, transferred, and gone to the great bin in the skies. Getting back to DSD-Wide, it's not "merely a hybrid form of PCM". It's a fully fledged Delta Sigma system which decimates very gracefully to DSD or PCM, hence it growing success at recording labels - for instance, *all* majors use DSD-Wide, except of course Warner Bros companies who are still trying to push DVD-A. Hence, SACD is basically just a marketing exercise, since it is always derived from some form of hi-res PCM, aka DVD-A. As demonstrated, this is hogwash. DSD and DVD-A have nothing in common, except the physical size of their consumer media... Oh, and DVD-A is a dysmal failure, while DSD is doing quite well as a high end format. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:06:09 GMT, (Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote: Unfortunately, it did *not* learn, as 'pure' DSD has a fatal technical flaw. I guess that - again - you mean the peculiar overloading behavior of the modulator when perfect dither is used? This point is very easy to solve: don't use perfect, but optimal dither. That's what every hardware/firmware company associated with DSD does... IMO 1-bit DSD has other significant shortcomings for professional applications - try to design equalizers of filters running on pure DSD streams w/o LPCM or DSD-Wide parallel index guides, for instance - hence DSD-Wide. As a result, all modern SACDs are made either from conventional 'hi-res' PCM masters, or from so-called DSD-Wide, which is merely a hybrid form of PCM. That's totally incorrect. A large number of "purist" recordings are made direct to 1-bit DSD. As they don't need to be manipulated in the digital domain, DSD's limitations aren't a problem. Furthermore, most recent DSD recordings are done using DSD-Wide, not LPCM. Just have a look at what a typical etailer offers for sale. For instance Acoustic Sounds lists 112 pure SACD discs, from a number of labels such as DMP, Telarc, Bis, Sony and others. http://store.acousticsounds.com/dsd.cfm?section=sacd It's only when it comes to back catalog titles, with ageing or long disappeared analog masters, that LPCM is used. For instance, the DSD editions of Roxy Music's classic albums are derived from the sole remaining digital master, in Sony PCM 1630 format if I do remember correctly - the original Ampex MT tapes have long been baked, transferred, and gone to the great bin in the skies. Getting back to DSD-Wide, it's not "merely a hybrid form of PCM". It's a fully fledged Delta Sigma system which decimates very gracefully to DSD or PCM, hence it growing success at recording labels - for instance, *all* majors use DSD-Wide, except of course Warner Bros companies who are still trying to push DVD-A. Hence, SACD is basically just a marketing exercise, since it is always derived from some form of hi-res PCM, aka DVD-A. As demonstrated, this is hogwash. DSD and DVD-A have nothing in common, except the physical size of their consumer media... Oh, and DVD-A is a dismal failure, while DSD is doing quite well as a high end format. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 23 Jan 2004 22:49:31 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote: Kalman Rubinson Why bother dealing with this nonsense! There's no scientific evidence for anything he purports to prove. But wait - he's a doctor so he has science on his side, doesn't he? Not necessarily. Parading lists of degrees means only that he should know better. I have read his stuff and the experimental data to back it is never offered. Unfortunately a lot of people have experienced discomfort listening to CDs, especially early ones on early equipment and his theories were as good as any others back in the 1980s. Now we know a lot more about jitter and digital recording, but...maybe he's on to something ;-) Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Kal (teacher of doctors) I once read a wonderful article in a skeptics magazine that mathematically showsd that a stopped clock was actually more accurate than one which was off by 20 minutes. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:RkVQb.119549$nt4.516264@attbi_s51... On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:43:33 GMT, Codifus wrote: snip, not relevant to below Here's a link to a site comparing DVD-Audio to SACD using a square wave. Look at how the CD foramt using PCM, jsut falls apart trying to reproduce the wave, but DVD audio, also using PCM reproduces the square wave quite admirably; http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surr.../page_07.shtml What does this prove, other than that CD has a restricted bandwidth of 22kHz, which we already knew? Think about it a minute, Stewart. It shows that DSD/SACD have performance essentially equal to 192/24 pcm. Yet the only place you can find 192/24 pcm is on the stereo mix of a few DVD-A's. All DVD-A surround and most front channels are recorded in 96/24 or even 48/24, which the square waves show as inferior (essentially a matter of bandwidth). So SACD gives you five channels of near-perfect sound reproduction; DVD-A gives you five channels of sound reproduction ranging from cd quality to somewhat better than cd quality (but not as good as SACD or 192/24, the "unobtainium" DVD-A signal. Which is the superior commercial product? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
Well, to me, it says that DVD-A, at 192/24, is better than SACD at
reproducing a square wave. If it can do that better, chances are, it can reproduce the somewhat less complicated digital audio waveforms of music better as well. But, as someone mentioned, SACD has taken off. That's what I've observed as well. Sony and Philips, well, mostly Sony, are the better marketing machine. Sony has learned well from it betamax loss. The CD was a home run. But then, what else was there competeing against it. Fast forward to now. SACD is at 2nd base going on 3rd, and DVD-A seems to be still at bat. Shame, I would have wanted DVD-A to win. I comfort myself in seeing that SACD is better than DVD-A at 96/24 but not quite up to DVD-A at 192/24, as that link I posted seems to show. CD Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:43:33 GMT, Codifus wrote: I'm skeptical. I tend to think that PCM will get a lot of negative press simply because it came around during the birth of digital music, and was the major process used for digital music.If it was bad, there was nothing out there that was better. PCD was the process used with all those bad DA converters, limited sampling etc. One of PCM's finest examples, in CD format, is JVC's XRCD format. Of course, it's still limited by 44.1/16. And how many people even know about XRCD? It's a niche market for the soon to be obsoleted CD format. SACD has arrived and it has the benefit of learning from all the mistakes made in the digital mastering processes. Unfortunately, it did *not* learn, as 'pure' DSD has a fatal technical flaw. As a result, all modern SACDs are made either from conventional 'hi-res' PCM masters, or from so-called DSD-Wide, which is merely a hybrid form of PCM. Hence, SACD is basically just a marketing exercise, since it is always derived from some form of hi-res PCM, aka DVD-A. So has DVD audio, a PCM processs. The only fair comparison would be to compare DVD audio to SACD, because they both premiered around the same time and stand to benefit from all that we have learned about the analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog process of digital audio. Well, since no one has yet shown absolute proof that either of those 'hi res' formats sounds different from basic 16/44 CD, that could be a little difficult........................ Here's a link to a site comparing DVD-Audio to SACD using a square wave. Look at how the CD foramt using PCM, jsut falls apart trying to reproduce the wave, but DVD audio, also using PCM reproduces the square wave quite admirably; http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surr.../page_07.shtml What does this prove, other than that CD has a restricted bandwidth of 22kHz, which we already knew? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
