Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:33:57 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: Hybrid DVD-Audios are in the works. And the check is in the mail. :-) Hi Harry: Interestingly, AIX Records (usual disclaimers), have a few releases and a sampler disc (which I have) that has: MLP 5.1 96K/24 PCM 2.0 Stereo 192K/24 PCM 2.0 Stereo 96K/24 Dolby Digital 5.1 48K/24 DTS 5.1 48K/24 And DVD video. All on one disc. This is a two sided disc. Also interestingly on some selections you can toggle between "audience" and "stage" on the same selection to get a different perspective and listening position in relation to the orchestra. Have had my DVD-A player for only a week now and am searching for DVD-A discs that interest me, so far I can count the desirable ones on one hand and have fingers left over ! My SACD discs now number 35 now (stereo & multi-channel). -=Bill Eckle=- Vanity Web pages at: http://www.wmeckle.com |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
Harry Lavo wrote:
Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. What some of the more technically inclined are saying is that even though the ultrasonic noise from SACD's may not be audible on its own, there is a possibility that such noise may cause problems in amplifiers and speakers, which result in intermodulation and other effects that are audible. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
Penury wrote:
= On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:33:57 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: Hybrid DVD-Audios are in the works. And the check is in the mail. :-) = Hi Harry: Interestingly, AIX Records (usual disclaimers), have a few releases and a sampler disc (which I have) that has: MLP 5.1 96K/24 PCM 2.0 Stereo 192K/24 PCM 2.0 Stereo 96K/24 Dolby Digital 5.1 48K/24 DTS 5.1 48K/24 And DVD video. All on one disc. This is a two sided disc. Also interestingly on some selections you can toggle between "audience" and "stage" on the same selection to get a different perspective and listening position in relation to the orchestra. = Have had my DVD-A player for only a week now and am searching for DVD-A discs that interest me, so far I can count the desirable ones on one hand and have fingers left over ! My SACD discs now number 35 now (stereo & multi-channel). Some possibilities: - Wagner: Die Walk=FCre (Mehta) - Vivaldi Four Seasons (Naxos) - Immersion (experimental music composed for 5 channels) - Ravel Bolero (AIX Records) Have no SACD heard so far that I liked much. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in
: 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. OK! I'm wrong! I do agree that a nice recorded CD sounds better than most of the LP. But when was the last time you heard of a cheap CD that sounds just like cassette tape? And if CD is so "dramatically" better than the old LP, why on earth there are still (and more and more) so many turnables around? Well, they are not cheap, I think an average turnables nowaday cost a lot more than a mid-end CD-player. Ummm... I don't even want to start debate about: "Which is better? CD or LP?" Yes, CD is very portable compare to LP, but tell me why mini-disc cannot take over CD's place? So portable is not a main issue. Quality, if you are listening your CD via your walkman while you are traveling, the background noise will simply cover up any quality issue, as long as your discman won't skip! What I am trying to say is: no matter DVD-A or SACD, whoever can do the marketing better will win the war. As a matter of fact, can anyone tell me what is the sonic difference between DVD-A and SACD? What am I suppose to listen to? Because I just can't tell the difference. And while you are comparing them, are you going to use the digital coaxial cable instead of the tradition RCA interconnect? What about the price of the equipments? I know a Sony SCD-1 can cost you $2,500.00 for a new one; but a DVD-A player, how much would a "nice" DVD-A player cost? $500.00 or $1,000.00. As far as price concern, isn't it a bit unfair? Lawrence Leung |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Fran=C3=A7ois Yves Le Gal" wrote:
= On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:31:32 GMT, Michel Hafner wr= ote: = 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. How much of this statement is due to the signal content itself and how much to the way the AD and DA is implemented? Are you saying there is musical information in 1 bit DSD at ~2.8 Mz that = can not be stored with 24/96 or, if required, a 24/192 PCM stream? = If yes, how can that be with current sources 24 bit resolution and not having musically relevant frequency content above, let's say 30 Khz o= r so? If no, does DA for PCM 'suck' although the quality is available in the si= gnal? 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 gettin= g 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. Any papers on the net about this? = (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. Well, I do it every day, listen to DVD-Audios without consulting a monito= r. If you can't do it you are doing something wrong. :-) Or maybe your idea = of a problem is different from mine. = 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. Hm. Usually you can set up your player so it does the right thing. Or you= can also switch groups with the remote control. It is disc dependent thou= gh what you can do. The standard does not stop you from making well manoeuverable discs without consulting a monitor. 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 interfac= e, but in reality it doesn't. SACDs are usually easier to play. I agree. Does not need to be so... = The standard does not prohibit consumer friendly solutions, including play= ers with built in LCD monitors if menu navigation is desired without exter= nal monitor. = Agreed. But where are those user-friendly players and discs? I wonder why no brand has yet released a player with built in monitor. Sounds the most logical thing to do. Probably too high development costs given current market penetration. SACD has no advantage in principle but on specific discs it can be more user friendly. = It is with *all* discs. = I usually want to play the 5.1 PCM/MLP track and as my player is configur= ed I put the disc in and push play and that's it. No difference to SACD for = me in most cases. 