Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Penury
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Michel Hafner
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Lawrence Leung
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Michel Hafner
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Michel Hafner
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Alan Hoyle
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Charles Tomaras
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Codifus
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Codifus
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
François Yves Le Gal
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
François Yves Le Gal
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Charles Tomaras
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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.

  #59   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Codifus
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Codifus
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Codifus
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
François Yves Le Gal
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Michel Hafner
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Robert Stanton
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are modern recordings so bad that they would sound the same if recorded on a cassette? Arny Krueger Audio Opinions 85 May 7th 04 06:08 PM
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 2/5) Ian D. Bjorhovde Car Audio 0 March 6th 04 07:54 AM
Why all the bad recordings watch king High End Audio 3 February 6th 04 08:04 PM
Why don't classical piano recordings sound as good as pop recordings? Brian Patterson High End Audio 18 January 9th 04 05:12 AM
Newbie question: system upgrade Ted Van Norman High End Audio 5 July 17th 03 02:14 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:11 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"