"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:a0hSb.52523$U%5.290779@attbi_s03...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:04:59 GMT, FranÃf§ois 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..

SACD when filtered is filtered low enough to protect amps and high enough
not to cause any sonic problems. With a very gentle roll off. I have yet
to see a DVD-A player that has a -3db point higher than any SACD player I've
seen. The argument is completely bogus as far as audibility or usability as
a muscal distribution system is concerned.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:USgSb.178779$I06.1841318@attbi_s01...
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.


Wrong, Stewart. Just look at the comparison graphs in Stereophile for SACD
and DVD-A players.

The issue is not clear-cut,

Oh yes, it is.


Oh no its not. In practical terms, DVD-A has cleaner ultrasonics and SACD
has less noise in the bass and mid-range.

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.


So fine, go do and publish a test showing that. Until then, we will live
with our tests, which were as carefully done as your own Stewart and over a
wider range of material. What do you not understand about the word
"subjective", Stewart?

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.

Good for you. Don't suppose you have any influence over that circle of
friends, do you?

"chung" wrote in message
news:2DfSb.139589$5V2.729911@attbi_s53...
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.


IIRC, the mildest Sony filter (and they only use them on their top of the
line machines) has a -3db point of 36khz. The others I believe are 58khz
and 76khz. Perhaps somebody with the SCD-1 machine can correct me. The
Sony filters are very mild first order filters, I believe.

Krell's machine also has filters...I don't know their design.

My own C333ES has a playing frequency range of 2hz to 100khz, with a -3db
point of 50khz, which is what I believe Sony now specs for most of their
machines.

Just for comparison, the 96/24 on my Toshiba 4700 which is the comparable
surround performance to the SACD, is 4 to 44khz stated range*, with no -3db
point published. However, a test by Sound & Vision of the later 4900
updated model shows response down -0.6db @ 42khz (for 96/24) which would
make it roughly comparable to the Sony, but with what must obviously be a
sharp filter at that point.

* I know, I know...it seems like it should be to 48khz, but 44khz is what
Toshiba quotes for 96/24. It also quotes an upper limit of 88khz for
182/24. Perhaps these are 3db points, but they are not stated as such.

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in
:

I've never heard a CD that sounded as bad as a cassette tape.

You are very lucky! I still have some CDs like that in my house, and they
cost... Ummm... about US$2.00 a piece, guess I can't complain. Just like
I have watched some DVDs' picture just like a VHS tape, believe it or
not...

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.

Ummm... that is personal perface. I like CD myself, but there are still
quite a large of people like the vinyl LP, that's why there are still new
LPs, there are still new turntables in the market.

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.

Majority of the people that own a discman most likely bought it from
their local stores, cost somewhere around US$50.00 to $100.00, at that
price, do you think there is any difference between a redbook CD and a
MD? Not too many people can afford a $350.00 earphone for their discman.
BTW, how does it sounds? Should I buy that ER4 or the Bose noise
cancellation earphone? About the same price?

Lawrence Leung

Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message
news:2DfSb.139589$5V2.729911@attbi_s53...
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.


IIRC, the mildest Sony filter (and they only use them on their top of the
line machines) has a -3db point of 36khz.

I hope you are wrong. A first order filter with a -3dB freq. of 36 KHz
will have 0.97dB attenuation at 18 KHz. Not transparent at all.

The others I believe are 58khz
and 76khz. Perhaps somebody with the SCD-1 machine can correct me. The
Sony filters are very mild first order filters, I believe.

Krell's machine also has filters...I don't know their design.

My own C333ES has a playing frequency range of 2hz to 100khz, with a -3db
point of 50khz, which is what I believe Sony now specs for most of their
machines.

Just for comparison, the 96/24 on my Toshiba 4700 which is the comparable
surround performance to the SACD, is 4 to 44khz stated range*, with no -3db
point published. However, a test by Sound & Vision of the later 4900
updated model shows response down -0.6db @ 42khz (for 96/24) which would
make it roughly comparable to the Sony, but with what must obviously be a
sharp filter at that point.

That's a much better filter in terms of attenuation in the audio band,
and most likely implemented in the digital domain.


* I know, I know...it seems like it should be to 48khz, but 44khz is what
Toshiba quotes for 96/24.

No, it should not be 48 KHz at all.

It also quotes an upper limit of 88khz for
182/24. Perhaps these are 3db points, but they are not stated as such.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:38:59 GMT, chung wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:
It seems
most classical music lovers prefer SACD as sounding more natural.

Again, OSAF.

Most classical music lovers prefer SACD to DVD-A simply because there
is more classical SACD than there is classical DVD-A.

Kal

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:40:30 GMT, (Robert
Stanton) wrote:

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?

I'm talking about the rapidly rising noise floor (and hence reduced
resolution) from *10kHz*, not 250!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 30 Jan 2004 00:55:48 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:a0hSb.52523$U%5.290779@attbi_s03...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:04:59 GMT, FranÃf§ois 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..

SACD when filtered is filtered low enough to protect amps and high enough
not to cause any sonic problems.

So is CD! :-)

With a very gentle roll off. I have yet
to see a DVD-A player that has a -3db point higher than any SACD player I've
seen. The argument is completely bogus as far as audibility or usability as
a muscal distribution system is concerned.

The argument is *not* bogus if you want to *use* the vaunted extra
bandwidth, when DVD-A is your only sensible option. You must not be
reading the same reviews that I do - try the Pioneer DV-868 (aka Elite
DV-59) or the Denon 2900.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Lawrence Leung" wrote in message
...
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.

Ummm... that is personal perface. I like CD myself, but there are still
quite a large of people like the vinyl LP, that's why there are still new
LPs, there are still new turntables in the market.

