[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Whether DSD is a more-accurate method of recording than PCM is
debatable. * But the fact is that many (if not most) SACDs have
significantly better -- more-realistic -- sound than CDs. Why is
another matter.

Actually more realistic, or simply 'different' (for whatever reason) which
causes those who have paid money, or have a predisposition to 'believe' ?

Actually more realistic. Have you heard multi-ch SACDs played over a good
system? No?


Part of the difference is unquestionably the use of ambience channels.
Shutting them off produces an immediate degradation in sound quality.

No. "Change" in sound. Does not necesarily equate to "quality".

Wrong again. See preceding response.


Another possibility is that the availability of ambience channels
removes the pressure of having to make a two-channel recording
that "sounds good" by itself. (Did I say that correctly?)

Nothing stopping multiple channels of LPCM...

No. But that wasn't the point. Regardless, audio-only Blu-ray disks with
multi-ch LPCM show a similar improvement in quality.


Though LPs are clearly inferior to CDs and SACDs, simply by "virtue"
of being beset by all kinds of mechanical colorations, my view is
that a good chunk of the audible differences among recordings of any
type are due to the choice / quantity / positioning of the mics, and
the amount of electronic equipment between the mics and the recorder.
Make bad choices, and they'll wipe out the superiority of digital
recording.

Not to mention inter-person and same person day-to-day changes in aural
and
mental perception, which I suspect swamp the technical factors by far.

All supposition. I've been listening to stereo and surround sound for 45
years. And I've made stereo and surround live recordings. Do you comparable
or better experience?

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I might vehemently disagree with Arny. But at least he uses his real name,
and we know who he is.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Whether DSD is a more-accurate method of recording than PCM is
debatable. * But the fact is that many (if not most) SACDs have
significantly better -- more-realistic -- sound than CDs. Why is
another matter.

Actually more realistic, or simply 'different' (for whatever reason) which
causes those who have paid money, or have a predisposition to 'believe' ?

Actually more realistic. Have you heard multi-ch SACDs played over a good
system? No?


Part of the difference is unquestionably the use of ambience channels.
Shutting them off produces an immediate degradation in sound quality.

No. "Change" in sound. Does not necesarily equate to "quality".

Wrong again. See preceding response.


Another possibility is that the availability of ambience channels
removes the pressure of having to make a two-channel recording
that "sounds good" by itself. (Did I say that correctly?)

Nothing stopping multiple channels of LPCM...

No. But that wasn't the point. Regardless, audio-only Blu-ray disks with
multi-ch LPCM show a similar improvement in quality.


Though LPs are clearly inferior to CDs and SACDs, simply by "virtue"
of being beset by all kinds of mechanical colorations, my view is
that a good chunk of the audible differences among recordings of any
type are due to the choice / quantity / positioning of the mics, and
the amount of electronic equipment between the mics and the recorder.
Make bad choices, and they'll wipe out the superiority of digital
recording.

Not to mention inter-person and same person day-to-day changes in aural
and
mental perception, which I suspect swamp the technical factors by far.

All supposition. I've been listening to stereo and surround sound for 45
years. And I've made stereo and surround live recordings. Do you comparable
or better experience?

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I might vehemently disagree with Arny. But at least he uses his real name,
and we know who he is.

Geoff isn't a real name? He's been participating here for a long time,
and often contributes very helpful information.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

Geoff isn't a real name? He's been participating here for a long time,
and often contributes very helpful information.

What is his last name? Where does he live? What does he do for a living?

Right now, he's just arguing about things he has little experience with.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

Geoff isn't a real name? He's been participating here for a long time,
and often contributes very helpful information.

What is his last name? Where does he live? What does he do for a living?

Right now, he's just arguing about things he has little experience with.

I've been following his posts for years. He is well informed about
plenty of tech stuff having to do with audio gear and practices. he
lives in Australia. What difference does it make?

That he disagrees with you does not automatically make him ill-informed.
He sometimes disagrees with me, too. Hell, anybody worth their salt
would sometimes disagree with me.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[geoff]

hank alrich wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

Geoff isn't a real name? He's been participating here for a long
time, and often contributes very helpful information.

What is his last name? Where does he live? What does he do for a
living?