Given that surround sound is usually associated with Dolby surround or
DTSand those formats do an MP3 type lossy compression to the audio signal, does it really matter that SACD provides better quality of an inferior medium? DVD-A seems to concentrate on producing the best audio where it counts; stereo. But then if 192/24 PCM is unobtainable, then I guess DVD-A is done. It's offering no advantage compared to SACD, and it's already losing the battle. CD Harry Lavo wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:RkVQb.119549$nt4.516264@attbi_s51... On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:43:33 GMT, Codifus wrote: snip, not relevant to below Here's a link to a site comparing DVD-Audio to SACD using a square wave. Look at how the CD foramt using PCM, jsut falls apart trying to reproduce the wave, but DVD audio, also using PCM reproduces the square wave quite admirably; http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surr.../page_07.shtml What does this prove, other than that CD has a restricted bandwidth of 22kHz, which we already knew? Think about it a minute, Stewart. It shows that DSD/SACD have performance essentially equal to 192/24 pcm. Yet the only place you can find 192/24 pcm is on the stereo mix of a few DVD-A's. All DVD-A surround and most front channels are recorded in 96/24 or even 48/24, which the square waves show as inferior (essentially a matter of bandwidth). So SACD gives you five channels of near-perfect sound reproduction; DVD-A gives you five channels of sound reproduction ranging from cd quality to somewhat better than cd quality (but not as good as SACD or 192/24, the "unobtainium" DVD-A signal. Which is the superior commercial product? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:23:44 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
It shows that DSD/SACD have performance essentially equal to 192/24 pcm. It's not above 10 KHz or so, where the effective resolution goes down the drain because of the aggressive noise shaping used. SACD is a very nice medium, but it's *not* superior to HR PCM in a number of aspects. BTW, there are no currently available DA or AD converters with more than 21 bits of effective (ie. monotonic et al.) resolution, and no studio equipment able to capture HF sounds above 50 KHz at best with a decent SN ratio - of course, full electronic music is another story. So, IMO, 24/96 or DSD are more than adequate today as well as for the foreseeable future. And, yes, I do prefer DSD as a consumer delivery medium - as well as DSD Wide at the studio level. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
Fran??ois Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:23:44 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: It shows that DSD/SACD have performance essentially equal to 192/24 pcm. It's not above 10 KHz or so, where the effective resolution goes down the drain because of the aggressive noise shaping used. SACD is a very nice medium, but it's *not* superior to HR PCM in a number of aspects. Which IIRC is also the reasoning DG used in rejecting DSD in favor of PCM as its archiving medium. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Codifus" wrote in message
... Given that surround sound is usually associated with Dolby surround or DTSand those formats do an MP3 type lossy compression to the audio signal, does it really matter that SACD provides better quality of an inferior medium? DVD-A seems to concentrate on producing the best audio where it counts; stereo. But then if 192/24 PCM is unobtainable, then I guess DVD-A is done. It's offering no advantage compared to SACD, and it's already losing the battle. Surround Sound is only associated with Dolby or DTS when it is used on DVD's for movies. The production of SACD and DVD-A surround music is not associated with lossy compression. It's quite the contrary. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:23:44 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:RkVQb.119549$nt4.516264@attbi_s51... On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:43:33 GMT, Codifus wrote: snip, not relevant to below Here's a link to a site comparing DVD-Audio to SACD using a square wave. Look at how the CD foramt using PCM, jsut falls apart trying to reproduce the wave, but DVD audio, also using PCM reproduces the square wave quite admirably; http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surr.../page_07.shtml What does this prove, other than that CD has a restricted bandwidth of 22kHz, which we already knew? Think about it a minute, Stewart. It shows that DSD/SACD have performance essentially equal to 192/24 pcm. In mere bandwidth terms, we already knew that. Did you miss the 'dirty little secret' of DSD - the *horrific* RF noise and timing uncertainty revealed by Anderson's comparison? Yet the only place you can find 192/24 pcm is on the stereo mix of a few DVD-A's. So what? What on *earth* has the ability of a system to reproduce signals from 30kHz upwards to do with *audio*? Remember, despite the horrifically sloppy text, square waves do not *have* 2nd harmonic content, only 3rd, 5th, 7th etc. All DVD-A surround and most front channels are recorded in 96/24 or even 48/24, which the square waves show as inferior (essentially a matter of bandwidth). And of course, the inability of CD to produce 30kHz is hardly relevant to humans. So SACD gives you five channels of near-perfect sound reproduction; DVD-A gives you five channels of sound reproduction ranging from cd quality to somewhat better than cd quality (but not as good as SACD or 192/24, the "unobtainium" DVD-A signal. Which is the superior commercial product? The one which sells more, but this has nothing to do with the irrelevance of 30kHz signals to humans. There is as yet *zero* proof that SACD and 24/192 DVD-A sound audibly difgferent from 16/44, so this is a mere numbers game, so beloved of marketing men. Of course, Anderson merely pointed out that. as always, Sony have to cheat when comparisons are made, because they *know* that their product is fundamentally inferior. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Fran=C3=A7ois Yves Le Gal" wrote:
lectronic music is another story. = So, IMO, 24/96 or DSD are more than adequate today as well as for the foreseeable future. And, yes, I do prefer DSD as a consumer delivery me= dium - as well as DSD Wide at the studio level. Why do you prefer DSD as a consumer delivery medium? I have no use for it= because - if the master is high res PCM I don't get master quality but a filtered= version. Same goes for any source with information that is smeared by t= he noise shaping. - Can't do digital room correction unless I convert back to PCM again. Where's the beef? Cheaper DA converters? |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Codifus" wrote in message
... Given that surround sound is usually associated with Dolby surround or DTSand those formats do an MP3 type lossy compression to the audio signal, does it really matter that SACD provides better quality of an inferior medium? DVD-A seems to concentrate on producing the best audio where it counts; stereo. But then if 192/24 PCM is unobtainable, then I guess DVD-A is done. It's offering no advantage compared to SACD, and it's already losing the battle. CD I try to keep an open mind on DVD-A (I own eight at this point) and therefore monitor (and sometimes participate in) the DVD-A forum on AudioAsylum. The lack of 192/24 stereo on most DVD-A's is one of their chief gripes (and these are DVD-A afficionados). In fact, apparently a good many DVD-A's don't even include a stereo mix, but instead rely on an automatic mix-down from multichannel by the DVD-A machine itself, which since there are no 'standards' for multichannel mixes I gather is a pretty hit-or-miss proposition. snip, not relevant |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Codifus" wrote in message ... Given that surround sound is usually associated with Dolby surround or DTSand those formats do an MP3 type lossy compression to the audio signal, does it really matter that SACD provides better quality of an inferior medium? DVD-A seems to concentrate on producing the best audio where it counts; stereo. But then if 192/24 PCM is unobtainable, then I guess DVD-A is done. It's offering no advantage compared to SACD, and it's already losing the battle. CD I try to keep an open mind on DVD-A (I own eight at this point) and therefore monitor (and sometimes participate in) the DVD-A forum on AudioAsylum. The lack of 192/24 stereo on most DVD-A's is one of their chief gripes (and these are DVD-A afficionados). Maybe those aficionados should read what Dan Lavry has to say about sampling rates as high as 192 . I can summarize it for you: they're a crock. In fact, apparently a good many DVD-A's don't even include a stereo mix, but instead rely on an automatic mix-down from multichannel by the DVD-A machine itself, which since there are no 'standards' for multichannel mixes I gather is a pretty hit-or-miss proposition. This is an overstatement. Of the couple- dozen DVD-As I own, only *one* lacks a dedicates stereo mix, Harry...ELP's Brain Salad Surgery, which is one of the first DVD-As released by Warner/Rhino. Reportedly the stereo mix was left off becasue they couldn't locate the original two-track masters. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:38:12 GMT, Michel Hafner wrote:
Why do you prefer DSD as a consumer delivery medium? Because it sounds really nice (and so does hi-rez LPCM), is user friendly (have you ever tried to listen to a DVD-A without having a monitor connected.), has no audible spoilers built-in (a big non no in my book: why bother why high quality media if you trash the signal?), plays in all consumer gear if dual layered (most are), and so on. I have no use for it because - if the master is high res PCM I don't get master quality but a filtered version. If the master is DSD Wide, as more and more are, you get a nicely decimated LPCM version for CD or hi-rez LPCM as well as a high-rez DSD version for SA-CD. Best of all worlds. Same goes for any source with information that is smeared by the noise shaping. Smeared? Nope. Not at the master level : DSD Wide doesn't use aggressive noise shaping. - Can't do digital room correction unless I convert back to PCM again. That's correct. Just as you can't use a PCM based full digital amplification system, and that's where DSD shines : basically, a DSD NA converter is a low pass filter... Where's the beef? Cheaper DA converters? Less manipulations from DSD Wide masters to DSD or LPCM. More simple - some would say more elegant designs. Less problems - and none of the PCM-related ones. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
As demonstrated, this is hogwash. DSD and DVD-A have nothing in common,
except the physical size of their consumer media... Oh, and DVD-A is a dysmal failure, while DSD is doing quite well as a high end format. The thing is that apart from the emotions that usually go with the DVD-A vs SACD argument I have not seen a single one that is in favor of SACD and is really scientifically based. On the contrary there are a number of convicning articles out there claimign that DVD-A is better and DSD is flawed as Stewart Pinkerton claims. I posted a link sometime ago to one http://www.sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm and here is another http://www.minnetonkaaudio.com/pdfs/...le%20paper.pdf The authors are quite reputable in my opinion. Now before spending money on some top of the line SACD or DVD-A player I would like to collect as much information as possible and I have not found anything yet to make me buy a SACD player. If threre is some I will be happy to learn more, honestly. Dimiter |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:56:50 GMT, "Dimiter Petsev"
wrote: The authors are quite reputable in my opinion. Now before spending money on some top of the line SACD or DVD-A player I would like to collect as much information as possible and I have not found anything yet to make me buy a SACD player. If threre is some I will be happy to learn more, honestly. One factor you might consider is program content. At the moment, there is easily 10x the program material that interests me on SACD compared with DVD-A. Others may differ in their tastes but that, to me, outweighs any and all of the technical issues. Kal |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Mkuller" wrote in message
... Kalman Rubinson Why bother dealing with this nonsense! There's no scientific evidence for anything he purports to prove. But wait - he's a doctor so he has science on his side, doesn't he? Unfortunately a lot of people have experienced discomfort listening to CDs, especially early ones on early equipment and his theories were as good as any others back in the 1980s. Now we know a lot more about jitter and digital recording, It was all known back then, just not always implemented. As for the "discomfort" of CD's, I've had a lot more discomfort from the noise and poor fidelity of LPs. - Gary Rosen |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
