(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message
news:RkVQb.119549$nt4.516264@attbi_s51...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:43:33 GMT, Codifus
wrote:

........'pure' DSD has a fatal technical
flaw. As a result, all modern SACDs are made either from conventional
'hi-res' PCM masters, or from so-called DSD-Wide, which is merely a
hybrid form of PCM. Hence, SACD is basically just a marketing
exercise, since it is always derived from some form of hi-res PCM, aka
DVD-A.

In an attempt to shed some light on this I have quoted Michael Bishop,
Telarc Recording Engineer, on the DSD editing process at Telarc. The
quotes are from September 2003 and are found at the Audio Asylum
Hi-Rez forum.

Michael Bishop:

"On the Sonoma DSD workstation, as long as the source is DSD, and
that one does not change volume level of the source, the DSD stays
as DSD except at the edit points. Only for the duration of the edit
crossfade (as short as 2ms) does the DSD signal go through the
Sony E-Chip for editing processing. I try to keep all edit processing
to an absolute minimum because of the interstep needed for the edit.
Unity gain is the rule on my projects!"

Best Regards,

Michael Bishop
Recording Engineer

"IMO, I will take a trade-off of a 2ms super-hi rez pcm crossfade to
fix a major performance blunder against keeping the blunder in all
its DSD glory to be heard again and again forever more. I think most
performers would agree, at least if it's THEIR recording that's being
scrutinized by reviewers and thousands of listeners.

Very few, if any, commercially released recordings are totally edit-free.
Sleight of hand is a tricky thing.

Best Regards,

Michael Bishop
Recording Engineer

""It sort of goes like this:
DSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDS DDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSD
DSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDS DDSDDSD(2ms
X-fade)DSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSD DSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSD
DSD
DSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDS DDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSD
(2ms X-fade)DSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSD DSDDSDDSD etc.,
etc., etc.....

if one can hear the millisecond conversion to extremely high-resolution
pcm in a once-in-a-great-while well-placed edit, that person should be
the subject of scientific investigation. A good edit is a good edit whatever
the domain. It's all smoke and mirrors anyway."

Best Regards,

Michael Bishop
Recording Engineer

Back to real time. Recording engineers of several audiophile or "boutique"
labels contribute to the Audio Asylum. From what I gather they adhere to the
editing principals as described by Mr. Bishop. Due to skilled recording
and mastering they produced stellar CDs prior to the advent of DSD. With DSD
technology their work is even better, much better, in my opinion. I cannot
say the same for the mass production labels such as DG. (So far, I have not
been impressed with the few DG SACDs that I have listened to).

Robert C. Lang

From: "langvid"

I cannot
say the same for the mass production labels such as DG. (So far, I have not
been impressed with the few DG SACDs that I have listened to).

I don't buy DG unless it's something I really, really, really want to hear.
I've felt this way since the LP era. There are a few exceptions, but DG sound
is usually shrill-sounding to moi.

Farrell8882 wrote:
From: "langvid"

I cannot
say the same for the mass production labels such as DG. (So far, I have not
been impressed with the few DG SACDs that I have listened to).

I don't buy DG unless it's something I really, really, really want to hear.
I've felt this way since the LP era. There are a few exceptions, but DG sound
is usually shrill-sounding to moi.

Which would tend to be due to their recording/miking methods, rather than PCM
vs DSD. IIRC, DGM chose PCM over SACD as an archiving method after some
consideration of the technical and audible merits of each.

--

-S.

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

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Farrell8882 wrote:
From: "langvid"

I cannot
say the same for the mass production labels such as DG. (So far, I have
not
been impressed with the few DG SACDs that I have listened to).

I don't buy DG unless it's something I really, really, really want to
hear.
I've felt this way since the LP era. There are a few exceptions, but DG
sound
is usually shrill-sounding to moi.

Which would tend to be due to their recording/miking methods, rather than
PCM
vs DSD. IIRC,

Yep, multi-mic'rs to the hilt.

DGM chose PCM over SACD as an archiving method after some
consideration of the technical and audible merits of each.

Given their reputation for having a "tin ear" when it comes to the sound of
their recordings, I'm not sure that is much of an endorsement.. ;-)