All of what you say is true. However, I'm not comparing multi-channel
with stereo, but all the formats - DVD-A, SACD, CDDA - in stereo only.

Norm Strong

A strength in high density PCMis the availability of digital outpout
(SPDIF at least up to 24/96) making it more suitable for signal
processing (e.g. equalizion, room correction and what else) in the
digital domain.
I like this strength so much

SACD does not allow this (yet, but probably never)

I (Len Moskowitz) wrote:

I'm not using it yet, but the word is good about Minnetonka Audio's
Discwelder Steel (http://www.discwelder.com), or if you're a pro studio
and need MLP and more control over video content you might use the
Chrome version.

MA has Discwelder Steel on sale for the holiday season. You can get it
from their dealers now for around $360 instead of the usual $499.

We'll have ours next week.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

"Bruno Putzeys" wrote in message
news:YHIDb.561174$HS4.4256611@attbi_s01...


Oops, my apologies - I misread you.

Although I can thoroughly enjoy some multichannel albums I do have some
second thoughts on multichannel as well:
From mono to stereo did not just add a second position. It added a
dimension - lateral positioning (height and depth are present in good mono
as well). Any position between the speakers can be sonically represented
in
stereo. Multichannel only adds a second stereo arc in the rear and a few
discrete positions to the side (the stereo illusion does not translate to
the sides). In a sense, multichannel is in no way the same quantum leap as
from mono to stereo. Also the fact that the sweet spot is no longer only
constrained left-to-right but also back-to-front is at times a
disappointment.

It is often forgotten that just like stereo is only an illusion,
multichannel too does not reproduce a real sound field. Not 5.1. Not 10.2.
Not even uhh 20.4.


I do agree that multi-channel is *not* the proverbial "quantum
leap forward" that I had naively initially expected compared
to what I can already achieve in my existing two-channel
system. As Stewart Pinkerton has aptly pointed out to me
more that a year ago, surround today is not truly three dimensional.
And it isn't. Going from mono to two channels was a far
greater leap, as you describe. Surround is diminishing
returns in evidence.

Although, keep in mind that at its advent two-channel was
viewed to actually be a step *backward* by many music
lovers. And its understandable why. Many of those early
stereo recordings were afflicted with the "ping pong"
malady and worse. But it was slowly improved to the point
where it earned the status of being a quantum leap forward.
And so to has multi-channel suffered at its incarnation with
over engineering and tawdry tastes. But it too is getting
better and in time I believe it will be a more important
leap than it is presently. (But still not as big as going
from mono to two-channels). Many excellent multi-channel
recordings, that *far* outstrip their two-channel
counterparts, already exists.

I find multi-channel to be very pleasingly like an ideal
extension of two-channel; like vastly improved two channel,
not like the “speaker everywhere” experience I had originally
expected, or feared, for that matter. Perhaps because of its
two-channel roots,I am very much an enthusiastic convert to
current multi-channel technology. I believe that multi-channel,
implemented correctly, is like the ultimate *two-channel*
experience. That is, done correctly, multi-channel
sounds more like what I always hoped stereo could be but
could *never* be, particularly for orchestral presentations.
That is why for the life of me, I don't understand why a music
lover doesn't "like" surround. It tells me that they have not
experienced a correctly implemented system.

While I am a strong advocate of hi-rez surround, I (we) have to
be careful about falling into "hyperbole" that you mentioned
previously, when describing surround. For example, some
listeners equate good surround to "small-hall realism". And
while I may think it myself, I am reluctant to say it because
those type of comparisons are bandied about all the time.
I recently read an old review of the AR1(I believe from the
50s or early 60s). The reviewer made a similar comparison
to "small-hall realism" when talking about the AR1 (mono). I
have never heard the AR1, but I did hear the "much
improved AR3a" from the 70s and in my mind it could *never*
simulate "small-hall realism".

Robert C. Lang

"langvid" wrote:

...snip to content.....