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= =2E Not a principle issue of DVD-Audio as a standard. = Save for a few "audiophile" DVD-As, *all* discs are massacred by this a= wful spoiler. Why bother with a high definition format and then trash it wit= h some moronic copy protection scheme? People paying a premium for hi rez= formats don't want glorified MP3 sound! I also think watermarking is stupid. Blame the copyright hysteria of the labels, not the standard. = By the way, any examples of DVD-Audios where there is a SACD too and on t= he latter there are artifacts missing which are on the former and caused by watermarking? If not, any examples of DVD-Audios where you hear problems caused by this? = 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. = It's a clever trick make people buy SACDs. = I have no use for it because - if the master is high res PCM I don't get master quality but a fi= ltered version. If the master is DSD Wide, as more and more are, you get a nicely de= cimated 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 main point of my SACD aversity is that it's a delivery format that is= not the same as the master (except for pure 1 bit DSD recordings at ~2.8 = Mhz) while DVD-Audio is for PCM if you don't degrade it on purpose (watermarki= ng, downsampling...). And a delivery format with less quality than the master= based on technical parameters that simply need not be set like they are. Why so greedy with bits and use only 2.8 Mhz? Why insist on 1 bit samples= ? 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' psychoa= custic results. The HF content will never be clean and it will always lack th= e 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? The noise is perceptible to some people unless you discard their claims. Why bother with system parameters that require agressive noise shaping? = Further advances of AD and DA stages can not be delivered to the consumer since the limiting factor is the signal i= tself. 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, anyo= ne? If you were correct you have just confirmed that DVD-Audio can stay as a = standard till we become X-Men and have an evolutionary jump in hearing ability and AD converter designing ability. = 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. That may be so. But it's comforting to know the standard can handle it on= ce the industry wakes up and actually tries to fill the format with data wor= th = of its capabilities. Same as with DVDs or HD transfers. Practically none = are as good as the standard allows. = What is stopping anyone from taking a 24/96 or 24/192 master and overs= ampling to DSD (better quality DSD than SACD!) and then use this signal for di= gital 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. There can be chips built that do it. Current digital amps work with PCM t= oo so they do create a 1 bit signal. I have not heard complaints that CDs or= DVD-Audio sound lacking via digital amps because of an inferior DSD strea= m. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
Harry Lavo wrote:
And for consumer delivery, the mastering problems are irrelevant. For consumer delivery, it is a simple and sonically wonderful solution with no filtering involved. How is there no filtering involved? What are you calling noise shaping? And the player has an analogue filter as well. Digital audio without filtering does not exist. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:36:31 GMT, Bruce Abrams wrote:
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. Beta wasn't better than VHS in every respect. Even though VHS video quality is slightly worse than Beta, either are far worse than broadcast TV. However, VHS has one important performance advantages over Beta: A standard VHS tape can record two hours of video at its highest quality setting. This is enough to store the majority of movies. Beta tapes could only record 80 minutes. It wasn't simply a marketing battle where the "inferior" format won. -alan -- Alan Hoyle - - http://www.alanhoyle.com/ "I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Lawrence Leung" wrote in message
news:lS0Sb.135521$5V2.693836@attbi_s53... "Charles Tomaras" wrote in : 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. OK! I'm wrong! I do agree that a nice recorded CD sounds better than most of the LP. But when was the last time you heard of a cheap CD that sounds just like cassette tape? I've never heard a CD that sounded as bad as a cassette tape. And if CD is so "dramatically" better than the old LP, why on earth there are still (and more and more) so many turnables around? Well, they are not cheap, I think an average turnables nowaday cost a lot more than a mid-end CD-player. Why are there so many antique cars around? Not because they out perform new cars. Ummm... I don't even want to start debate about: "Which is better? CD or LP?" Because there really isn't a debate. The LP crowd prefers something that does not sound as much like the master tape as the CD crowd. The LP crowd prefers the "effect" that LP mastering and reproduction imparts to alter the original sound to fit onto the medium. I don't think you will find any recording engineers who think an LP sounds more like what they recorded than a CD. Yes, CD is very portable compare to LP, but tell me why mini-disc cannot take over CD's place? So portable is not a main issue. Because the lossy Atracs MD is audibly inferior to redbook CD. Quality, if you are listening your CD via your walkman while you are traveling, the background noise will simply cover up any quality issue, as long as your discman won't skip! Not with my Etymotic Research ER4's. What I am trying to say is: no matter DVD-A or SACD, whoever can do the marketing better will win the war. As a matter of fact, can anyone tell me what is the sonic difference between DVD-A and SACD? What am I suppose to listen to? Because I just can't tell the difference. I'm with you on this one. They both sound great to me and on high end equipment they are both an improvement over CD. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. What some of the more technically inclined are saying is that even though the ultrasonic noise from SACD's may not be audible on its own, there is a possibility that such noise may cause problems in amplifiers and speakers, which result in intermodulation and other effects that are audible. Except the *only* complaint i've heard about SACD sound comes from DVD-A advocates who claim that SACD sounds *soft*. That certainly doesn't sound like IM. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Beta may have been better than VHS,
