Flower of Evil
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..
"TT" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Let's stop beating arround the bush. *IF* Sony released a DSD recorer
what good is it to the general population? I haven't bothered to read
up on any other proffessional releases (if any).
Sony won't alloy SACDs to be burnt/played on PCs because they *will* get
copied. So once you have your DSD recording what do you do with it
besides burn it to LPCM so it can be played on and distributed to
consumer gear and PCs?
AFAIK any DSD recording can only be played back on a sililar machine and
not a SACD player. Correct?
Regards TT
With their player, Korg includes translation software that allows the DSD
archive to be output in almost any imaginable format, including files
that can be mastered by a DSD mastering house such as Airshow into SACD
disks if so desired. But for most people, the ability to burn to 88 or
96 or 192/24 DVD-A files will be the most practical use. Or even
reducing to a 44.1/16 CD format. The point is, you get the utmost in
recording quality and archiving when recording in DSD....regardless of
what you do with thereafter. And it will never be NOT usuable...which is
why it was developed to begin with.
I feel the archive argument is specious. In comparison with 24/192, DSD
has no objective virtue. To wit:
1. The technical folks think they have shown that 24/192 has one bit more
resolution than DSD. Note that this statement is entirely within the
objective realm, and has nothing to do with perceived quality.
Yet another demonstration of the golden ear world's congenital inability to
grasp simple scientific findings. Technically speaking 24/192 is vasty
cleaner than DSD, yet we find few if any golden ears who report the same,
based on their subjective tests.
2. All user reports of DSD superiority compare to 16/44, CD type
encodings.
In fact there are few if any golden ear reports of any proper comparisons of
any audio media.
Personally, I think it does sound better. However, this has nothing to do
with higher level PCM formats, such as are typically used for recording.
Actually, so-called high resolution formats make up only a tiny fraction of
all ongoing recording efforts. The workhorse professional digital audio
recorder is the audio CD recorder. The workhorse consumer digital audio
recorder(s) records audio in compressed format (s).
3. In comparison with the above, the extent of comparisons of DSD with
24/192 is so small as to be anecodotal.
This statement is flawed logically. There being a small number of
comparisons has no necessary connection with whether the results are
anecdotal or not. Anecdotal refers to the style of the report (flagrantly
unscientific, for example) and not the number of reports.
Sure, we've had reports of highly excited recording engineers, and so
forth, but those people are notoriously inconstant, and their fluctuations
are uncompensated by quantities of such reports. A reported event at
Famous Recording Studios gushed praise for SACD, with their special
equipment, does not come close to the validation of SACD versus CD
provided by thousands of enthused audiophiles.
In fact, the audiophile world turned its back on the two new high resolution
formats, in terms of their actual behavior. The CD player remains the
standard audio player for the audiophile world, in terms of numbers and user
acceptance. The last effort made to popularize the so-called hi-rez formats
involved putting a CD recording on the same piece of media as the so-called
hi-rez recording.
One could conclude:
1. SACD is a good thing, because any format that pushes musical quality is
a good thing.
In fact there's no logical connection between format and music. You can
record any kind of music on any of the extant formats, and vice-versa.
2. High rate/depth PCM is likely to be superior.
One could conclude this were one ignorant enough of the relevant facts about
real-world musical performances and psychoacoustics. Interestingly enough,
the relevant facts are generally unknown to most audiophiles and they
allowed the hi-rez formats to languish anyway.
Sony chose not to implement it precisely because it does not have the
attributes of "proprietary" and "protectable" that fuel the money flow.
3. As well as good, SACD is also a bad thing. Sony's choice to make the
format creatively unavailable was an attempt at monopolistic hegemony over
the creators of music.
You got that right.
By denying them the tools to bypass the labels, Sony sought to interpose
themselves between the musicians and their income.
You got that right.
These are three words: quality, superfluous, and hegemony. The sum of
benefits is ambiguous.
Net benefit was a loss. Probably a loss to Sony and Philips, certainly a
loss to the world of audio. It attempted to divide the world of audio, and
it failed.
Perhaps there is a fourth word as well: music. Would the success of a
proprietary, monopolistic scheme have made music better?
Of course not.
Could a Flower of Evil beget Sweet Perfume?
Stranger things have happened, but it didn't happen this time.
|