I find multi-channel to be very pleasingly like an ideal
extension of two-channel; like vastly improved two channel,
not like the “speaker everywhereÂâ€� experience I had originally
expected, or feared, for that matter. Perhaps because of its
two-channel roots,I am very much an enthusiastic convert to
current multi-channel technology. I believe that multi-channel,
implemented correctly, is like the ultimate *two-channel*
experience. That is, done correctly, multi-channel
sounds more like what I always hoped stereo could be but
could *never* be, particularly for orchestral presentations.
That is why for the life of me, I don't understand why a music
lover doesn't "like" surround. It tells me that they have not
experienced a correctly implemented system.

I think that some folks have adopted 2-channel as a de-facto standard. I have a
couple of friends who are cherry of multi-channel because it doesn't sound
exactly like their favorite records sound in 2-channel.

Others seem to be stiff-arming the technology simply because, after spending 20
or 30 years optimizing their 2-channel systems, they just don't want to invest
the effort.

Many of us simply have large libraries of music in 2 channel formats. I have
little interest in my favorite music, that was recorded with one or two
channels in mind, being remixed for multichannel playback. There isn't enough
music that interests me so far that is being recorded with multichannel
playback in mind.

On 12/19/03 11:13 AM, in article , "S888Wheel"
wrote:

Many of us simply have large libraries of music in 2 channel formats. I have
little interest in my favorite music, that was recorded with one or two
channels in mind, being remixed for multichannel playback. There isn't enough
music that interests me so far that is being recorded with multichannel
playback in mind.

One thing that is great about these new formats is that you can listen to it
in 2 channel mode if you'd like

(S888Wheel) wrote in message ...
Many of us simply have large libraries of music in 2 channel formats. I have
little interest in my favorite music, that was recorded with one or two
channels in mind, being remixed for multichannel playback. There isn't enough
music that interests me so far that is being recorded with multichannel
playback in mind.

I think you got it exactly right here. Remixing and remastering of
recordings that were focused on 2-channel stereo can only go so far,
with a few exceptions that were trying to do something "way back then"
in quadraphonic or other formats. I do think that the existence of
hi-rez recording for multichannel playback is something that will
absolutely change the way artists, producers and engineers conceive of
projects and record new material in the future. From that standpoint,
there will be no way to go back to stereo. It might take awhile
though! It provides artistic and technical freedoms that have barely
been explored at this point. - Regards, David Elias

The fact that one can listen in two channel mode to these multichannel formats
does not make them more appealing to those of us who already have a previous
copy of the same two channel recording on a two channel format. Unless the new
mastering on the multichannel format is better in two channel mode (unlikely)
there is no point in buying such titles. Like I said, I am not interested in
multichannel remixes of recordings that were made for two channel playback.
That would constitute the vast majority of recordings that interest me.

On 20 Dec 2003 18:50:49 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

The fact that one can listen in two channel mode to these multichannel formats
does not make them more appealing to those of us who already have a previous
copy of the same two channel recording on a two channel format. Unless the new
mastering on the multichannel format is better in two channel mode (unlikely)

Generally, it is superior to the original CD mastering whether you
listen in stereo or in MCH.

there is no point in buying such titles. Like I said, I am not interested in
multichannel remixes of recordings that were made for two channel playback.
That would constitute the vast majority of recordings that interest me.

OK.

Kal

Most of my music library is in vinyl. If there were even a few titles that
mattered to me that really were better mastered on a multichannel format in two
channel mode I would consider buying into such a format. But really, are there
a few if any such titles? What recordings made for two channel playback sound
best on the two channel mode of a multichannel release?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
Most of my music library is in vinyl. If there were even a few
titles that
mattered to me that really were better mastered on a multichannel
format in two
channel mode I would consider buying into such a format. But really,
are there
a few if any such titles? What recordings made for two channel
playback sound
best on the two channel mode of a multichannel release?

It's my understanding that most pop recordings start out as 24 track
recordings. Getting it to stereo is already a task requiring
considerable talent. It might actually be easier to get a decent
surround sound mix.