but it wasn't world's better, just a bit. It wasn't a great loss that the world standardized on VHS. No biggie. Interestingly, this argument can be applied to today's SACD vs DVD-A format. SACD apparently is the inferior medium, and if we do wind up standardizing on it, will it a be such a great loss that we never got DVD-A? Hmmmm. I'm still hoping for DVD-A. CD Alan Hoyle wrote: On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:36:31 GMT, Bruce Abrams wrote: 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. Beta wasn't better than VHS in every respect. Even though VHS video quality is slightly worse than Beta, either are far worse than broadcast TV. However, VHS has one important performance advantages over Beta: A standard VHS tape can record two hours of video at its highest quality setting. This is enough to store the majority of movies. Beta tapes could only record 80 minutes. It wasn't simply a marketing battle where the "inferior" format won. -alan |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. What some of the more technically inclined are saying is that even though the ultrasonic noise from SACD's may not be audible on its own, there is a possibility that such noise may cause problems in amplifiers and speakers, which result in intermodulation and other effects that are audible. Except the *only* complaint i've heard about SACD sound comes from DVD-A advocates who claim that SACD sounds *soft*. That certainly doesn't sound like IM. So, who are the DVD-A advocates that claim SACD sounds soft? On the other hand, SACD advocates such as yourself keep claiming that PCM sounds irritating, gritty, etc., when all evidence points to hi-rez PCM as being the more accurate process. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
The minidisc was a replacement for the cassette. Totally different
market. The CD was directly replacing the record. And it looks like CD even replaced the cassette AND minidisc, too. Talk about slam dunk CD Lawrence Leung wrote: "Charles Tomaras" wrote in : 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. OK! I'm wrong! I do agree that a nice recorded CD sounds better than most of the LP. But when was the last time you heard of a cheap CD that sounds just like cassette tape? And if CD is so "dramatically" better than the old LP, why on earth there are still (and more and more) so many turnables around? Well, they are not cheap, I think an average turnables nowaday cost a lot more than a mid-end CD-player. Ummm... I don't even want to start debate about: "Which is better? CD or LP?" Yes, CD is very portable compare to LP, but tell me why mini-disc cannot take over CD's place? So portable is not a main issue. Quality, if you are listening your CD via your walkman while you are traveling, the background noise will simply cover up any quality issue, as long as your discman won't skip! What I am trying to say is: no matter DVD-A or SACD, whoever can do the marketing better will win the war. As a matter of fact, can anyone tell me what is the sonic difference between DVD-A and SACD? What am I suppose to listen to? Because I just can't tell the difference. And while you are comparing them, are you going to use the digital coaxial cable instead of the tradition RCA interconnect? What about the price of the equipments? I know a Sony SCD-1 can cost you $2,500.00 for a new one; but a DVD-A player, how much would a "nice" DVD-A player cost? $500.00 or $1,000.00. As far as price concern, isn't it a bit unfair? Lawrence Leung |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
Michel Hafner wrote:
"Fran??ois Yves Le Gal" wrote: 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. How much of this statement is due to the signal content itself and how much to the way the AD and DA is implemented? Are you saying there is musical information in 1 bit DSD at ~2.8 Mz that can not be stored with 24/96 or, if required, a 24/192 PCM stream? If yes, how can that be with current sources 24 bit resolution and not having musically relevant frequency content above, let's say 30 Khz or so? If no, does DA for PCM 'suck' although the quality is available in the signal? 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. Any papers on the net about this? In anay case, if there is a competing technology which has all the supposed sonic benefits of high-res/bitrate, and does NOT exhibit this S/N flaw, i.e., DVD-Audio, why bother with DSD? Leaving aside, of course, the question of whether DVD-A OR SACD are really necessary at the playback end for anything other than surroudn sound, compared to good old Redbook. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Codifus" wrote in message
... 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? the dvd-a consortium's. But the push on that end comes from Panasonic and Toshiba. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On 29 Jan 2004 05:52:45 GMT, Michel Hafner wrote:
How much of this statement is due to the signal content itself and how much to the way the AD and DA is implemented? Dunno the proportions, but both are important factors. Are you saying there is musical information in 1 bit DSD at ~2.8 Mz that can not be stored with 24/96 or, if required, a 24/192 PCM stream? Bandwith and depth are two things, DA and AD conversions two others. If yes, how can that be with current sources 24 bit resolution and not having musically relevant frequency content above, let's say 30 Khz or so? It has been demonstrated that a large number of musical instruments show spectra extending to 100 KHz and beyond. 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. Any papers on the net about this? None that I'm aware of, except incidental mentions in a couple of Sony/Philips papers. Or maybe your idea of a problem is different from mine. Yep, any user-hostile piece of gear is a problem. Hm. Usually you can set up your player so it does the right thing. Or you can also switch groups with the remote control. Sure, but any piece of gear shouldn't dictate what I have to do in an user-hostile way. DVD-A players are below what's acceptable when it come to ergonomy, and all DVD-A's I've tested are very poorly mastered when it comes to navigation or content access. SACDs are usually easier to play. I agree. Does not need to be so... Of course it needs to be simple. We're talking about consumer players, not geek boxes. By the way, any examples of DVD-Audios where there is a SACD too and on the latter there are artifacts missing which are on the former and caused by watermarking? None that I'm aware of. If not, any examples of DVD-Audios where you hear problems caused by this? All from majors that I'm aware of. The main point of my SACD aversity is that it's a delivery format that is not the same as the master (except for pure 1 bit DSD recordings at ~2.8 Mhz) Yes, it's a somewhat decimated version of the DSD Wide master. But, heck, it's a consumer media. while DVD-Audio is for PCM if you don't degrade it on purpose (watermarking, downsampling...). Considering that most DVD-A's today are derived from analog or low resolution digital masters (as are all SA-CD reissues BTW), quality 16/44 should be enough. XRCD, anyone? Why so greedy with bits and use only 2.8 Mhz? Why insist on 1 bit samples? This has already been discussed ad nauseam. Google this, ask Sony/Philips, or read their various AES preprints and papers. The noise is perceptible to some people unless you discard their claims. By whom may I ask? 