I believed that all the posts started from "Is the war over yet? DVD-A
vs. SACD" Why on earth everyone talking about the technology difference between DVD-A and SACD? You know, whether a product will be success or not, majority is not because it is better than all the other competitors, it is because of the marketing skills! Take McDonald as an example, I refuse to accept that they have the best hamburger in the world (I can make hamburger ten times better than them), or the best french fries in the world. But why they are the most success fast food chain in the world? Marketing! The Ronald McDonald clown is almost as famous as Santa Claus... So to determine or to guess which format will win the war, we need to go deep into their marketing skills rather than their sonic difference. Tell me why can CD take over the dominance place of LP 20 years ago? Is it because CD is so much better than LP? No! Everything is marketing my friends, and if you can't accept it, I'm afraid you will be very disappointed! So unless somebody start talking about how DVD-A and SACD promote their products, I think all other discussion will be pointless, forgive me to say that! Just think of that, who are the "main stream" music CD buyers? Some audiophile tech. geeks like all of you here reading RAHE, or someone don't know anything (or know very little) about sonic? And what can drive them to buy? Lawrence Leung |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Dimiter Petsev" wrote in message
news:CHLRb.169152$I06.1679875@attbi_s01... As demonstrated, this is hogwash. DSD and DVD-A have nothing in common, except the physical size of their consumer media... Oh, and DVD-A is a dysmal failure, while DSD is doing quite well as a high end format. The thing is that apart from the emotions that usually go with the DVD-A vs SACD argument I have not seen a single one that is in favor of SACD and is really scientifically based. On the contrary there are a number of convicning articles out there claimign that DVD-A is better and DSD is flawed as Stewart Pinkerton claims. I posted a link sometime ago to one http://www.sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm and here is another http://www.minnetonkaaudio.com/pdfs/...le%20paper.pdf The authors are quite reputable in my opinion. Now before spending money on some top of the line SACD or DVD-A player I would like to collect as much information as possible and I have not found anything yet to make me buy a SACD player. If threre is some I will be happy to learn more, honestly. Dimiter You've just heard some here. Peruse the threads. And the final arbiter is in the listening. In all honesty, SACD in my system simply sounds more natural. I can suspend belief and listen to an orchestral recording like I am at a concert. I've recorded classical, jazz, and folk all my life, and I can tell you that SACD gets you closer to the sound of acoustic instruments in acoustic space. Their is more "depth" to the sound, less "edge", and subtler dynamics. Why, exactly, I can't tell you. But as far as I am concerned noise in the ultrasonic range has no real relevance to music. Some of the biggest difference is in the bass, which only indirectly has to do with high frequencies. Accoustic bass instruments simply sound far more natural in SACD..more dynamic, and with more realistic transients and seemingly coming from a deeper silence. That is certainly true vs. conventional cd, and based on the DVD-A's I have/the playing equipment (not top line) the only difference I hear between CD and DVD-A is a smoother top end. I am trying to stay open on DVD-A given my less than optimal equipment, but what SONY gets out of its least expensive ES SACD players is very impressive vs what I've heard so far from comparably priced DVD-A players. And most recently even a very expensive DVD-A player. So if you must have specs to feel comfortable, keep searching. But I'd suggest you also listen. Here's a starter. The Columbia Bruno Walter Beethoven 5th SACD (SS 6506) vs. the CD version (MK 40221). And if you can, get the original vinyl version that the SACD duplicates. What you will find is that the SACD sounds "realer", more like the "vinyl" but with none of that medium's high or low frequency limitations. I had the vinyl in the '60's when it first came out, and it wasn't until the '70's that I had a turntable/cartridge combo that could play this recording without mistracking/screeching high frequencies. The CD solved that problem, and gave deeper bass as well so it was added to my collection. Now the SACD. The performance/mix is identical on all three. Compared to the CD the SACD has more depth, it is much easier to follow the plucked strings in the basses and cellos, the strings are sweeter and sound like strings (the CD has an "edge" or glare to the strings even though it is not a dynamic flaw like on the vinyl). Now, listen to any DVD-A you want. What you should be listening for is this same sense of "naturalness" in the bass and in the strings...there should be no edge, no "etch", no flatness to the sound. So far I haven't heard it. When I compare two identical recordings (Sing Live, Jazz, and 2 Doors Away from the Sun, Rock) I hear the same differences. Are these perfect comparisons? No. Do others hear similar things. Yes, very many do, and that is why they end up being SACD advocates. The people who prefer DVD-A tend to be folk raised on rock and cd....so if you are one of them you may prefer it. But for sound, to this point my ears tell me it is SACD. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:56:50 GMT, "Dimiter Petsev"
wrote: As demonstrated, this is hogwash. DSD and DVD-A have nothing in common, except the physical size of their consumer media... Oh, and DVD-A is a dysmal failure, while DSD is doing quite well as a high end format. The thing is that apart from the emotions that usually go with the DVD-A vs SACD argument I have not seen a single one that is in favor of SACD and is really scientifically based. On the contrary there are a number of convicning articles out there claimign that DVD-A is better and DSD is flawed as Stewart Pinkerton claims. I posted a link sometime ago to one http://www.sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm and here is another http://www.minnetonkaaudio.com/pdfs/...le%20paper.pdf The authors are quite reputable in my opinion. Now before spending money on some top of the line SACD or DVD-A player I would like to collect as much information as possible and I have not found anything yet to make me buy a SACD player. If threre is some I will be happy to learn more, honestly. Luckily, the trend is to 'universal' players which handle all formats in an exemplary manner, prime examples being the Pioneer DV-868 (Elite DV-59 in the US) and the Denon 2900. Note that neither of these suffers either the markup or the technical incompetence of the so-called 'high end' brands.................... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Fran=C3=A7ois Yves Le Gal" wrote:
= On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:38:12 GMT, Michel Hafner wr= ote: = Why do you prefer DSD as a consumer delivery medium? = Because it sounds really nice (and so does hi-rez LPCM), is user friend= ly Nice is subjective. I want it to sound like the master, nice or ugly, as the master is. If nice refers to the HF garbage, I can add that garbage t= o PCM too if I want to. I can't get rid of it on SACD (except for getting r= id of all HF content with steep filters). No advantage for SACD so far. (have you ever tried to listen to a DVD-A without having a monitor connected.), Yes. It depends on disc menu mastering if this is a problem or not. The standard does not prohibit consumer friendly solutions, including players= with built in LCD monitors if menu navigation is desired without external= monitor. SACD has no advantage in principle but on specific discs it can be more user friendly. has no audible spoilers built-in (a big non no in my book: why Depends on the label if they want to add (audible) watermarking or not. Not a principle issue of DVD-Audio as a standard. = bother why high quality media if you trash the signal?), plays in all consumer gear if dual layered (most are), and so on. Hybrid DVD-Audios are in the works. The CD layer of SACD is a marketing advantage, not a sonic advantage. I have no use for it because - if the master is high res PCM I don't get master quality but a filte= red version. = If the master is DSD Wide, as more and more are, you get a nicely decim= ated LPCM version for CD or hi-rez LPCM as well as a high-rez DSD version fo= r SA-CD. Best of all worlds. SACD is not DSD wide. The limitations of a 1 bit signal at ~2.8 Mhz remai= n forever as long as the standard is not changed. The only thing you can do= is move the noise energy to different places to get the 'best' psychoacus= tic results. The HF content will never be clean and it will always lack the resolution of 24/96 or 24/192. Further advances of AD and DA stages can n= ot be delivered to the consumer since the limiting factor is the signal itse= lf. Not so with PCM at 24/96 and 24/192 which have plenty of resolution to be= taken advantage of in better AD and DA stages. = Same goes for any source with information that is smeared by the noise shaping. = Smeared? Nope. Not at the master level : DSD Wide doesn't use aggressiv= e noise shaping. There are no DSD wide SACDs. There can be 24/192 DVD-Audios with no loss = of audible information made form DSD wide masters. No? = - Can't do digital room correction unless I convert back to PCM again.= = That's correct. Just as you can't use a PCM based full digital amplific= ation system, and that's where DSD shines : basically, a DSD NA converter is = a low pass filter... What is stopping anyone from taking a 24/96 or 24/192 master and oversamp= ling to DSD (better quality DSD than SACD!) and then use this signal for digit= al amps AFTER room correction etc? = = Where's the beef? Cheaper DA converters? = Less manipulations from DSD Wide masters to DSD or LPCM. More simple - = some would say more elegant designs. Less problems - and none of the PCM-rel= ated ones. I don't disagree that for AD stages a multibit (not one bit!) DSD system with very high sampling rate might be the way to go to create supe= rior PCM masters or DSD Wide masters. But the SACD system as a delivery medium= is basically a bad idea as the signal is not suited for further processin= g except for DA conversion and has hard quality limits that can not keep up with the best PCM masters of today and much less tomorrow. DA advantag= es, if they exist, are a DA stage issue and should not be part of the format.= The format must deliver the highest information content in the first plac= e. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:56:50 GMT, "Dimiter Petsev" wrote:
The thing is that apart from the emotions that usually go with the DVD-A vs SACD argument I have not seen a single one that is in favor of SACD and is really scientifically based. Then you haven't done your homework. Remember: Google groups is your friend! On the contrary there are a number of convicning articles out there claimign that DVD-A is better and DSD is flawed as Stewart Pinkerton claims. I posted a link sometime ago to one http://www.sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm Whih is full of factual errors and has already been debunked. and here is another http://www.minnetonkaaudio.com/pdfs/...le%20paper.pdf Yes, the corrected and amended version of the infamous Lip****z and Vanderkooy paper. Have you read it? If no, please do so at your earliest convenience. If yes, jump to "Why Direct Stream Digital (DSD) is the best choice as a Digital Audio Format", Derk Reefman and Peter Nuijten, AES110, preprint 5396 and get Sony/Philips' position... |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Lawrence Leung" wrote in message
news:tIURb.45668$U%5.239850@attbi_s03... Tell me why can CD take over the dominance place of LP 20 years ago? Is it because CD is so much better than LP? No! Everything is marketing my friends, and if you can't accept it, I'm afraid you will be very disappointed! So you are saying that you don't think CD won the battle over LP because of no flipping, no scratches, reduced "hiss", no wear, wider frequency response, ability to have left and right panned low end, ability to play in cars and on portables, and many other improvements and conveniences? You are saying it was marketing? Once the word got out about how absolutely superior CD's were in just about every meaningful way to consumers they preferred it over the incredible limitations of vinyl. That's not marketing, that's just knowledge that was mostly spread word of mouth and by sound of stereo. I was the music director of a 100,000 watt NPR jazz station in 1984 and I even went so far as to air blind comparisons between CD and LP on the same titles for a listener survey I designed to present information to a radio panel I was a speaker on at that year's Jazz Times Convention in NYC. The results were overwhelmingly for CD even on FM radio. Better fidelity, better separation, more lifelike were just a few of the comments from back then which were culled from over 200 respondents. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:31:32 GMT, Michel Hafner wrote:
Nice is subjective. I want it to sound like the master, nice or ugly, as the master is. Then SACD sounds much more like vintage masters - quality analog stuff, and as good as any LPCM digital master. If nice refers to the HF garbage, I can add that garbage to PCM too if I want to. I can't get rid of it on SACD (except for getting rid of all HF content with steep filters). No advantage for SACD so far. What you call garbage, and which is really a reduced SN ratio above 20 KHz or so, has been demonstrated to be non intrusive and not perceptible in controlled double blind tests. (have you ever tried to listen to a DVD-A without having a monitor connected.), Yes. It depends on disc menu mastering if this is a problem or not. Nope. All of the DVD-A's I've tried - a couple dozens, representing something like 30 % of what's available in Europe - require a monitor in order to pick the track, choose the format and so on. All SACD's I've tried - a hundred, representing maybe 10 % of what's available - only require to push "Play", and, for dual versions (stero + multi on the SACD layer) used with a multichannel player, to press "Stereo/multi" in order to choose 2.0 or 5.1... So, in theory, DVD-A can dispense of this clumsy, user-hostile interface, but in reality it doesn't. The standard does not prohibit consumer friendly solutions, including players with built in LCD monitors if menu navigation is desired without external monitor. Agreed. But where are those user-friendly players and discs? SACD has no advantage in principle but on specific discs it can be more user friendly. It is with *all* discs. has no audible spoilers built-in (a big non no in my book: why Depends on the label if they want to add (audible) watermarking or not. Not a principle issue of DVD-Audio as a standard. Save for a few "audiophile" DVD-As, *all* discs are massacred by this awful spoiler. Why bother with a high definition format and then trash it with some moronic copy protection scheme? People paying a premium for hi rez formats don't want glorified MP3 sound! Hybrid DVD-Audios are in the works. And the check is in the mail. :-) The CD layer of SACD is a marketing advantage, not a sonic advantage. It's more consumer friendly, period. I have no use for it because - if the master is high res PCM I don't get master quality but a filtered version. If the master is DSD Wide, as more and more are, you get a nicely decimated LPCM version for CD or hi-rez LPCM as well as a high-rez DSD version for SA-CD. Best of all worlds. SACD is not DSD wide. Of course, it is plain jane DSD. We are discussing mastering solutions, not consumer delivery media! The limitations of a 1 bit signal at ~2.8 Mhz remain forever as long as the standard is not changed. The only thing you can do is move the noise energy to different places to get the 'best' psychoacustic results. The HF content will never be clean and it will always lack the resolution of 24/96 or 24/192. Agreed: the agressive noise shaping used in consumer DSD is basically a trade off. But as the HF noise isn't perceptible, why bother? Further advances of AD and DA stages can not be delivered to the consumer since the limiting factor is the signal itself. Not so with PCM at 24/96 and 24/192 which have plenty of resolution to be taken advantage of in better AD and DA stages. There are *no* LPCM DA or AD converters with more than, say, 22 bits of effective resolution, and the brownian wall must be at around 23 dB or so. So much for better AD or DA stages in the future. Liquid nitrogen, anyone? There can be 24/192 DVD-Audios with no loss of audible information made form DSD wide masters. No? AFAICT, yes, but none does exist at the consumer level. What is stopping anyone from taking a 24/96 or 24/192 master and oversampling to DSD (better quality DSD than SACD!) and then use this signal for digital amps AFTER room correction etc? Current technology. Upsampling 96 Khz to more than, say, 384 or 448 KHz is currently impossible outside of research labs or by using muy expensivo custom solutions. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Lawrence Leung" wrote in message
news:tIURb.45668$U%5.239850@attbi_s03... I believed that all the posts started from "Is the war over yet? DVD-A vs. SACD" Why on earth everyone talking about the technology difference between DVD-A and SACD? You know, whether a product will be success or not, majority is not because it is better than all the other competitors, it is because of the marketing skills! When we were talking about VHS v. Beta 20 years ago, the marketing vs. actual performance issue was a legitimate one, as Beta wasn't merely technically better, it was (and continues to be) clearly the better format as realized by the consumer. In that case marketing clearly won out and Sony learned many hard lessons. This is clearly not the same as the DVD-A v. SACD war, wherein while DVD-A might be technically superior to DVD-A, there is no verifiable audible difference between the two formats (as opposed to the clear qualitative difference between Beta and VHS) so the winner will be the better marketed technology as they are sonically indistinguishable. In this case, I'm betting that Sony learned its lesson well and won't make the same mistake twice. Take McDonald as an example, I refuse to accept that they have the best hamburger in the world (I can make hamburger ten times better than them), or the best french fries in the world. But why they are the most success fast food chain in the world? Marketing! The Ronald McDonald clown is almost as famous as Santa Claus... So to determine or to guess which format will win the war, we need to go deep into their marketing skills rather than their sonic difference. As I said before, given that there is no sonic difference, you're correct here. Tell me why can CD take over the dominance place of LP 20 years ago? Is it because CD is so much better than LP? No! Well, actually it was. CDs don't wear, have a better signal to noise ratio, lower distortion, more extended undistorted bandwidth, and are portable to boot. The CD takeover of the recorded music world 20 years ago actually had very little to do with marketing. It was all about infinitely better technology. Everything is marketing my friends, and if you can't accept it, I'm afraid you will be very disappointed! So unless somebody start talking about how DVD-A and SACD promote their products, I think all other discussion will be pointless, forgive me to say that! Just think of that, who are the "main stream" music CD buyers? Some audiophile tech. geeks like all of you here reading RAHE, or someone don't know anything (or know very little) about sonic? And what can drive them to buy? What drives them to buy is portability, shareability and convenience, so long as it doesn't sound really bad. When I sit in my office and listen to a web radio broadcast at 128 or even 64 Kbps, and I'm listening through my Altec Lansing sub-sat computer system over the din of the fans and noise of my pc, it sounds fine. When I listen to low bit-rate mp3's on my portable while on a bus or subway, it sounds fine. When I plugged the same mp3 player into my cheap living room system for background music during a cocktail party a few weeks ago, nobody noticed. Of course it sounded like crap over my main system, but most "main stream" buyers don't have a real system. The possibilites for recorded music are no longer driving main stream audio. Those are being driven by the home theater market. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Lawrence Leung" wrote
Tell me why can CD take over the dominance place of LP 20 years ago? Is it because CD is so much better than LP? No! Everything is marketing my friends, and if you can't accept it, I'm afraid you will be very disappointed! "Charles Tomaras" wrote: So you are saying that you don't think CD won the battle over LP because of no flipping, no scratches, reduced "hiss", no wear, wider frequency response, ability to have left and right panned low end, ability to play in cars and on portables, and many other improvements and conveniences? You are saying it was marketing? Once the word got out about how absolutely superior CD's were in just about every meaningful way to consumers they preferred it over the incredible limitations of vinyl. Yes, they were more convenient to consumers but the audiophiles complained they sounded inferior to LPs (on high quality turntables - many still claim they do to this day). The mass consumers couldn't hear the differences (they sounded better than cassettes in their carsand in their Walkmen) so they didn't care. Then there was the $4 or $5 price increase of CDs over LPs and the stores phased LPs out because the CDs were more profitable and took up less space. Regards, Mike |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message
news:m7WRb.136950$nt4.600731@attbi_s51... On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:31:32 GMT, Michel Hafner wrote: Nice is subjective. I want it to sound like the master, nice or ugly, as the master is. Then SACD sounds much more like vintage masters - quality analog stuff, and as good as any LPCM digital master. If nice refers to the HF garbage, I can add that garbage to PCM too if I want to. I can't get rid of it on SACD (except for getting rid of all HF content with steep filters). No advantage for SACD so far. What you call garbage, and which is really a reduced SN ratio above 20 KHz or so, has been demonstrated to be non intrusive and not perceptible in controlled double blind tests. Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". I seem to recall some discussion about "measureable perceptible limits"? (have you ever tried to listen to a DVD-A without having a monitor connected.), Yes. It depends on disc menu mastering if this is a problem or not. Nope. All of the DVD-A's I've tried - a couple dozens, representing something like 30 % of what's available in Europe - require a monitor in order to pick the track, choose the format and so on. Well, yes and no, if you remember to hit enter twice and have the defaults set up properly it will "usually" work. All SACD's I've tried - a hundred, representing maybe 10 % of what's available - only require to push "Play", and, for dual versions (stero + multi on the SACD layer) used with a multichannel player, to press "Stereo/multi" in order to choose 2.0 or 5.1... So, in theory, DVD-A can dispense of this clumsy, user-hostile interface, but in reality it doesn't. The DVD-Audio consortium seems to think that seeing still pictures and playlists onscreen is a big musical advantage, I guess. I wonder if there are any audiophiles among them? The standard does not prohibit consumer friendly solutions, including players with built in LCD monitors if menu navigation is desired without external monitor. Agreed. But where are those user-friendly players and discs? I guess that answers my question about the audiophiles? SACD has no advantage in principle but on specific discs it can be more user friendly. It is with *all* discs. Absolutely, and if you have it set for your setup (e.g. multichannel or stereo) it will automatically default to the right format and then to the next format below that if appropriate (e.g. put a stereo cd in a SACD player set for multichannel SACD, and when it recognizes there is no multichannel SACD, it will look for a stereo SACD and if it doesn't find that, look for a stereo CD). DVD-A has nothing comparable. has no audible spoilers built-in (a big non no in my book: why Depends on the label if they want to add (audible) watermarking or not. Not a principle issue of DVD-Audio as a standard. Save for a few "audiophile" DVD-As, *all* discs are massacred by this awful spoiler. Why bother with a high definition format and then trash it with some moronic copy protection scheme? People paying a premium for hi rez formats don't want glorified MP3 sound! Neither does the consortium, but *something* makes the sound brittle on many DVD-A's. Hybrid DVD-Audios are in the works. And the check is in the mail. :-) They are having severe problems getting this to work, I understand. The CD layer of SACD is a marketing advantage, not a sonic advantage. It's more consumer friendly, period. It was not pioneered by Sony or Phillips, but by others. But Sony and Phillips had the good sense to realize when they were on the wrong course, and to change course quickly. Ditto with multi-channel. I have no use for it because - if the master is high res PCM I don't get master quality but a filtered version. If the master is DSD Wide, as more and more are, you get a nicely decimated LPCM version for CD or hi-rez LPCM as well as a high-rez DSD version for SA-CD. Best of all worlds. SACD is not DSD wide. Of course, it is plain jane DSD. We are discussing mastering solutions, not consumer delivery media! And for consumer delivery, the mastering problems are irrelevant. For consumer delivery, it is a simple and sonically wonderful solution with no filtering involved. The limitations of a 1 bit signal at ~2.8 Mhz remain forever as long as the standard is not changed. The only thing you can do is move the noise energy to different places to get the 'best' psychoacustic results. The HF content will never be clean and it will always lack the resolution of 24/96 or 24/192. Agreed: the agressive noise shaping used in consumer DSD is basically a trade off. But as the HF noise isn't perceptible, why bother? So it can be argued that it is "technically imperfect", I guess. :-) Further advances of AD and DA stages can not be delivered to the consumer since the limiting factor is the signal itself. Not so with PCM at 24/96 and 24/192 which have plenty of resolution to be taken advantage of in better AD and DA stages. There are *no* LPCM DA or AD converters with more than, say, 22 bits of effective resolution, and the brownian wall must be at around 23 dB or so. So much for better AD or DA stages in the future. Liquid nitrogen, anyone? There can be 24/192 DVD-Audios with no loss of audible information made form DSD wide masters. No? AFAICT, yes, but none does exist at the consumer level. And vice-versa. What is stopping anyone from taking a 24/96 or 24/192 master and oversampling to DSD (better quality DSD than SACD!) and then use this signal for digital amps AFTER room correction etc? Current technology. Upsampling 96 Khz to more than, say, 384 or 448 KHz is currently impossible outside of research labs or by using muy expensivo custom solutions. Maybe Meriden will lead the way. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
Yup. The change from vinyl to CD was a dramatic leap. A revolution. Now