Norm Strong

On 21 Dec 2003 00:30:22 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Most of my music library is in vinyl.

Well, there have been many valuable recorded performances since they
stopped making vinyl.

If there were even a few titles that
mattered to me that really were better mastered on a multichannel format in two
channel mode I would consider buying into such a format. But really, are there
a few if any such titles?

How can I tell what mattered to you? My interest in this format is
primarily for new performances which take advantage of the new medium.
Remasters are often (or, even, usually) superior to their original
releases but, for me, do not, generally, make me need to replace the
originals.

What recordings made for two channel playback sound
best on the two channel mode of a multichannel release?

As I said, I do not recommend you switch to the new media if you are
only interested in reissues of old stuff. Nonetheless, many of the
Szell reissues on Sony (especially that Stravinsky/Mahler/Walton disc)
are very worthwhile. YMMV.

Kal

It's my understanding that most pop recordings start out as 24 track
recordings. Getting it to stereo is already a task requiring
considerable talent. It might actually be easier to get a decent
surround sound mix.

Many were recorded on 24 track. That doesn't change the fact that the
recordings were made with stereo in mind (or in some cases mono). The final
product is a stereo recording regardless of how many elements went into it. I
am confident that many different choices would have been made by many of the
artists and producers if those old recordings were made with multichannel in
mind. I have heard a few examples multichannel remixes with some classic pop
recordings. It ultimately is revisionism and so far I find it completely
undesirable.

I
am confident that many different choices would have been made by many of
the
artists and producers if those old recordings were made with multichannel
in
mind. I have heard a few examples multichannel remixes with some classic
pop
recordings.

That's true. At least for Wendy Carlos (Switched On Bach). She has a very
interesting section on multichannel audio on her web site.
http://www.wendycarlos.com/

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

It's my understanding that most pop recordings start out as 24 track
recordings. Getting it to stereo is already a task requiring
considerable talent. It might actually be easier to get a decent
surround sound mix.

Many were recorded on 24 track. That doesn't change the fact that the
recordings were made with stereo in mind (or in some cases mono). The
final
product is a stereo recording regardless of how many elements went into
it. I
am confident that many different choices would have been made by many of
the
artists and producers if those old recordings were made with multichannel
in
mind. I have heard a few examples multichannel remixes with some classic
pop
recordings. It ultimately is revisionism and so far I find it completely
undesirable.

Well, there have been many valuable recorded performances since they
stopped making vinyl.


They haven't stopped making vinyl.



How can I tell what mattered to you? My interest in this format is
primarily for new performances which take advantage of the new medium.


Worthwhile examples?

Remasters are often (or, even, usually) superior to their original
releases but, for me, do not, generally, make me need to replace the
originals.


The vast majority of remasters I have heard were quite inferior to the
originals. Some audiophile reissue labels have managed to better the originals
but usually on vinyl. If you can tell me of any classic titles you think were
done better on multichannel than the original or any other reissue I'd love to
know about them.


As I said, I do not recommend you switch to the new media if you are
only interested in reissues of old stuff. Nonetheless, many of the
Szell reissues on Sony (especially that Stravinsky/Mahler/Walton disc)
are very worthwhile. YMMV.



Unfortunately there isn't much new stuff that does it for me. Are the Szell
reissues better than the LPs?

langvid wrote:
I do agree that multi-channel is *not* the proverbial "quantum
leap forward" that I had naively initially expected compared
to what I can already achieve in my existing two-channel
system. As Stewart Pinkerton has aptly pointed out to me
more that a year ago, surround today is not truly three dimensional.

See http://www.mdg.de/frame2e.htm
(it was very 3 dimensional in demos)

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...


Are the Szell
reissues better than the LPs?

rec.music.classical.recordings is the place to get both useful and
interesting replies.

On 22 Dec 2003 17:05:08 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" wrote:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...


Are the Szell
reissues better than the LPs?

rec.music.classical.recordings is the place to get both useful and
interesting replies.

Yes but they are quite conservative, technologically.