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? If you were correct I am correct. you have just confirmed that DVD-Audio can stay as a standard till we become X-Men and have an evolutionary jump in hearing ability and AD converter designing ability. Properly done high resolution PCM is totally transparent. I've never written anything stating or implying the contrary. But it's comforting to know the standard can handle it once the industry wakes up and actually tries to fill the format with data worth of its capabilities. Same as with DVDs or HD transfers. Practically none are as good as the standard allows. Yes, most of today's SA-CD's and DVD-A's are reissues using "old" masters, some ridiculously so: vide the Roxy Music reissues on SA-CD mastered from a Sony 1630 tape ! There can be chips built that do it. Not today. Current digital amps work with PCM too so they do create a 1 bit signal. The conversion AFAICT is far from perfect in all of the amps I'm familiar with. I have not heard complaints that CDs or DVD-Audio sound lacking via digital amps because of an inferior DSD stream. ??? |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On 29 Jan 2004 01:20:57 GMT, chung wrote:
there is a possibility that such noise may cause problems in amplifiers and speakers, which result in intermodulation and other effects that are audible. It's more than a possibility, particularly with improperly designed and marginally stable "audiophile" electronics. Hence the variable low pass filter fitted to a number of SA-CD players... |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Michel Hafner" wrote in message
... I wonder why no brand has yet released a player with built in monitor. Sounds the most logical thing to do. Probably too high development costs given current market penetration. I've been seeing a number of higher end receivers with built in monitors which I think makes more sense. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Mkuller" wrote in message
... "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). Knowing what compromises are involved with mastering an LP, I think the audiophiles are really kidding themselves. I've sat in a mastering room a few times in my day and while an album might have sounded good, it never sounded as close to the master tape as a CD. It can't because of the limitations of the medium. The audiophiles may be pleased by the sound, but it doesn't sound like the master. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"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". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Yes, it is interesting if you understand the technology, The problem is not the high ultrasonic noise levels of SACD per se, but the distortions they can cause in the audible range, when injected into some amplifiers. It is of course undeniable that DVD-A has both much higher resolution above 10kHz, and a vastly lower noise floor. Can I hear the difference, given a good amp? No. Does it matter that SACD is incompatible with all other forms of digital audio? Probably, in the long run. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:36:31 GMT, Bruce Abrams
wrote: 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. It already did - Elcaset, another technically superior flop. BTW, the best of the original VCR formats was neither VHS nor Betamax, it was Philips' V2000.................. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:12:24 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: 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. You were doinfg quite well when you held things to your own opinion, but that's going *way* too far. Among my own circle of audiophile friends, the jury is definitely out on SACD vs DVD-A, and to denigrate proponents of the technically superior DVD-A as 'folk raised on rock and cd' is sheer snobbery which is not sustained by the facts in our case. In particular, I was raised on live classical music and LP, and I prefer DVD-A for several reasons, although I admit that I can't actually tell the difference sonically among well-made 2-channel CD, SACD and DVD-A. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:12:10 GMT, 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! No, in the case of CD, it was *exactly* because it is greatly superior to LP, and also vastly more convenient. The same cannot be said for SACD or DVD-A vs CD, so that battle is indeed largely down to marketing. 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? Actually, the 'mainstream' war has been won by MP3, but that's of little interest to most readers of *this* forum. BTW, do you classify yourself as a 'tech. geek'? If not, why do you insultingly assume that everyone else on r.a.h-e can be so described? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
Fran??ois Yves Le Gal wrote:
On 29 Jan 2004 01:20:57 GMT, chung wrote: there is a possibility that such noise may cause problems in amplifiers and speakers, which result in intermodulation and other effects that are audible. It's more than a possibility, particularly with improperly designed and marginally stable "audiophile" electronics. Hence the variable low pass filter fitted to a number of SA-CD players... What's the highest frequency such filters allow to pass? -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
I have a sound engineer friend of mine who told me the same thing. He
had the privilege of being able to listen to master tapes and compare the final CD product to it. CD blew vinyl away. He said it did sound a bit more harsh than vinyl, but that was because it was recording e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g, warts and all. CD Charles Tomaras wrote: "Mkuller" wrote in message ... "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). Knowing what compromises are involved with mastering an LP, I think the audiophiles are really kidding themselves. I've sat in a mastering room a few times in my day and while an album might have sounded good, it never sounded as close to the master tape as a CD. It can't because of the limitations of the medium. The audiophiles may be pleased by the sound, but it doesn't sound like the master. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:12:24 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: 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. You were doinfg quite well when you held things to your own opinion, but that's going *way* too far. Among my own circle of audiophile friends, the jury is definitely out on SACD vs DVD-A, and to denigrate proponents of the technically superior DVD-A as 'folk raised on rock and cd' is sheer snobbery which is not sustained by the facts in our case. Harry's said he reads AudioAsylum..I wonder if he's getting his impressions from *that* loon...., er, I mean, place. SACD is hyped as the audio connoisseur's high-rez medium, by the high-end press and by Sony....and sure enough, subjectivist 'audiophiles' and some recording folk find it to be the bestest. This, to me, is not particularly surprising. Or convincing. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