I'm not saying that vinyl doesn't have avid fans. What I am saying is that
vinyl, by it's very nature, does NOT sound like the original master. It
can't because of the processing that is demanded and employed in it's
mastering stage. Many people prefer the sound of vinyl...it's just not the
sound of the master...that's what I'm saying. Many people wear sunglasses
and comment about the beautiful day. I'm saying those sunglasses have
altered the look of the day in a way that reacts favorable with their eyes,
but you can't tell me that the color of the sky through those sunglasses
(filters) is the ACTUAL color of the sky! Bandwidth compression, limiting a
host of other manipulations alter the "actual" sound of the original
master... PERIOD. You may like it...but it is an alterred reality.

Not too many people can afford a $350.00 earphone for their discman.
BTW, how does it sounds? Should I buy that ER4 or the Bose noise
cancellation earphone? About the same price?

I haven't listened to any of the new Shure earbuds or the noise canceling
Bose so I can't make a comparison. I spend most of my work life using Sony
MDRV7506's recording location dialog and use the ER4's for traveling
pleasure. I should probably start listening to some newer technology as I
haven't checked out headphones for quite a few years now.

Harry Lavo wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
news:nQgSb.178767$I06.1840788@attbi_s01...
snip
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.

You mean you don't like SACD's? How was I putting words in your mouth? I
was just giving you a reason why you prefer SACD's.

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.

Are they based on the same master?


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.

Are you saying that there are certain implementations of DVD-A that have
no better S/N than CD's? Of course that is the case for those DVD-A's
that are based on masters with medicore S/N's. You can't improve upon
the masters.

I'm sure you can find SACD's with poor S/N in lower frequencies, too.
You have to look at the fundamental performance of the media/technology,
not just individual implementations or executions. You'll find no
argument from anyone that 24/96 has a better S/N over CD.


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.


No, it's not a strawman at all. I'm saying that the reason why you said
your SACD's sound subjectively better is due to the better
recording/mastering process used.

Please show a comparison where the same exact master is used to produce
CD, SACD and DVD-A.

I have no reason to hang around Audio Asylum. I have very little in
common with those who believe in cable sounds, SET's and tweaks. Or
believe in the technical superiority of DSD/SACD over LPCM/DVD-A.

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.

Oh really? This is what you said previously:

"Think about it a minute, Stewart. It shows that DSD/SACD have
performance essentially equal to 192/24 pcm. Yet the only place you can
find 192/24 pcm is on the stereo mix of a few DVD-A's. All DVD-A
surround and most front channels are recorded in 96/24 or even 48/24,
which the square waves show as inferior (essentially a matter of
bandwidth). So SACD gives you five channels of near-perfect sound
reproduction; DVD-A gives you five channels of sound reproduction
ranging from cd quality to somewhat better than cd quality (but not as
good as SACD or 192/24, the "unobtainium" DVD-A signal."

"Which is the superior commercial product?"

Seems to me that you were trying to prove the technical superiority of
SACD's. Hey, you even brought up the inferior looking sqaure waves!


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".

Where is the source that says classical music lovers prefer SACD's *as
sounding more natural*? Do you seriously believe that you get an
accurate sampling of classical music livers by hanging around Audio Asylum?


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.

Then why insist that SACD/DSD is the better technology than DVD-A
(LPCM), when you know that the difference is largely due to recording or
mastering?


That
includes me.

s1.newsguy.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Path:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.200.229.23
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.200.229.23
X-Trace: news.cybercity.ch 1075757204 213.200.229.23 (2 Feb 2004 22:26:44 +0100)
Lines: 49
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1

Harry Lavo wrote:
That does not really address my point that there is no audible difference
between 24/96 and 24/192 if you remove AD and DA issues.


Hey, you've got to get it from analgo to digital and back somehow. You
can't escape AD/DA issues.

Of course not. But my point/hypothesis is that 24/96 and 24/192 are better
formats to store the musical information than 1 bit DSD at 64 times 44.1 Khz.
And 24/96 sounds the same to human ears as 24/192 as far as the musical
information in the signal is concerned.
To investigate this you need to separate the AD and DA from the format.
So if people say SACD sounds closer to the analogue master we need to know
if that is (if it's true) because the AD is better and/or the DA is better
and/or there is more information in the signal.
Points to investigate a
a) is PCM 24/96 and/or PCM 24/192 transparent relative to DSD master.
b) is DSD transparent relative to PCM 24/96 and/or 24/192
for a) you take a DSD master, convert it digitally to PCM and convert it
digitally back to DSD. Listen to it via DSD hardware DA before and after.
Can you tell it apart in double blind testing? This establishes if PCM
is transparent relative to DSD using DSD DA. Can you tell apart the DSD
and the PCM? This establishes if PCM is transparent relative to DSD via
PCM DA.
for b) you take a PCM master digitally convert into DSD and back to PCM.
Listen to it via PCM hardware DA. Can you tell it apart in double blind
testing? Listen to the DSD on DSD DA. This will tell you if DSD is
transparent relative to PCM with DSD and PCM DA.
Based on the results it should be possible to further investigate the
AD and DA of both processes and see which does a better job by converting
back and forth digitally and compare the analogue master with DSD and PCM
versions played on DSD and PCM DAs.

I guess we'll just disagree...I'll continue to trust my ears as a
consumer
vehicle, and rely on other's whose ear's I trust at the mastering level.
Would that I had a Sonoma workstation and the latest in 192/24 recording
capability so that I could make my own test comparisons.

And I would like to see clean tests as well that properly distinguish
between the AD, the signal content and the DA. Right now it's all a mix
with way too many variables unaccounted for.

Well, perhaps write John and outline a test as to how that might be done.

I'm afraid it's not trivial and requires quite some access to pricey
hardware.

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Michel Hafner" wrote in message
news1nTb.160949$5V2.836461@attbi_s53...
Harry Lavo wrote:

I just tried to play a cd on my Toshiba DVD-A. It took the tv set,
reference to a manual, and considerable experimentation to figure
out
what
was going on/get simple two channel stereo. Not particularly user
friendly.