Kal

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

It's my understanding that most pop recordings start out as 24 track
recordings. Getting it to stereo is already a task requiring
considerable talent. It might actually be easier to get a decent
surround sound mix.

Many were recorded on 24 track. That doesn't change the fact that
the
recordings were made with stereo in mind (or in some cases mono).
The final
product is a stereo recording regardless of how many elements went
into it. I
am confident that many different choices would have been made by
many of the
artists and producers if those old recordings were made with
multichannel in
mind. I have heard a few examples multichannel remixes with some
classic pop
recordings. It ultimately is revisionism and so far I find it
completely
undesirable.

I would have thought the whole purpose of recording to 24 tracks was
to AVOID having to have the end product "in mind" ahead of time. The
24 tracks are just raw material from which any desired end can be
realized.

Norm Strong

On 22 Dec 2003 15:59:30 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:


Well, there have been many valuable recorded performances since they
stopped making vinyl.


They haven't stopped making vinyl.

Yes. Show me ANY new classical vinyl, aside from reissues of old
performances.

How can I tell what mattered to you? My interest in this format is
primarily for new performances which take advantage of the new medium.


Worthwhile examples?

There are many. MTT's Mahler series, the MDG and TaceT chamber
recordings, etc...

The vast majority of remasters I have heard were quite inferior to the
originals. Some audiophile reissue labels have managed to better the originals
but usually on vinyl. If you can tell me of any classic titles you think were
done better on multichannel than the original or any other reissue I'd love to
know about them.

Most of the EMI DVD-A reissues and Pentatone reissues, although the
latter is more variable in performance level.

Unfortunately there isn't much new stuff that does it for me. Are the Szell
reissues better than the LPs?

The one I cited is. In particular, the Walton, which is a stupendous
performance, is quite superior to the Epic LP. As for others, you
might have to hunt down reviews since, as I mentioned, I am not
terribly interested in stereo reissues of stuff I already have even if
there is some improvement. There's just too much more I want.

Kal

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On 22 Dec 2003 15:59:30 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:


snip, not relevant to my comment


Unfortunately there isn't much new stuff that does it for me. Are the
Szell
reissues better than the LPs?

The one I cited is. In particular, the Walton, which is a stupendous
performance, is quite superior to the Epic LP. As for others, you
might have to hunt down reviews since, as I mentioned, I am not
terribly interested in stereo reissues of stuff I already have even if
there is some improvement. There's just too much more I want.

Let me add a few. Szell's performance of Rossini Overtures is overloaded on
the LP...it takes a superb tracker to play the disk and get the proper sound
of the snares on La Gazza Ladra, to prevent the violins from sounding wiry,
and in general from hearing a somewhat edgy sound. The SACD cures all these
ills and lets a wonderful performance through. Likewise, the Walter
Beethoven and Brahms series often had shrill violins with most cartridges.
The violins are generally wonderful on the SACD reproductions and
substantially better than their CD counterparts.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:JZKFb.619524$HS4.4527462@attbi_s01...
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On 22 Dec 2003 15:59:30 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:


snip, not relevant to my comment

more snippage

Let me add a few. Szell's performance of Rossini Overtures is overloaded
on
the LP...it takes a superb tracker to play the disk and get the proper
sound
of the snares on La Gazza Ladra, to prevent the violins from sounding
wiry,
and in general from hearing a somewhat edgy sound. The SACD cures all
these
ills and lets a wonderful performance through. Likewise, the Walter
Beethoven and Brahms series often had shrill violins with most cartridges.
The violins are generally wonderful on the SACD reproductions and
substantially better than their CD counterparts.

It would be interesting to know if we're comparing apples & oranges here.
The SACD mastering equipment is likely to be fairly new, whereas the CD
mastering equipment could be a decade or more old. Furthermore, the
production techniques could have been optimized for SACD, and rammed through
any old rate converter for the CD. In other words, not a fair fight. Just
speculation, of course...