And therein must lie the problem. I don't know what studios or other
infrastructure that Toshiba and or/Panasonic own, if any. CD Harry Lavo wrote: "Codifus" wrote in message ... 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? the dvd-a consortium's. But the push on that end comes from Panasonic and Toshiba. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
I thought that part of the problem with the CD format was having to use
"brick wall" type DA converters. These converters would do their best to extract the audio from 20Hz to 20Khz in as flat a frequency response as possible, then do a massively steep rolloff at the relatively low Nyquist frequency, 22 Khz. With SACD, it would look like we would still have to use those types of filters, but with DVD-A, since noise is absent in such a wide frequency band, a more gentle DAC, and hence better performing, in terms of flat frequency response, phase and other measurements, DAC could be used. Even I can't hear much past 16Khz, the DVD-A format just seems to be a much more technically elegant solution to the digital noise issue. Also, I beleive that we still have alot to learn as to how humans perceive frequencies above 20Khz. Even though we can't hear a direct 20 Khz tone, inside the harmonic of a lower frequency, it has been shown that we do find something. Case in point, it's been said that the trumpet and violin and the hardest instruments to reproduce faithfully in digital audio. My observations have been the same. When I hear a trumpet live, there is some high frequency harmonics there that just don't come through accurately on any recorded trumpet sounds I've ever heard. Same with Violins. Something gets lost in the translation.Maybe this is a test someone should do. Record these 2 instruments in each format, and see which one reproduces better. These recording should have the instruments by themselves, as well as have them in their normal environment, be it an orchestra or band. That would be interesting to see. CD Stewart Pinkerton wrote: 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". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Yes, it is interesting if you understand the technology, The problem is not the high ultrasonic noise levels of SACD per se, but the distortions they can cause in the audible range, when injected into some amplifiers. It is of course undeniable that DVD-A has both much higher resolution above 10kHz, and a vastly lower noise floor. Can I hear the difference, given a good amp? No. Does it matter that SACD is incompatible with all other forms of digital audio? Probably, in the long run. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:25:56 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:
What's the highest frequency such filters allow to pass? The F3 point is usually at either 50 (default) or 100 KHz. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Fran=C3=A7ois Yves Le Gal" wrote:
= Are you saying there is musical information in 1 bit DSD at ~2.8 Mz th= at can not be stored with 24/96 or, if required, a 24/192 PCM stream? = Bandwith and depth are two things, DA and AD conversions two others. Is that a 'no'? If yes, how can that be with current sources 24 bit resolution and not having musically relevant frequency content above, let's say 30 Kh= z or so? = It has been demonstrated that a large number of musical instruments sho= w spectra extending to 100 KHz and beyond. And let's assume this is musically relevant information hearable by very golden ears. Does the DVD-Audio at 24/192 (or even 96) or SACD store this= information with higher accuracy? = 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. Any papers on the net about this? = None that I'm aware of, except incidental mentions in a couple of Sony/Philips papers. No comment necessary. Or maybe your idea of a problem is different from mine. Yep, any user-hostile piece of gear is a problem. I don't think looking at the cover to see which group is what format and push a groop change button is particularly hostile, should the default setting of the player not give you what you want in a particular case. If you really need an external monitor I would agree that the disc is user unfriendly. Hm. Usually you can set up your player so it does the right thing. Or = you can also switch groups with the remote control. = Sure, but any piece of gear shouldn't dictate what I have to do in an user-hostile way. Do you think watching DVDs (as in Hollywood films) is a user hostile proc= ess? I have to push more buttons to see a DVD than listen to my DVD-Audios. = If not, any examples of DVD-Audios where you hear problems caused by this? = All from majors that I'm aware of. How can you be sure without access to the version without the watermarkin= g? Any examples where there is a CD of the same material that has not the problem but the DVD-Audio does? How do you know? Do you watermark stuff yourself and listen to the difference? The main point of my SACD aversity is that it's a delivery format that= is not the same as the master (except for pure 1 bit DSD recordings at ~2= =2E8 Mhz) = Yes, it's a somewhat decimated version of the DSD Wide master. But, hec= k, it's a consumer media. I don't understand that argument. = Why is it normal or expected or even necessary that a consumer version of= a recording has less quality than the studio master? There was a time it had to be so due to technical reasons. That time is over with DVD-Audio. Why does the term consumer version somehow justify loss of quality? I understand loss of quality because the technology is built like that (as in copying negatives to release prints). I understand loss of quality= due to budget limitations of the playback equipment. I don't understand an ideological loss of quality imperative because it's a consumer version= =2E Do you? = For who are the recordings made in full quality if not for the public? = For some sound egineers and the artist plus family when they sit in the mixing room? For the archives and the people working there? = Oh, it's all about keeping the best quality from pirates' greedy hands, not the users. It's about no profits for parasites and all profit for the= authors and legitimate labels. It's about endless reissues with marginall= y better quality. It's about MONEY. Still, for who are these recordings mad= e if not for the consumer? Thank God some labels have answered this basic question and correctly. = while