So next time you play a CD there you have to use the monitor again?
If the Toshiba can't be configured to play a CD when it gets a CD and
play a DVD-Audio when it gets one without a monitor it's a rather
stupid
piece of equipment.


It defaults to playing it as a matrixed Dolby Pro Logic through the
analog 6
channel outputs that I use (as well as through the bitstream out).

It wouldn't make any sense for a *digital* out to output matrixed DPL.

According to the 4700 manual, it only outputs default DPL
when you are listening to 2-channel material via the 6-channel
analog outputs. So if you want to hear your CDs in normal
2-channel, use either the optical/ coax digital out, or the
dedicated analog 2-channel outs.

You are right. I realized that I erred in saying via Bitstream. It creates
two channel through the analog outs when changed from 6-channel analog to
either bitstream or pcm setting. And the output is the same whether through
the extra stereo outs or the 6 channel analog. I changed it; no difference.

Very bad design on Toshiba's part, then, as regards the dedicated 2-ch out.
Do you not have an optical or coax in on your pre/pro?

--

-S.

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

"chung" wrote in message
news:uVyTb.164045$sv6.895705@attbi_s52...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:

chung wrote in message
news:BhUSb.67162$U%5.382125@attbi_s03...
Harry Lavo wrote:
Yes, exact same *mix*. Mastering post-mix has to be done for the
individual medium. One is DSD-recorded, Chesky's Swing Live jazz
recording. The other is recorded using conventional PCM,
Universal's
Away from the Sun (3 Doors Down). Both simply fed through
converters
and then mastered/authored for the competing format without
additional
processing.

Of course, this flies in the face of all reports of 96/24 being
sonically transparent. So what you like about SACD may well be
either
due to the artifacts of SACD, or the particular implementation of
SACD
vs DVD-A at audio. And not being there at the recording session,
how
would you know which sounds more real to the recording feed?

I recently produced a recording that was recorded in DSD for SACD,
in
24/192 and 16/44.1 LPCM, and on analog tape for LP release. The "Red
Book"
recording was least like the mike feed, the DSD most like it. The
analog
sounded less mike the mike feed but was actually preferable, to my
surprise.

That should tell us that what someone prefers may not be the most
accurate.


I'm saying that the noise level on most of the commercial dvd-a
players
out there is not much better in the bass and midrange for dvd-a
than it
is for cd, based on the published curves to date. The extremely
high
priced gear appears to be an exception.

How many DVD-A players has Stereophile looked at? I went to the
site
and
could not find any reviews. Care to provide links?

Linn Unidisk:
http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...views/1203linn
Esoteric DV-50: http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcereviews/906
Pioneer DV-AX10: http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcereviews/515
Toshiba SD9200: http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcereviews/407
Technics DV-A10: http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcereviews/300
Meridian 800:
http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...1/index16.html

Hope this helps.

Thanks for the links. I read those online reviews, and I do not see any
data supporting Mr. Lavo's claims that DVD-A players playing DVD-A's
have about the same S/N as CD's in the lower frequencies.

In the Linn review, the S/N of either SACD or 24bit DVD-A is clearly
superior to CD. See here, in the measurements section:

http://www.Stereophile.com/digitalso...nn/index4.html

According to fig. 3, either high-rez format is about 15 dB better than
CD. At high frequencies, DVD-A is clearly superior to SACD, by about 18
dB at 20KHz.

In the Pioneer DV-XA10 review, the 24 bit noise floor is clearly
superior to the SACD at all frequencies. In fact, here is what the
reviewer said:

"Fig.6 compares the same CD spectrum with that for 24-bit DVD playback.
The drop in the noise floor with the hi-rez medium is even greater than
with SACD, at almost 20dB over much of the band-more than 19 bits' D/A
resolution, one of the best I have ever measured!"

http://www.Stereophile.com/digitalso...15/index5.html

Figures 5 and 6 compare the noise floors of CD vs SACD and CD vs 24bit
DVD-A.

So am I missing something here? How could DVD-A have "about the same
noise floor in the lower frequencies" as CD?

No, you are not missing something. Clearly my memory was faulty. So I
apologize. Perhaps I
was remembering DVD-A vs. SACD, I just don't know.

For what it is worth, I did a summary of all five units that John
provided
links for, comparing noise levels relative to ordinary 16/44.1 CD at
40hz,
3khz, 10khz, and 20khz. Results as follows:

5 DVD-A players: -8db, -12db, -12db, -9db
3 SACD players -10db, -11db, +-0db, +11db

The averaging of results for 40Hz makes very little sense. In a lot of
players, the low frequency noise floor is dominated by line-related
spurs, which have nothing to do with the architecture, and could be
measurement related. In other words, the same spurs may be present at
the same level whether that player is playing 14/44.1 or 24/96 or DSD.


Only one of these had that problem, and it happened on DVD-A, not CD. So I
averaged the high and low points of multiple spurs in and around 40 hz to
get the effective noise floor.


While the +11db at 20khz looks horrendous, it was still at an average
level -93db below 0db
reference so it should not be an audible problem. The lack of
complicated
or brickwall filtering seems more to make up for a good sounding treble
than
any inaudible contribution of noise detracts.

Are you aware that in LPCM/DVD-audio players, these filters can be made
phase linear and perfectly flat in the audio band? And that the
"brick-wall" can be pushed out way into the supersonic region, via
oversampling?


Yes I'm aware and it has helped a lot! But CD still requires a lot of
manipulation to get around high end problems that SACD simply ignores.

The same brickwall filters apply to DSD. The sampling theory applies to
DSD as well as LPCM!


Sorry, the SACD has a gradual filter as part of it's spec, from what I
understand (and see).

In other words, your claim that "The lack of complicated or brickwall
filtering seems more to make up for a good sounding treble than any
inaudible contribution of noise detracts" has no technical leg to stand
on. I guess you started with a faulty premise that SACD's have a better
sounding treble than DVD-A, and you were just trying hard to support
that premise. Didn't you say that it was the bass and midrange that
SACD's really are superior?