On 23 Dec 2003 00:34:56 GMT, "Karl Uppiano"
wrote:

It would be interesting to know if we're comparing apples & oranges here.
The SACD mastering equipment is likely to be fairly new, whereas the CD
mastering equipment could be a decade or more old. Furthermore, the
production techniques could have been optimized for SACD, and rammed through
any old rate converter for the CD. In other words, not a fair fight. Just
speculation, of course...

All true considerations. However, we rarely get any really fair
comparisons on the consumer market. Undoubtedly, many of the superior
SACD/DVD-A transfers are due to the effort made with them rather than
the inherent capabilities of the new media.

Kal

I would have thought the whole purpose of recording to 24 tracks was
to AVOID having to have the end product "in mind" ahead of time.

I don't know why you would presume that. The purpose was to allow greater
flexibility in creating the final product. Many pop albums simply cannot easily
be created in one take. Some couldn't be done at all in one take. Multitrack
recording simply expanded the creative possibilities for artists. That doesn't
mean it was a replacement for lack of vision.

The
24 tracks are just raw material from which any desired end can be
realized.

That doesn't change the fact that when the "raw material" was being recorded it
was done so with one or two track playback in mind.

Personally I'm not worried about "fair fights" as much as I am interested in
getting the best sounding version of my favorite titles. If it turns out that
there are enough best sounding versions of my favorite titles on a particular
format then that format becomes interesting to me. The problem is that it is a
royal pain in the butt to figure out.

Well, it probably doesn't matter. The marketing guys want more channels,
more bits and faster sampling, regardless of what makes sense. And they'll
get it. If I had to make a guess, I'd say DVD audio will prevail, simply
because of the media convergence factor and market penetration,
proliferation of playback hardware, etc.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
Personally I'm not worried about "fair fights" as much as I am interested
in
getting the best sounding version of my favorite titles. If it turns out
that
there are enough best sounding versions of my favorite titles on a
particular
format then that format becomes interesting to me. The problem is that it
is a
royal pain in the butt to figure out.

Based on the lack of a clear answer in this thread of discussion, the
format war is far from over yet. Investing in either format still has
a risk of owning an obsolete collection 10 years from now. It is
usually NOT a problem to own recordings in obsolete format as long as
the hardware continue to work.

Given that DVD-A is just an additional sound track on DVD, and it is
relatively cheap to have future players to recognize an extra tracks,
it seems to me that owners of DVD-A discs need not worry about future
hardware support at all regardless whether DVD-A software continue to
be released.

However, if SACD loses the format war and manufacturer stops making
the players, those who own a library of the SACDs would need to spend
a fortune to replace the hardwares when they break. And most
important of all is that further advances and/or price drop would stop
completely. For example, SONY has stopped improving their BetaMax
players years ago and Betamax players remain costly due to lack of
economy of scale and competitions.

It is disappointing that this thread has turned into a debate of
stereo vs Multi-channel. I don't see how the discussion is relevant
to DVD-A vs SACD except that the posters may imply that both formats
would not survive which I think is unlikely because there is a big
following for multichannel audio.

(CP) wrote in message ...
I am new to these thing. After reading many threads in newsgroups, I
noticed that many people suggested to just buy a universal player.
However, my concern is not about the hardware. I am more concern
about the software to buy in the years to come. I guess many people
who own a library of Beta-Max video tape regret they didn't go with
the market. People who take the wrong side now will regret the same
way 5 years from now.

I checked amazon.com, the SACD they carry are quite up to date. But
the DVD-audio disc they sell are at least 2 years old. Is DVD-A dead
already? Is it really no release in the past two years or just
amazon.com's choice?

The experts who have monitored the market for the past few years
please make a prediction.

"CP" wrote in message
news:fUPHb.66133$VB2.129528@attbi_s51...
Based on the lack of a clear answer in this thread of discussion, the
format war is far from over yet. Investing in either format still has
a risk of owning an obsolete collection 10 years from now. It is
usually NOT a problem to own recordings in obsolete format as long as
the hardware continue to work.