DVD-Audio is for PCM if you don't degrade it on purpose (waterma= rking, downsampling...). = Considering that most DVD-A's today are derived from analog or low resolution digital masters (as are all SA-CD reissues BTW), quality 16/= 44 should be enough. XRCD, anyone? Maybe. But the new formats come alive once you use them in ways the old formats could not have been used. That should be the major interest when deciding what the technical parameters should look like. = Why so greedy with bits and use only 2.8 Mhz? Why insist on 1 bit samp= les? This has already been discussed ad nauseam. Google this, ask Sony/Phili= ps, or read their various AES preprints and papers. I have not seen a good answer except the ones about money, not sound quality and what belongs on a source and what not. = The noise is perceptible to some people unless you discard their claim= s. By whom may I ask? http://www.iar-80.com/page17.html etc. Has he been debunked in your books as well? = Are there quite audible differences between a live violin and the DSD and= PCM version as described or not? Did you do the experiment? = 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, a= nyone? If you were correct = I am correct. = you have just confirmed that DVD-Audio can stay as a standard till we become X-Men and have an evolutionary jump in hearing= ability and AD converter designing ability. = Properly done high resolution PCM is totally transparent. I've never wr= itten anything stating or implying the contrary. Then you should be happy to embrace 'consumer friendly' DVD-Audios. Are y= ou? But it's comforting to know the standard can handle it once the industry wakes up and actually tries to fill the format with data = worth of its capabilities. Same as with DVDs or HD transfers. Practically no= ne are as good as the standard allows. = Yes, most of today's SA-CD's and DVD-A's are reissues using "old" maste= rs, some ridiculously so: vide the Roxy Music reissues on SA-CD mastered fr= om a Sony 1630 tape ! = There can be chips built that do it. = Not today. = Current digital amps work with PCM too so they do create a 1 bit signa= l. = The conversion AFAICT is far from perfect in all of the amps I'm famili= ar with. = I have not heard complaints that CDs or DVD-Audio sound lacking via digital amps because of an inferior DSD st= ream. = ??? Current PCM - DSD conversion in digital amps sounds very good. ? We need= no 1 bit conversion (with information loss) on the source itself, even if we= swear on 1 bit for DA and amplification. ? |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. What some of the more technically inclined are saying is that even though the ultrasonic noise from SACD's may not be audible on its own, there is a possibility that such noise may cause problems in amplifiers and speakers, which result in intermodulation and other effects that are audible. Except the *only* complaint i've heard about SACD sound comes from DVD-A advocates who claim that SACD sounds *soft*. That certainly doesn't sound like IM. So, who are the DVD-A advocates that claim SACD sounds soft? On the other hand, SACD advocates such as yourself keep claiming that PCM sounds irritating, gritty, etc., when all evidence points to hi-rez PCM as being the more accurate process. No, *some* technical data supports DVD-A as having cleaner ultrasonics. You are ignoring needed user-end DAC quality, the analog output quality of the companies promoting DVD-A, the fact that in practice DVD-A disks have no greater quieting throughout the bass and mid-range region than ordinary cd's, etc. The issue is not clear-cut, but in either case the systems are superior to cd, both technically and from a subjective sound standpoint. However, high-res PCM continues basically to be described as CD-quality with smoother highs; SACD is described as "softer" and "more natural" and having more depth; whether or not you view this as a good thing or not depends in part on where you are coming from with your musical reference point. It seems most classical music lovers prefer SACD as sounding more natural. That includes me. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:qgdSb.182883$na.300352@attbi_s04... On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:12:24 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: 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. You were doinfg quite well when you held things to your own opinion, but that's going *way* too far. Among my own circle of audiophile friends, the jury is definitely out on SACD vs DVD-A, and to denigrate proponents of the technically superior DVD-A as 'folk raised on rock and cd' is sheer snobbery which is not sustained by the facts in our case. In particular, I was raised on live classical music and LP, and I prefer DVD-A for several reasons, although I admit that I can't actually tell the difference sonically among well-made 2-channel CD, SACD and DVD-A. Good for you, Stewart. Did I say *all*?? I base this on having read/participated on the SACD and DVD-A forums on Audio Asylum for several years, where the difference in emphasis is pretty readily apparent and not even contested by those who are *outliers* such as yourself. Certainly not exclusively, but directionally, I have every reason to believe I am correct. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Fran??ois Yves Le Gal wrote: On 29 Jan 2004 01:20:57 GMT, chung wrote: there is a possibility that such noise may cause problems in amplifiers and speakers, which result in intermodulation and other effects that are audible. It's more than a possibility, particularly with improperly designed and marginally stable "audiophile" electronics. Hence the variable low pass filter fitted to a number of SA-CD players... What's the highest frequency such filters allow to pass? More importantly, what is the attenuation of such filters at 20KHz? And if such filters are used, there goes the advantage of higher bandwidth of SACD. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message
news:ufdSb.177655$I06.1821998@attbi_s01... "Michel Hafner" wrote in message ... I wonder why no brand has yet released a player with built in monitor. Sounds the most logical thing to do. Probably too high development costs given current market penetration. I've been seeing a number of higher end receivers with built in monitors which I think makes more sense. Yeah, if you want to pay $3000 (Rotel) or $9000 (Bel Canto). I'll settle for a 5" color RCA for $69, thank you. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On 29 Jan 2004 20:33:04 GMT, Codifus wrote:
Even though we can't hear a direct 20 Khz tone, inside the harmonic of a lower frequency, it has been shown that we do find something. Only at *huge* SPLs, which simply do not occur in orchestral instruments. Case in point, it's been said that the trumpet and violin and the hardest instruments to reproduce faithfully in digital audio. Yes, IME that's true - along with solo piano, which to me is the *real* killer. Although that has more to do with speakers than with the source medium. My observations have been the same. When I hear a trumpet live, there is some high frequency harmonics there that just don't come through accurately on any recorded trumpet sounds I've ever heard. Same with Violins. Something gets lost in the translation. With trumpet, it's probaly the sheer SPL! Basically, if your system can't peak at more than 115dB at the listening position, it's been my experience that brass just doesn't sound right. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. What some of the more technically inclined are saying is that even though the ultrasonic noise from SACD's may not be audible on its own, there is a possibility that such noise may cause problems in amplifiers and speakers, which result in intermodulation and other effects that are audible. Except the *only* complaint i've heard about SACD sound comes from DVD-A advocates who claim that SACD sounds *soft*. That certainly doesn't sound like IM. So, who are the DVD-A advocates that claim SACD sounds soft? On the other hand, SACD advocates such as yourself keep claiming that PCM sounds irritating, gritty, etc., when all evidence points to hi-rez PCM as being the more accurate process. No, *some* technical data supports DVD-A as having cleaner ultrasonics. OK, so are there any technical data supporting SACD as having cleaner ultrasonics? That should tell you that SACD is not superior as a technology, which you seem to keep believing. I also noted that you were unable to cite people who claim SACD's sound soft. You are ignoring needed user-end DAC quality, the analog output quality of the companies promoting DVD-A, Seems like a mastering issue, and an implementation issue, and not a technology issue to me. You just like the SACD's because of the way they were mastered or recorded. the fact that in practice DVD-A disks have no greater quieting throughout the bass and mid-range region than ordinary cd's, etc. Proof? Are you questioning the fact that 24/96 does not have a higher S/N over *all* audio frequencies than 16/44? That's an unusual claim. The issue is not clear-cut, but in either case the systems are superior to cd, both technically and from a subjective sound standpoint. Technically, it is clear that 96/24 (or 192/24) is superior to SACD or CD. Whether that technical superiority translates into an audible superiority is not clear cut, since it should be obvious that recording and mastering contribute much, much more to the final quality. Actually, only several days ago I got the impression that you believed the issue was clear-cut, that SACD's beat PCM... Hmmm. However, high-res PCM continues basically to be described as CD-quality with smoother highs; SACD is described as "softer" and "more natural" and having more depth; whether or not you view this as a good thing or not depends in part on where you are coming from with your musical reference point. Actually, it seems to me that you care a lot about who (or how many) prefer which format, given your continuous deference to popular vote at Audio Asylum. I'm glad, however, that you agree that preference for one format over another is *personal*. It seems most classical music lovers prefer SACD as sounding more natural. Again, OSAF. I prefer CD's because of the huge library. SACD's may sound better in some cases due to more careful mastering. They may also sound worse, if you compare bad SACD's vs good CD's. Just like an excellent vinyl LP can be more enjoyable than a poorly mastered CD (or SACD/DVD-A). That includes me. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On 29 Jan 2004 21:34:16 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... So, who are the DVD-A advocates that claim SACD sounds soft? On the other hand, SACD advocates such as yourself keep claiming that PCM sounds irritating, gritty, etc., when all evidence points to hi-rez PCM as being the more accurate process. No, *some* technical data supports DVD-A as having cleaner ultrasonics. You are ignoring needed user-end DAC quality, the analog output quality of the companies promoting DVD-A, the fact that in practice DVD-A disks have no greater quieting throughout the bass and mid-range region than ordinary cd's, etc. Harry, please get real here. *All* available evidence states quite clearly that 24/192 or 24/96 DVD-A is *vastly* superior to SACD in regard to cleaner ultrasonics. BTW, SACD has *no* real-world SNR advantage through the bass and midrange region, because 24/96 greatly exceeds the capacity of any available microphone. The issue is not clear-cut, Oh yes, it is. but in either case the systems are superior to cd, both technically and from a subjective sound standpoint. No, they are *technically* superior, but there is as yet absolutely *zero* reliable and repeatable evidence that well-made CD is in any way *audibly* different from well-made SACD or 24/192 DVD-A. However, high-res PCM continues basically to be described as CD-quality with smoother highs; SACD is described as "softer" and "more natural" and having more depth; whether or not you view this as a good thing or not depends in part on where you are coming from with your musical reference point. It seems most classical music lovers prefer SACD as sounding more natural. That includes me. As regards my own circle of audiophile friends, this is absolutely untrue. Indeed, there's no clear vote for *either* 'hi-res' format over top-quality CD such as JVCs excellent XRCD series. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:34:34 GMT, François Yves Le Gal
wrote: On 29 Jan 2004 05:52:45 GMT, Michel Hafner wrote: Are you saying there is musical information in 1 bit DSD at ~2.8 Mz that can not be stored with 24/96 or, if required, a 24/192 PCM stream? Bandwith and depth are two things, DA and AD conversions two others. That's absolute nonsense. 24/192 LPCM is demonstrably superior to DSD in all respects. If yes, how can that be with current sources 24 bit resolution and not having musically relevant frequency content above, let's say 30 Khz or so? It has been demonstrated that a large number of musical instruments show spectra extending to 100 KHz and beyond. Unfortunately for your theorising, it's been shown that humans are *not* sensitive to frequencies beyond 25kHz, and even that is only a *tiny* fraction of the population, most of whom cut off at 15-18 kHz. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:04:59 GMT, François Yves Le Gal
wrote: On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:25:56 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote: What's the highest frequency such filters allow to pass? The F3 point is usually at either 50 (default) or 100 KHz. So, SACD is by definition inferior to 24/96, which has vastly lower RF noise by design, not by artificial filtration to Band-Aid inherent problems.. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:0gdSb.177658
Yes, it is interesting if you understand the technology, The problem is not the high ultrasonic noise levels of SACD per se, but the distortions they can cause in the audible range, when injected into some amplifiers. It is of course undeniable that DVD-A has both much higher resolution above 10kHz, and a vastly lower noise floor. Can I hear the difference, given a good amp? No. Does it matter that SACD is incompatible with all other forms of digital audio? Probably, in the long run. It is fairly easy to design a low-pass filter that would take out the utltrasonic noise. A low-pass filter consisting of only two op-amps, five capacitors and some resistors could greatly reduce the noise above 250kHz. Wouldn't an SACD player manufacturer would such put a filter on the output of the SACD player, if noise was a problem? Bob Stanton |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond
"chung" wrote in message
news:nQgSb.178767$I06.1840788@attbi_s01... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. What some of the more technically inclined are saying is that even though the ultrasonic noise from SACD's may not be audible on its own, there is a possibility that such noise may cause problems in amplifiers and speakers, which result in intermodulation and other effects that are audible. Except the *only* complaint i've heard about SACD sound comes from DVD-A advocates who claim that SACD sounds *soft*. That certainly doesn't sound like IM. So, who are the DVD-A advocates that claim SACD sounds soft? On the other hand, SACD advocates such as yourself keep claiming that PCM sounds irritating, gritty, etc., when all evidence points to hi-rez PCM as being the more accurate process. No, *some* technical data supports DVD-A as having cleaner ultrasonics. OK, so are there any technical data supporting SACD as having cleaner ultrasonics? That should tell you that SACD is not superior as a technology, which you seem to keep believing. I have made no such claim. I have said "dirty" ultrasonics are of little to no audible consequence. And I have cited lower noise levels in bass and midrange as a result of the noise shaping as potential end-user benefits. That is all. I also noted that you were unable to cite people who claim SACD's sound soft. I told you exactly where that information came from. Go to Audio Asylum to the DVD-A hi-res forum. Look up "soft" and "sacd" and "sacd flaws" and similar and you'll see lots of discussion by lots of people. You are ignoring needed user-end DAC quality, the analog output quality of the companies promoting DVD-A, Seems like a mastering issue, and an implementation issue, and not a technology issue to me. You just like the SACD's because of the way they were mastered or recorded. Quit putting words/motives in my mouth and brain, please. I think no such thing. I have listened, own, and use DVD-A's as well as SACDs. I have made careful comparisons, having bought some disks simply so I could make careful comparisons. At this point, to me, SACD sounds better for the most part. Simple as that. I have several DVD-A's where I cannot fault the mastering at all. Good as they are, they simply don't sound nearly as "real" by comparison to my best SACD's. the fact that in practice DVD-A disks have no greater quieting throughout the bass and mid-range region than ordinary cd's, etc. Proof? Are you questioning the fact that 24/96 does not have a higher S/N over *all* audio frequencies than 16/44? That's an unusual claim. Take a look at the actual CD and DVD-A curves for actual DVD-A players published in Stereophile and some English mags, and you will see what I mean. That is the case. Then compare to SACD. The issue is not clear-cut, but in either case the systems are superior to cd, both technically and from a subjective sound standpoint. Technically, it is clear that 96/24 (or 192/24) is superior to SACD or CD. Whether that technical superiority translates into an audible superiority is not clear cut, since it should be obvious that recording and mastering contribute much, much more to the final quality. That is a strawman. It is obviously true of all media. However, it brushes off those of us who have done careful comparisons using identical mixes. And there are plenty of people who have done good comparisons, as well as those who have done plenty of bad ones. If you stayed around Audio Asylum more instead of just poo-pooing it, you would actually run into some of those. Actually, only several days ago I got the impression that you believed the issue was clear-cut, that SACD's beat PCM... Hmmm. I believe it does as a commercial end product. And that is my *only* concern. Technical quibbles have never interested me if it doesn't show up in a better end result. However, high-res PCM continues basically to be described as CD-quality with smoother highs; SACD is described as "softer" and "more natural" and having more depth; whether or not you view this as a good thing or not depends in part on where you are coming from with your musical reference point. Actually, it seems to me that you care a lot about who (or how many) prefer which format, given your continuous deference to popular vote at Audio Asylum. No, I care about my own opinion. But when i can read of others who have done careful worked and reached similar opinions, it is gratifying because it is not easy to do meaningful comparisons. I also try to pay attention to those who prefer DVD-A, and pay careful attention to their arguments and concerns about SACD. I think about these things, I listen, I compare...and I continue to refine my own conclusions. I'd much rather do that than quibble over theoretical technical "purity" here. I'm glad, however, that you agree that preference for one format over another is *personal*. I've never argued otherwise. It is Stewart and yourself and a few others who keep on insisting on a technical "winner". It seems most classical music lovers prefer SACD as sounding more natural. Again, OSAF. And again, i cited my source, like it or not. I should amend it to say "classical lovers interested in hi-res". I prefer CD's because of the huge library. SACD's may sound better in some cases due to more careful mastering. They may also sound worse, if you compare bad SACD's vs good CD's. Just like an excellent vinyl LP can be more enjoyable than a poorly mastered CD (or SACD/DVD-A). We agree on this and have from the beginning. That includes me. |
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 |