I said that there were other facts than extended frequency response that
seemed to work in SACD's favor, and I postulated that the greater lower and
mid-frequency quieting might be contributing, versus CD.

I also said that DVD-A had cleaner highs and sounded smoother than CD in the
treble, which it does.

I also said that the "noisy" treble of SACD didn't strike me as a practical
problem, which it doesn't.

It is precisely this level of technical knowledge exhibited in the Audio
Asylum that makes it a very noisy place to hang out.

Well, if you have such low tolerance for us "mere audiophiles" perhaps you
should spend more of your time on rec.audio.tech. Last time I looked, this
was a hobby-based forum, not strictly a technical forum.

"Michel Hafner" wrote in message
news:vBzTb.164102$sv6.895561@attbi_s52...
s1.newsguy.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Path:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.200.229.23
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.200.229.23
X-Trace: news.cybercity.ch 1075757204 213.200.229.23 (2 Feb 2004 22:26:44
+0100)
Lines: 49
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1

Harry Lavo wrote:
That does not really address my point that there is no audible
difference
between 24/96 and 24/192 if you remove AD and DA issues.


Hey, you've got to get it from analgo to digital and back somehow. You
can't escape AD/DA issues.

Of course not. But my point/hypothesis is that 24/96 and 24/192 are better
formats to store the musical information than 1 bit DSD at 64 times 44.1
Khz.
And 24/96 sounds the same to human ears as 24/192 as far as the musical
information in the signal is concerned.
To investigate this you need to separate the AD and DA from the format.
So if people say SACD sounds closer to the analogue master we need to know
if that is (if it's true) because the AD is better and/or the DA is better
and/or there is more information in the signal.
Points to investigate a
a) is PCM 24/96 and/or PCM 24/192 transparent relative to DSD master.
b) is DSD transparent relative to PCM 24/96 and/or 24/192
for a) you take a DSD master, convert it digitally to PCM and convert it
digitally back to DSD. Listen to it via DSD hardware DA before and after.
Can you tell it apart in double blind testing? This establishes if PCM
is transparent relative to DSD using DSD DA. Can you tell apart the DSD
and the PCM? This establishes if PCM is transparent relative to DSD via
PCM DA.
for b) you take a PCM master digitally convert into DSD and back to PCM.
Listen to it via PCM hardware DA. Can you tell it apart in double blind
testing? Listen to the DSD on DSD DA. This will tell you if DSD is
transparent relative to PCM with DSD and PCM DA.
Based on the results it should be possible to further investigate the
AD and DA of both processes and see which does a better job by converting
back and forth digitally and compare the analogue master with DSD and PCM
versions played on DSD and PCM DAs.


Now I understand what you are getting at. Thanks. Perhaps John will pick
up on it. You might want to visit rec.audio.pro and suggest it to some of
the folks who hang out there who have access to both technologies.

I guess we'll just disagree...I'll continue to trust my ears as a
consumer
vehicle, and rely on other's whose ear's I trust at the mastering
level.
Would that I had a Sonoma workstation and the latest in 192/24
recording
capability so that I could make my own test comparisons.

And I would like to see clean tests as well that properly distinguish
between the AD, the signal content and the DA. Right now it's all a
mix
with way too many variables unaccounted for.

Well, perhaps write John and outline a test as to how that might be
done.

I'm afraid it's not trivial and requires quite some access to pricey
hardware.


Yep, thus my suggestion above. Unfortunately, I don't have the hardware.

Harry Lavo wrote:



For what it is worth, I did a summary of all five units that John
provided
links for, comparing noise levels relative to ordinary 16/44.1 CD at
40hz,
3khz, 10khz, and 20khz. Results as follows:

5 DVD-A players: -8db, -12db, -12db, -9db
3 SACD players -10db, -11db, +-0db, +11db

The averaging of results for 40Hz makes very little sense. In a lot of
players, the low frequency noise floor is dominated by line-related
spurs, which have nothing to do with the architecture, and could be
measurement related. In other words, the same spurs may be present at
the same level whether that player is playing 14/44.1 or 24/96 or DSD.


Only one of these had that problem, and it happened on DVD-A, not CD. So I
averaged the high and low points of multiple spurs in and around 40 hz to
get the effective noise floor.

If you want to compare the architectures' (or the DACs') noise floors,
do not count the line spurs.



While the +11db at 20khz looks horrendous, it was still at an average
level -93db below 0db
reference so it should not be an audible problem. The lack of
complicated
or brickwall filtering seems more to make up for a good sounding treble
than
any inaudible contribution of noise detracts.

Are you aware that in LPCM/DVD-audio players, these filters can be made
phase linear and perfectly flat in the audio band? And that the
"brick-wall" can be pushed out way into the supersonic region, via
oversampling?


Yes I'm aware and it has helped a lot! But CD still requires a lot of
manipulation to get around high end problems that SACD simply ignores.

But you were saying that SACD is better than DVD-A in this respect. Even
in the case of redbook CD, this filtering problem has been solved,
although there still are players with poor implementations.


The same brickwall filters apply to DSD. The sampling theory applies to
DSD as well as LPCM!


Sorry, the SACD has a gradual filter as part of it's spec, from what I
understand (and see).


I was referring to the filtering applied to 24/96 or 24/128 LPCM.
Whether it is LPCM or DSD, you still need the anti-aliasing filter prior
to the A/D's. It is the same requirement. If you sample at 192KHz, you
have to stop signals above 96KHz from getting through.

In any event, the problem of preserving phase linearity and flatness in
the audible band, and cutting off before 48 KHz (or 96 KHz) is a solved
problem. There is absolutely no basis for believing that the filter
cannot be implemented without degradations in the audio band in high
resolution LPCM.


In other words, your claim that "The lack of complicated or brickwall
filtering seems more to make up for a good sounding treble than any
inaudible contribution of noise detracts" has no technical leg to stand
on. I guess you started with a faulty premise that SACD's have a better
sounding treble than DVD-A, and you were just trying hard to support
that premise. Didn't you say that it was the bass and midrange that
SACD's really are superior?


I said that there were other facts than extended frequency response that
seemed to work in SACD's favor, and I postulated that the greater lower and
mid-frequency quieting might be contributing, versus CD.

We agree that SACD's can have a better S/N ratio, below, oh, around 10KHz.


I also said that DVD-A had cleaner highs and sounded smoother than CD in the
treble, which it does.

This is an unverified observation. Whether the better S/N translates
into cleaner highs or a smoother sound has not been proven, since CD's
can have ruler flat frequency response up to 20KHz. My take is that
recording and mastering have a much larger effect on the smoothness of
the sound.


I also said that the "noisy" treble of SACD didn't strike me as a practical
problem, which it doesn't.

Others would posit that the high ultrasonic noise can be bad for
downstream electronics.


It is precisely this level of technical knowledge exhibited in the Audio
Asylum that makes it a very noisy place to hang out.

Well, if you have such low tolerance for us "mere audiophiles" perhaps you
should spend more of your time on rec.audio.tech. Last time I looked, this
was a hobby-based forum, not strictly a technical forum.

That is why I stay away from Audio Asylum.

..895705@attbi_s52 WUDTb.169267$nt4.755764@attbi_s51
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Path:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.200.229.23
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.200.229.23
X-Trace: news.cybercity.ch 1075808688 213.200.229.23 (3 Feb 2004 12:44:48 +0100)
Lines: 27
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1

chung wrote:
We agree that SACD's can have a better S/N ratio, below, oh, around 10KHz.


What is the S/N you can achieve with SACD and DSD-Wide from 10 Hz to say
10 Khz? How many bits will that amount to? I mean with existing mics and
preamps and also with ideal noise free mics and preamps?


I also said that DVD-A had cleaner highs and sounded smoother than CD in the
treble, which it does.

This is an unverified observation. Whether the better S/N translates
into cleaner highs or a smoother sound has not been proven, since CD's
can have ruler flat frequency response up to 20KHz. My take is that
recording and mastering have a much larger effect on the smoothness of
the sound.

So can and usually do your speakers and you room response.
Yesterday I experimented with a new lab quality measurement mic which is
flat to ~+- 1 db from 9 hz to 27 Khz. I corrected the sound to be linear
between 30 Hz and 15 Khz (and go down on a gentle curve below and above)
at my listening position. The difference is striking. And I have a very good
room with minimal echoes and very good speakers to begin with.
I would say the sound differences between well recorded SACD and DVD-Audio
are very small compared to room corrected and not room corrected sound on
a high quality reproduction chain.

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in
message ...
Were you comparing the individually prepared masters or the finished
products from thier respective consumer delivery formats?

Session tapes vs mike feed.

I would be especially curious from your perspective what differences
you notice between your analog master and the resultant vinyl LP.

Me too. The LP has not yet been mastered.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

chung wrote in message
...
There is absolutely no basis for believing that the filter cannot be
implemented without degradations in the audio band in high resolution
LPCM.

Roger Lagadec and the late Tom Stockham published a paper in the early
1980s showing, if I remember correctly, how the filter's pass-band ripple
was associated with time dispersion that could be audible.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:38:59 GMT, chung wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:
It seems
most classical music lovers prefer SACD as sounding more natural.

Again, OSAF.

Most classical music lovers prefer SACD to DVD-A simply because there
is more classical SACD than there is classical DVD-A.

Yes. This classical music lover finds it impossible to get an
impression of classical music on DVD-A, there is so little.
Most of what is there requires a TV to play back, even if one
is uninterested in the video content.


Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA

Michel Hafner wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
I recently produced a recording that was recorded in DSD for SACD, in
24/192 and 16/44.1 LPCM, and on analog tape for LP release. The "Red
Book" recording was least like the mike feed, the DSD most like it.

Was that DSD Wide or SACD DSD?

The converters were dCS 904s, which use an internal 5-bit flash converter.

And did you switch the live mic feed to DSD and PCM...

Yes.

the PCM was not really 24/192, it was 24/192.

Why don't you think so The dCS converter can output either a DSD stream or
a 24/192 LPCM stream. Both are derived from the same internal data.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Harry Lavo wrote:

Now I understand what you are getting at. Thanks. Perhaps John will pick
up on it. You might want to visit rec.audio.pro and suggest it to some of
the folks who hang out there who have access to both technologies.

The necessary tests are quite tricky since the DA part can not be
removed when listening to a configuration. So it's always degraded by
the DA part which can cloud the issue how good the signal really is
and if there is information loss in the signal. There can be and the DA
is too bad to show it, maybe for DSD and PCM DA at the same time.
Therefore I think a whole battery of tests is required to remove the
hidden variable and have results that follow basic logic.
If you want to compensate for room response as well it gets even worse
since this requires PCM.
Not difficult is to test if 24/96 and 24/192 sound the same to humans when
using the same DA process. Create any 24/192 master you want and play it
on 24/192 DA hardware at 192 sampling rate. Once the original 24/192
master and once a 24/192 master where the frequencies above 48 Khz have
been digitally filtered out. You can even room correct the result for
optimal linearity at the listening position. You can test different
filters to remove the high frequencies and different DA filtering
implementations. Some might be transparent and others not.

John Atkinson wrote:

chung wrote in message
...
There is absolutely no basis for believing that the filter cannot be
implemented without degradations in the audio band in high resolution
LPCM.

Roger Lagadec and the late Tom Stockham published a paper in the early
1980s showing, if I remember correctly, how the filter's pass-band ripple
was associated with time dispersion that could be audible.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

That was in the early '80's, and with filter cut-offs somewhere between
20KHz and 22KHz. Of course, even now, one can still screw up that filter.

Michel Hafner wrote:
.895705@attbi_s52 WUDTb.169267$nt4.755764@attbi_s51
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Path:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.200.229.23
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.200.229.23
X-Trace: news.cybercity.ch 1075808688 213.200.229.23 (3 Feb 2004 12:44:48 +0100)
Lines: 27
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1

chung wrote:
We agree that SACD's can have a better S/N ratio, below, oh, around 10KHz.


What is the S/N you can achieve with SACD and DSD-Wide from 10 Hz to say
10 Khz? How many bits will that amount to? I mean with existing mics and
preamps and also with ideal noise free mics and preamps?

If we assume that SACD and DSD-wide have roughly the same noise floor as
LPCM from 10 Hz to 10 KHz, then we are probably looking at somewhere
around 123 dB S/N, with noise measured from 10Hz to 10KHz only. I get
that estimate by assuming 20 bit resolution from commercial players,
which would put the noise at -120dB FS (20Hz to 20KHz), and 10Hz to
10KHz is roughly 3 dB less noise. Some players may have DAC's with
better than 20 bits resolution.

I think it is possible to get preamps with about 120 dB dynamic range,
although it is difficult. But I doubt if you can find a recording venue
with that kind of range.



I also said that DVD-A had cleaner highs and sounded smoother than CD in the
treble, which it does.

This is an unverified observation. Whether the better S/N translates
into cleaner highs or a smoother sound has not been proven, since CD's
can have ruler flat frequency response up to 20KHz. My take is that
recording and mastering have a much larger effect on the smoothness of
the sound.

So can and usually do your speakers and you room response.
Yesterday I experimented with a new lab quality measurement mic which is
flat to ~+- 1 db from 9 hz to 27 Khz. I corrected the sound to be linear
between 30 Hz and 15 Khz (and go down on a gentle curve below and above)
at my listening position. The difference is striking. And I have a very good
room with minimal echoes and very good speakers to begin with.
I would say the sound differences between well recorded SACD and DVD-Audio
are very small compared to room corrected and not room corrected sound on
a high quality reproduction chain.

The sound quality differences between SACD and DVD-A as consumer
delivery systems are extremely small, compared to those differences
between different recording/mastering takes, or speaker/room variations.

Michel Hafner wrote:
s1.newsguy.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Path:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.200.229.23
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.200.229.23
X-Trace: news.cybercity.ch 1075757204 213.200.229.23 (2 Feb 2004 22:26:44 +0100)
Lines: 49
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1

Harry Lavo wrote:
That does not really address my point that there is no audible difference
between 24/96 and 24/192 if you remove AD and DA issues.


Hey, you've got to get it from analgo to digital and back somehow. You
can't escape AD/DA issues.

Of course not. But my point/hypothesis is that 24/96 and 24/192 are better
formats to store the musical information than 1 bit DSD at 64 times 44.1 Khz.
And 24/96 sounds the same to human ears as 24/192 as far as the musical
information in the signal is concerned.
To investigate this you need to separate the AD and DA from the format.
So if people say SACD sounds closer to the analogue master we need to know
if that is (if it's true) because the AD is better and/or the DA is better
and/or there is more information in the signal.
Points to investigate a
a) is PCM 24/96 and/or PCM 24/192 transparent relative to DSD master.
b) is DSD transparent relative to PCM 24/96 and/or 24/192
for a) you take a DSD master, convert it digitally to PCM and convert it
digitally back to DSD. Listen to it via DSD hardware DA before and after.
Can you tell it apart in double blind testing? This establishes if PCM
is transparent relative to DSD using DSD DA. Can you tell apart the DSD
and the PCM? This establishes if PCM is transparent relative to DSD via
PCM DA.

etc.

Only if you know for sure that the conversion process used
was transparent. If you confirm a difference,
how do you definitievely rule out implementation
issues?


I'm afraid it's not trivial and requires quite some access to pricey
hardware.

I'll bet!



--

-S.

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

Mike Prager wrote:
Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:38:59 GMT, chung wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:
It seems
most classical music lovers prefer SACD as sounding more natural.

Again, OSAF.

Most classical music lovers prefer SACD to DVD-A simply because there
is more classical SACD than there is classical DVD-A.

Yes. This classical music lover finds it impossible to get an
impression of classical music on DVD-A, there is so little.
Most of what is there requires a TV to play back, even if one
is uninterested in the video content.

If this is an issue,
$25-30 will get you a 5" B&W TV that's less than cubic foot
in size.

--

-S.

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

John Atkinson wrote:
the PCM was not really 24/192, it was 24/192.

Why don't you think so The dCS converter can output either a DSD stream or
a 24/192 LPCM stream. Both are derived from the same internal data.

You mean there was only DSD AD done and the signal was either listened to
as DSD via DSD DA or converted to PCM 24/192 and listened via a 24 bit DA?

John Atkinson wrote:

Michel Hafner wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
I recently produced a recording that was recorded in DSD for SACD, in
24/192 and 16/44.1 LPCM, and on analog tape for LP release. The "Red
Book" recording was least like the mike feed, the DSD most like it.

Was that DSD Wide or SACD DSD?

The converters were dCS 904s, which use an internal 5-bit flash converter.

Had a look at this unit. It does not do 24/96 or 24/192 AD. It does 5 bit
AD with high oversampling from which either PCM or DSD versions are
computed. You can chose between different noise shapers for DSD and
PCM. The result is then again converted with a 5 bit DA converter.
That unit has too many variables and is too hybrid to allow conclusions about
what is closer to the mic feed, pure DSD or pure high res PCM.

"Fran=C3=A7ois Yves Le Gal" wrote:
nd!
=

Hybrid DVD-Audios are in the works.
=

And the check is in the mail.
:-)

The discs are currently test marketed i Boston and Seattle. They are here=
!
Guess what! SACD-Sony is part of the group of firms testing them!

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Michel Hafner wrote:
s1.newsguy.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Path:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.200.229.23
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.200.229.23
X-Trace: news.cybercity.ch 1075757204 213.200.229.23 (2 Feb 2004 22:26:44 +0100)
Lines: 49
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1

Harry Lavo wrote:
That does not really address my point that there is no audible difference
between 24/96 and 24/192 if you remove AD and DA issues.


Hey, you've got to get it from analgo to digital and back somehow. You
can't escape AD/DA issues.

Of course not. But my point/hypothesis is that 24/96 and 24/192 are better
formats to store the musical information than 1 bit DSD at 64 times 44.1 Khz.
And 24/96 sounds the same to human ears as 24/192 as far as the musical
information in the signal is concerned.
To investigate this you need to separate the AD and DA from the format.
So if people say SACD sounds closer to the analogue master we need to know
if that is (if it's true) because the AD is better and/or the DA is better
and/or there is more information in the signal.
Points to investigate a
a) is PCM 24/96 and/or PCM 24/192 transparent relative to DSD master.
b) is DSD transparent relative to PCM 24/96 and/or 24/192
for a) you take a DSD master, convert it digitally to PCM and convert it
digitally back to DSD. Listen to it via DSD hardware DA before and after.
Can you tell it apart in double blind testing? This establishes if PCM
is transparent relative to DSD using DSD DA. Can you tell apart the DSD
and the PCM? This establishes if PCM is transparent relative to DSD via
PCM DA.

etc.

Only if you know for sure that the conversion process used
was transparent. If you confirm a difference,
how do you definitievely rule out implementation
issues?

Yes, the conversion itself should be transparent. The mathematical
properties of the filters need to be well understood first.

Michel Hafner wrote in message
news:mDVTb.217187$na.354536@attbi_s04...
John Atkinson wrote:
the PCM was not really 24/192, it was 24/192.

Why don't you think so?

No answer.

The dCS converter can output either a DSD stream or a 24/192 LPCM
stream. Both are derived from the same internal data.

You mean there was only DSD AD done and the signal was either listened
to as DSD via DSD DA or converted to PCM 24/192 and listened via a 24
bit DA?

I apologise if I wasn't clear. As I said in another message, the dCS
converts the incoming audio with what I believe is a delta-sigma converter
running at a very high rate, using a 5-bit flash converter in its loop.
This internal representation of the data is then converted/filtered to a
DSD representation or decimated to 24/192 (or 96 or 48kHz and/or shorter
word lengths). Playback was via dCS D/A converters set to decode DSD or
PCM data.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 04:36:07 +0000, Lawrence Leung wrote:

Not with my Etymotic Research ER4's.

Majority of the people that own a discman most likely bought it from
their local stores, cost somewhere around US$50.00 to $100.00, at that
price, do you think there is any difference between a redbook CD and a
MD? Not too many people can afford a $350.00 earphone for their discman.
BTW, how does it sounds? Should I buy that ER4 or the Bose noise
cancellation earphone? About the same price?

I'd recommend the ER4. Much more effective at eliminating outside noise
than any noise cancellation headphone I've tried, and it doesn't give you
that unpleasant feeling of pressure on your ears, either.

Etymotic Research also has a less expensive model now, the ER6 ($139). I
haven't tried them. They might be worth a look if you don't have the
budget ($330) for the ER4. (Prices quoted are direct from Etymotic
Research; you can get better prices from Headroom -
http://www.headphone.com)

Michel Hafner wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
The converters were dCS 904s, which use an internal 5-bit flash
converter.

Had a look at this unit. It does not do 24/96 or 24/192 AD. It does 5 bit
AD with high oversampling from which either PCM or DSD versions are
computed. You can chose between different noise shapers for DSD and
PCM. The result is then again converted with a 5 bit DA converter.
That unit has too many variables and is too hybrid to allow conclusions
about what is closer to the mic feed, pure DSD or pure high res PCM.

Not sure I grasp your point Mr. Hafner. If you want to record in DSD,
and you are not Philips or Sony, you have only 3 choices for an A/D
converter: the dCS, the Meitner, and, I assume, the converter in
Tascam's relatively new HS-98 MDM tape machine. I haven't heard
anything about the Tascam's converter; I am told the Meitner and the
dCS sound different from one another, with each having its advocates.
So, if I wanted to compare the mike feed with a DSD representation
of the same, and you feel the dCS is not appropriate, which converter
would you recommend?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:

Michel Hafner wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
The converters were dCS 904s, which use an internal 5-bit flash
converter.

Had a look at this unit. It does not do 24/96 or 24/192 AD. It does 5 bit
AD with high oversampling from which either PCM or DSD versions are
computed. You can chose between different noise shapers for DSD and
PCM. The result is then again converted with a 5 bit DA converter.
That unit has too many variables and is too hybrid to allow conclusions
about what is closer to the mic feed, pure DSD or pure high res PCM.

Not sure I grasp your point Mr. Hafner. If you want to record in DSD,
and you are not Philips or Sony, you have only 3 choices for an A/D
converter: the dCS, the Meitner, and, I assume, the converter in
Tascam's relatively new HS-98 MDM tape machine. I haven't heard
anything about the Tascam's converter; I am told the Meitner and the
dCS sound different from one another, with each having its advocates.
So, if I wanted to compare the mike feed with a DSD representation
of the same, and you feel the dCS is not appropriate, which converter
would you recommend?
My point is that the dCS is not a pure high res PCM system. And I don't
know which noise shaper was used anyway for the comparisons. They obviously
sound all different hence you are given a choice. So my point is that while
the dCS system 'may' sound closer to you via DSD and noise shaper x versus
PCM and noise shaper y both played via 5 bit oversampling DA (I assume, or
was there a dedicated 24 bit DA for the PCM stream?) it tells me not really
if PCM or DSD stores a closer approximation of the analogue signal.
Information theory clearly says that 24/192 is superior as a storage format
than 1 bit DSD at 2.8 MHz. So assuming DSD sounds closer I have to suspect
implementation issues as the reason for this.

Michel Hafner wrote:

John Atkinson wrote:

Michel Hafner wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
The converters were dCS 904s, which use an internal 5-bit flash
converter.