Given that DVD-A is just an additional sound track on DVD, and it is
relatively cheap to have future players to recognize an extra tracks,
it seems to me that owners of DVD-A discs need not worry about future
hardware support at all regardless whether DVD-A software continue to
be released.

However, if SACD loses the format war and manufacturer stops making
the players, those who own a library of the SACDs would need to spend
a fortune to replace the hardwares when they break.

The majority of my SACD collection consists of dual layer discs which will
still be playable (16/44.1) in any player with redbook CD compatibility in
the unlikely event that SACD dies. The dual layer discs also play in my car
and in all the CD players, computer drives and DVD players I've ever stuck
one into. My DVD-A's on the other hand only play in my Denon 2900 and I need
my television turned on to navigate them. I enjoy and support both formats
but have a hard time understanding how from a hardware standpoint any of you
feel that DVD-A has an edge up on SACD. Does anyone have any verifiable
sales statistics on this for both hardware and software? Most of my focus is
on mid-range and high-end players and I don't see DVD-A machines outflanking
SACD machines or dual format machines in those segments.

And most
important of all is that further advances and/or price drop would stop
completely. For example, SONY has stopped improving their BetaMax
players years ago and Betamax players remain costly due to lack of
economy of scale and competitions.

Whereas Sony was the sole manufacture of Betamax, they seemed to have
learned their lesson and have licensed SACD to a number of manufactures so I
see very little relevance or importance in your analogy presented above.

In article %g0Ib.230290$_M.1012701@attbi_s54,
"Charles Tomaras" wrote:

Whereas Sony was the sole manufacture of Betamax, they seemed to have
learned their lesson and have licensed SACD to a number of manufactures so I
see very little relevance or importance in your analogy presented above.

Not true. I owned a Toshiba Beta VCR "back in the day." NEC, Sanyo and
Zenith also produced models for a few years. At the end, though (and for
a long time before that), it was only Sony. And, because the only reason
you'd buy a Beta VCR by then was because you had a sizable investment in
Beta tapes, Sony knew they had you over a barrel, so the last Beta
models were spendy.

IIRC, it wasn't a matter of Sony not wanting to license Beta; it was a
matter of people not wanting what Sony had to sell, VHS having won the
recording-time and economy races by the mid-80s.

sd

you may find this interesting

http://www.sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

Regards,

Dimiter

"Dimiter Petsev" wrote in message
news:yumKb.753373$Tr4.2093619@attbi_s03...
you may find this interesting

http://www.sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

Regards,

Dimiter

Wasn't the original purpose of DSD supposed to be the archiving of old
analog recordings? If the claims in the article above are correct,
then it was certainly a poor choice!

Norm Strong

normanstrong wrote:
"Dimiter Petsev" wrote in message
news:yumKb.753373$Tr4.2093619@attbi_s03...
you may find this interesting

http://www.sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

Regards,

Dimiter

Wasn't the original purpose of DSD supposed to be the archiving of old
analog recordings?

Yes.


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:16:35 GMT, "normanstrong"
wrote:

"Dimiter Petsev" wrote in message
news:yumKb.753373$Tr4.2093619@attbi_s03...
you may find this interesting

http://www.sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

Regards,

Dimiter

Wasn't the original purpose of DSD supposed to be the archiving of old
analog recordings?

Yes, that was the puff from Sony.

If the claims in the article above are correct,
then it was certainly a poor choice!

They are, it was, and only company pride is keeping SACD alive in the
face of DVD-A.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 1/7/04 11:02 AM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

If the claims in the article above are correct,
then it was certainly a poor choice!

They are, it was, and only company pride is keeping SACD alive in the
face of DVD-A.

That and a great marketing department, and releasing back-lists
aggressively. The technically inferior solution seems to be gaining
momentum.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:16:35 GMT, "normanstrong"
wrote:

"Dimiter Petsev" wrote in message
news:yumKb.753373$Tr4.2093619@attbi_s03...
you may find this interesting

http://www.sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

Regards,

Dimiter

Wasn't the original purpose of DSD supposed to be the archiving of old
analog recordings?