we're trying to get from CD to the next step, SACD or DVD-A. An evolution. The change, even technically, is not so dramatic, just mo' better AD-DA, but on the consumer end you can just barely tell if anything's changed at all. Same disc and same looking palyer with a DVD-A or SACD sticker on the front. This is much much much more of a marketing challenge. Sony/Philips seems to have done their homework. The DVD-A consortium needs to step up. By the way, who are the companies that stand steadfastly behind DVD-A? Maybe that's why Sony/Philips have pushed SACD so hard. It's their baby. And the fact that they have alot of control over infrastructure, such as the recodring studios, artists etc. But DVD-A is whose baby? CD Charles Tomaras wrote: "Lawrence Leung" wrote in message news:tIURb.45668$U%5.239850@attbi_s03... Tell me why can CD take over the dominance place of LP 20 years ago? Is it because CD is so much better than LP? No! Everything is marketing my friends, and if you can't accept it, I'm afraid you will be very disappointed! So you are saying that you don't think CD won the battle over LP because of no flipping, no scratches, reduced "hiss", no wear, wider frequency response, ability to have left and right panned low end, ability to play in cars and on portables, and many other improvements and conveniences? You are saying it was marketing? Once the word got out about how absolutely superior CD's were in just about every meaningful way to consumers they preferred it over the incredible limitations of vinyl. That's not marketing, that's just knowledge that was mostly spread word of mouth and by sound of stereo. I was the music director of a 100,000 watt NPR jazz station in 1984 and I even went so far as to air blind comparisons between CD and LP on the same titles for a listener survey I designed to present information to a radio panel I was a speaker on at that year's Jazz Times Convention in NYC. The results were overwhelmingly for CD even on FM radio. Better fidelity, better separation, more lifelike were just a few of the comments from back then which were culled from over 200 respondents. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
Mkuller wrote:
"Lawrence Leung" wrote Tell me why can CD take over the dominance place of LP 20 years ago? Is it because CD is so much better than LP? No! Everything is marketing my friends, and if you can't accept it, I'm afraid you will be very disappointed! "Charles Tomaras" wrote: So you are saying that you don't think CD won the battle over LP because of no flipping, no scratches, reduced "hiss", no wear, wider frequency response, ability to have left and right panned low end, ability to play in cars and on portables, and many other improvements and conveniences? You are saying it was marketing? Once the word got out about how absolutely superior CD's were in just about every meaningful way to consumers they preferred it over the incredible limitations of vinyl. Yes, they were more convenient to consumers but the audiophiles complained they sounded inferior to LPs (on high quality turntables - many still claim they do to this day). Please rephrase that: "a subset of audiophiles complained..." Many audiophiles I knew of were estatic over the new format, back in 1983. The mass consumers couldn't hear the differences (they sounded better than cassettes in their carsand in their Walkmen) so they didn't care. Everyone could hear the difference between CD's and vinyl. Then there was the $4 or $5 price increase of CDs over LPs and the stores phased LPs out because the CDs were more profitable and took up less space. No, it was consumers wanting to buy CD's that phased the LP's out. Regards, Mike |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
In article ,
(Mkuller) writes: "Lawrence Leung" wrote Tell me why can CD take over the dominance place of LP 20 years ago? Is it because CD is so much better than LP? No! Everything is marketing my friends, and if you can't accept it, I'm afraid you will be very disappointed! "Charles Tomaras" wrote: So you are saying that you don't think CD won the battle over LP because of no flipping, no scratches, reduced "hiss", no wear, wider frequency response, ability to have left and right panned low end, ability to play in cars and on portables, and many other improvements and conveniences? You are saying it was marketing? Once the word got out about how absolutely superior CD's were in just about every meaningful way to consumers they preferred it over the incredible limitations of vinyl. Yes, they were more convenient to consumers but the audiophiles complained they sounded inferior to LPs (on high quality turntables - many still claim they do to this day). I think you meant to say "some audiophiles" since not all who consider themselves audiophiles had that opinion. I know I didn't. I agree that some of the early CDs weren't well made, but it was not the rule. The mass consumers couldn't hear the differences (they sounded better than cassettes in their carsand in their Walkmen) so they didn't care. I heard the difference, and I preferred CDs, and still do. Then there was the $4 or $5 price increase of CDs over LPs and the stores phased LPs out because the CDs were more profitable and took up less space. And people quit buying LPs, I know I was quite happy to quit having to return defective LPs over and over again just to get one that wasn't warped. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:33:57 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". A number of published tests demonstrate that ultrasonic signals can be perceived and have an influence. A recent publication seems to contradict those findings, but I've not read it yet and can't be more specific. I seem to recall some discussion about "measureable perceptible limits"? And I also recall asking a question about said, which has gone unanswered... :-) Well, yes and no, if you remember to hit enter twice and have the defaults set up properly it will "usually" work. Not with the Denon player I've recently tried, or with various Panasonic gear before. But maybe my setup was improperly done. The DVD-Audio consortium seems to think that seeing still pictures and playlists onscreen is a big musical advantage, I guess. CD+Text has been devlopped some 20 years ago, and nobody did care then. Why should people want the same clumsy gadgets today? I wonder if there are any audiophiles among them? The DVD-A specs were basically laid down by a number of engineers working for high end companies, with Bob Stuart, of Meridian fame, taking a very active role. Neither does the consortium, but *something* makes the sound brittle on many DVD-A's. I guess that it's the spoiler signal, conjuged with poor mastering. A quality high definition LPCM disc should be totally transparent. Maybe Meriden will lead the way. Meridian isn't very good at developping their own silicon. They are basically excellent integrators of organ bank components, wrapping them with some very clever software in nice designs. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Are modern recordings so bad that they would sound the same if recorded on a cassette? | Audio Opinions | |||
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 2/5) | Car Audio | |||
Why all the bad recordings | High End Audio | |||
Why don't classical piano recordings sound as good as pop recordings? | High End Audio | |||
Newbie question: system upgrade | High End Audio |