Right now, he's just arguing about things he has little experience
with.

I've been following his posts for years. He is well informed about
plenty of tech stuff having to do with audio gear and practices. he
lives in Australia. What difference does it make?

That he disagrees with you does not automatically make him
ill-informed. He sometimes disagrees with me, too. Hell, anybody
worth their salt would sometimes disagree with me.

New Zealand actually, and Wood.

Willy seems so irrationally outraged that it appears that he seems confused
in that what I actually suggested was his claim that DSD inherently gives a
better real-world fideltity than SACD or LPCM, and that adding ambiance
channels (now apparently even if synthesised !) somehow increases fidelity.
All in an environment with so many variables (incldung the variable
physiological effects of the listener merely breathing or moving) that by
far outway any type of distortions from those media.

I guess that almost validates those cheesy 'hi-fi' amps of the 80s(?) with
'Reverb' ;-) (that is known as a smiley - some of us can still smile you
know .... )

I say the *format*, not the encoding technology, may give a subjectively
more satisfying experience to him, and maybe others, but that is not
fidelity.

geoff (as always)

[geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message


Actually more realistic. Have you heard multi-ch SACDs played over a
good system? No?

No, but I've heard multi-channel LPCM. And I've heardn 2 channel SACD v.
2-channel LPCM

Part of the difference is unquestionably the use of ambience
channels. Shutting them off produces an immediate degradation in
sound quality.

No. "Change" in sound. Does not necesarily equate to "quality".

Wrong again. See preceding response.

I sauggest the degradation may be entirely subjective, and is to do with the
overall experience rather than fidelity.


Another possibility is that the availability of ambience channels
removes the pressure of having to make a two-channel recording
that "sounds good" by itself. (Did I say that correctly?)

Nothing stopping multiple channels of LPCM...

No. But that wasn't the point. Regardless, audio-only Blu-ray disks
with multi-ch LPCM show a similar improvement in quality.

No, a similar change in excperience.

Though LPs are clearly inferior to CDs and SACDs, simply by "virtue"
of being beset by all kinds of mechanical colorations, my view is
that a good chunk of the audible differences among recordings of any
type are due to the choice / quantity / positioning of the mics, and
the amount of electronic equipment between the mics and the
recorder. Make bad choices, and they'll wipe out the superiority of
digital recording.

Not to mention inter-person and same person day-to-day changes in
aural and mental perception, which I suspect swamp the technical
factors by far.

All supposition. I've been listening to stereo and surround sound for
45 years. And I've made stereo and surround live recordings. Do you
comparable or better experience?

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Your 45 beats my 30. Presumably your ears have not degraded in those 45
years as much as mine have in 30.

I might vehemently disagree with Arny. But at least he uses his real
name, and we know who he is.

Hit a raw nerve somewhere have I ?

frank. Ooops, geoff.

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message

Part of the difference is unquestionably the use of ambience
channels. Shutting them off produces an immediate degradation in
sound quality.

No. "Change" in sound. Does not necesarily equate to "quality".

Wrong again. See preceding response.

I sauggest the degradation may be entirely subjective, and is to do with
the
overall experience rather than fidelity.

Subjectivity is reality in this context -- qv, psychoacoustics.

Regardless, "something else" is going on here. One's perception of
instrumental timbre varies with the presence or absence of ambience, whether
it's real or synthesized.


Your 45 beats my 30. Presumably your ears have not degraded in those 45
years as much as mine have in 30.

Depend on our ages. My ears still get to about 12kHz.


I might vehemently disagree with Arny. But at least he uses his real
name, and we know who he is.

Hit a raw nerve somewhere have I ?

Oh, yes. I have little respect for people who won't reveal who they are.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"geoff" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Whether DSD is a more-accurate method of recording than PCM is
debatable. * But the fact is that many (if not most) SACDs have
significantly better -- more-realistic -- sound than CDs. Why is
another matter.

Actually more realistic, or simply 'different' (for whatever reason)
which
causes those who have paid money, or have a predisposition to 'believe' ?

Actually more realistic. Have you heard multi-ch SACDs played over a good
system? No?

This sort of talk just degenerates into name-dropping contests.