Had a look at this unit. It does not do 24/96 or 24/192 AD. It does 5 bit
AD with high oversampling from which either PCM or DSD versions are
computed. You can chose between different noise shapers for DSD and
PCM. The result is then again converted with a 5 bit DA converter.
That unit has too many variables and is too hybrid to allow conclusions
about what is closer to the mic feed, pure DSD or pure high res PCM.

Not sure I grasp your point Mr. Hafner. If you want to record in DSD,
and you are not Philips or Sony, you have only 3 choices for an A/D
converter: the dCS, the Meitner, and, I assume, the converter in
Tascam's relatively new HS-98 MDM tape machine. I haven't heard
anything about the Tascam's converter; I am told the Meitner and the
dCS sound different from one another, with each having its advocates.
So, if I wanted to compare the mike feed with a DSD representation
of the same, and you feel the dCS is not appropriate, which converter
would you recommend?
My point is that the dCS is not a pure high res PCM system. And I don't
know which noise shaper was used anyway for the comparisons. They obviously
sound all different hence you are given a choice. So my point is that while
the dCS system 'may' sound closer to you via DSD and noise shaper x versus
PCM and noise shaper y both played via 5 bit oversampling DA (I assume, or
was there a dedicated 24 bit DA for the PCM stream?) it tells me not really
if PCM or DSD stores a closer approximation of the analogue signal.
Information theory clearly says that 24/192 is superior as a storage format
than 1 bit DSD at 2.8 MHz. So assuming DSD sounds closer I have to suspect
implementation issues as the reason for this.

I would also like to see how the comparison is done. Is it in real time,
when the listener can switch between the live feed and what comes out of
the D/A, or is it based on memory of what the live feed sounded like?
And is it well-controlled (blind, level-matched, etc.)?

I think a much better test is to simply convert the output of the DSD
D/A into 16/44, 24/96 and 24/192 (maybe also analog tape, too). Then do
a DBT among those outputs. If the PCM's sound identical to DSD, then the
PCM's are transparent. Likewise, one can convert the output of PCM D/A
into DSD using the DSD encoder, and then compare the corresponding
outputs. Wait, I think that's what Norm Strong suggested...

chung wrote in message
news:ynRUb.240725$na.397245@attbi_s04...
Michel Hafner wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Not sure I grasp your point Mr. Hafner. If you want to record in DSD,
and you are not Philips or Sony, you have only 3 choices for an A/D
converter: the dCS, the Meitner, and, I assume, the converter in
Tascam's relatively new HS-98 MDM tape machine. I haven't heard
anything about the Tascam's converter; I am told the Meitner and the
dCS sound different from one another, with each having its advocates.
So, if I wanted to compare the mike feed with a DSD representation
of the same, and you feel the dCS is not appropriate, which converter
would you recommend?

My point is that the dCS is not a pure high res PCM system.

But there are _no_ "pure" hi-rez LPCM A/D converters. All the ones that I
know of use a sigma-delta architecture of some kind, followed by
decimation and downsampling.

snip
Information theory clearly says that 24/192 is superior as a storage
format than 1 bit DSD at 2.8 MHz.

Of course.

So assuming DSD sounds closer I have to suspect implementation issues
as the reason for this.

And again of course, But as there are no converters without implementation
issues, Mr. Hafner's point becomes, er, pointless. :-)

All an experimenter can do is report what particular hardware was used.

I would also like to see how the comparison is done. Is it in real time,
when the listener can switch between the live feed and what comes out of
the D/A, or is it based on memory of what the live feed sounded like?

I have already answered this question. It was in realtime against the mike
feed. I was merely offering some anecdotal information that I thought
relevant to the discussion.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:

chung wrote in message
news:ynRUb.240725$na.397245@attbi_s04...
Michel Hafner wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Not sure I grasp your point Mr. Hafner. If you want to record in DSD,
and you are not Philips or Sony, you have only 3 choices for an A/D
converter: the dCS, the Meitner, and, I assume, the converter in
Tascam's relatively new HS-98 MDM tape machine. I haven't heard
anything about the Tascam's converter; I am told the Meitner and the
dCS sound different from one another, with each having its advocates.
So, if I wanted to compare the mike feed with a DSD representation
of the same, and you feel the dCS is not appropriate, which converter
would you recommend?

My point is that the dCS is not a pure high res PCM system.

But there are _no_ "pure" hi-rez LPCM A/D converters. All the ones that I
know of use a sigma-delta architecture of some kind, followed by
decimation and downsampling.

Ok. Let's say a system with considerably more than 5 bits oversampled.
Somwhere between 16 and 24.


snip
Information theory clearly says that 24/192 is superior as a storage
format than 1 bit DSD at 2.8 MHz.

Of course.

So assuming DSD sounds closer I have to suspect implementation issues
as the reason for this.

And again of course, But as there are no converters without implementation
issues, Mr. Hafner's point becomes, er, pointless. :-)

All an experimenter can do is report what particular hardware was used.

Right. How were the noise shapers decided upon? Why are there different
ones anyway? Is the same not always the best for closest match to the
mic feed?

"Michel Hafner" wrote in message
..."François Yves Le Gal" wrote:
nd!

Hybrid DVD-Audios are in the works.

And the check is in the mail.
:-)

The discs are currently test marketed i Boston and Seattle. They are here!
Guess what! SACD-Sony is part of the group of firms testing them!

They have been discussed in some depth on the hi-res DVD-A forum on
AudioAsylum. It appears that one side is straight DVD-V. The other CD.
Many of the disks do not have high-res; some do. It is unclear what the
strategy is...Sony's do not contain DVD-A or SACD, leading some to believe
that Sony views this as a value-add adjunct to CD to reach the mass market.
Another group feels Sony is using this as a stalking horse, and that if
successful will adapt it to their current SACD's as SACD2. Time will tell.

They are being marketed as a freestanding, in-store kiosk of limited titles.