Yes, that was the puff from Sony.

If the claims in the article above are correct,
then it was certainly a poor choice!

They are, it was, and only company pride is keeping SACD alive in the
face of DVD-A.

1) In the first place, DSD makes lots of sense for archiving. No processing
is involved, just straight-through DSD conversion. Thus "8-bit" is not even
a factor.

2) They started using this technology in 1998 as best I can tell, when
192/24 wasn't yet commercially available and was a bit of an unknown. 96/20
was the standard "commercial" bit-rate at that time and even its proponents
acknowledged that in the studio it didn't quite make it as a perfectly
transparent medium.

3) To the degree that DSD sounds softer and more analog-like (which most
listeners agree to even if it is not yet clear "why", and this is so even
for people who don't like it), then SONY apparently reached a decision that
they didn't want to "pollute" their analog tapes with PCM processing. This
is a logical decision if you feel that pcm recording detracts from sound
quality but SACD does not.

Stewart, you do not like SACD (in spite of having limited exposure to it).
So be it. But you do not honor yourself with your continued attacks on SONY
and Linn. You obviously are not very objective when it comes to these two
companies. What you see as technical shortfalls quickly turns into
innuendo, conspiracy charges, and insult against the companies...you might
be unlucky enough to have a lawyer at you door one of these days. You
certainly would if you lived in the US since you make public assertions with
not one shred of evidence or proof.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:28:41 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:16:35 GMT, "normanstrong"
wrote:

"Dimiter Petsev" wrote in message
news:yumKb.753373$Tr4.2093619@attbi_s03...
you may find this interesting

http://www.sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

Regards,

Dimiter

Wasn't the original purpose of DSD supposed to be the archiving of old
analog recordings?

Yes, that was the puff from Sony.

If the claims in the article above are correct,
then it was certainly a poor choice!

They are, it was, and only company pride is keeping SACD alive in the
face of DVD-A.

1) In the first place, DSD makes lots of sense for archiving. No processing
is involved, just straight-through DSD conversion. Thus "8-bit" is not even
a factor.

Absolute nonsense! DSD has *already* been discredited for archival
purposes, due to the A/D overload problem. Sony only use DSD-Wide for
studio recording, and this is a hybrid PCM system.

2) They started using this technology in 1998 as best I can tell, when
192/24 wasn't yet commercially available and was a bit of an unknown. 96/20
was the standard "commercial" bit-rate at that time and even its proponents
acknowledged that in the studio it didn't quite make it as a perfectly
transparent medium.

Yup, and then they stopped, and switched to DSD-Wide.

3) To the degree that DSD sounds softer and more analog-like (which most
listeners agree to even if it is not yet clear "why", and this is so even
for people who don't like it), then SONY apparently reached a decision that
they didn't want to "pollute" their analog tapes with PCM processing. This
is a logical decision if you feel that pcm recording detracts from sound
quality but SACD does not.

Shame then that they actually use only DSD-Wide, which *is* PCM.

Stewart, you do not like SACD (in spite of having limited exposure to it).

The end products sound OK, just as good as CD in most cases, but
technically it sucks.

So be it. But you do not honor yourself with your continued attacks on SONY
and Linn. You obviously are not very objective when it comes to these two
companies.

Sure I am, my comments are entirely based on the facts of the matter.

What you see as technical shortfalls quickly turns into
innuendo, conspiracy charges, and insult against the companies...you might
be unlucky enough to have a lawyer at you door one of these days. You
certainly would if you lived in the US since you make public assertions with
not one shred of evidence or proof.

As previously noted, I invariably provide lots of evidence regarding
the technical shortfalls of these products, and my belief that the
single-point bearing at the heart of the Linn Sondek is hardly an
uncommon one among Scottish audiophiles. As far as Sony goes, I am far
from the only person who has commented on the difficulty of finding a
hybrid disc where the SACD and CD mixdown is identical. Do *you* not
wonder why this is so, and why the SACD layer invariably sounds better
on Sony discs?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering