|
|
|
A discussion of SACD and DSD below from the Acousence website (http://www.acousence.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=64%3Asacd&layout=blog&Itemid=60&lang=en), which has produced only one SACD. The charts are not produced here but can be found at the URL above.
"SACD
We have not yet produced any SACDs at ACOUSENCE to date because we were initially far from convinced of the musical result when we performed our own experiments using the DSD (Direct Stream Digital) recording procedure for SACD, not to mention a strange tone colouration and unnaturalness in the timbre and tone structures of individual instruments. External productions that we have heard so far also gave no occasion for us to believe that anything else could be achieved with this medium at all.
As can be read in various professional articles written by ACOUSENCE's label chief, Ralf Koschnicke, temporal resolution plays a very significant role in music transfer, and in this respect, the DSD recording method of SACDs is open to criticism. Although the transmission range in this method is not sharply restricted by filters, as with a CD, the high frequency noise inherent in the system starts at 20 kHz already, so that the signal parts that are so essential to the musical fine structure are easily masked by signal noise, which ultimately leads to a similar result as the one effected by filtering in a CD.
The concept behind the sound carrier itself, however, continues to be very interesting; it is simply a breeze to operate and presumably the SACD is indeed the last, honest-to-goodness sound carrier that we will get for the foreseeable future - if not for ever. New experiments have now been performed, in particular on the basis of the current theoretical considerations with regard to the relevance of the HF information for musical accuracy, that were aimed at having the signal noise, if it cannot be avoided in the first place, start as high up as possible (with respect to the starting frequency) and thereby having all parts of the useful signal above the signal noise, if possible, at least at CD-level, that is -90dB. We have succeeded in doing so by recording the sum output of the analogue mixer directly via DSD converters by the EMM Labs company in DSD format and by using the dynamic range, which is significantly higher compared to conventional PCM audio, up to the limits of the allowed SACD specifications in the process. Incidentally, it became very clear that the temporal resolution of detail suffers considerably and that the strange tone colouration mentioned above occurs already if the level is only 8db lower, for example.
Now that our first SACD has been mastered, the results are convincing all around. The chosen method in particular - recording in 4fs (24bit/192kHz) multi-track, analogue mixing, then converting it very puristically 1:1 in DSD on the SACD - appears to be the ideal way for this format. Based on the experience made, pre-production in DSD is just as inexpedient – for that, the 64fs DSD of the SACD is simply unsuitable due to the noise problem – as the commonly used path via PCM digital audio in 48Khz or even 44.1kHz – in that case, the resolution is limited far below the potential of the SACD already.
On the two figures shown below, one can see a passage from our "DER SYMPHONISCHE RING“, digitalised both times for the purpose of graphical representation in 24/192 PCM but sent down the DSD ADDA route first. The measuring range is calibrated to 90dB=Black.
Just as the higher input level now results in the fact that even the high frequency components are largely not affected by noise, the acoustic result is just as impressive! 8dB, which appear to be so insignificant, alter the sound and the temporal accuracy immensely.
The passage displayed here shows the furious battle between Siegfried and the dragon. While the elemental forces can fully unfold in the specially mastered SACD, just like in the high-resolution 24/192 PCM version, the sound does not open up in the conventionally mastered DSD version as the sound level rises, and thus the utter brutality, which is fully intended here, cannot really develop to its full extent. Instead, the sound becomes ever smaller and more washed-out as the complexity of the overtone mix increases (higher volumes create more overtone components). One can literally hear how the fine structure that is found in the high frequency component is "drowned"."
Our first SACD
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've done recordings of violin, viola, cello, piano and guitar in DSD. There is no coloration in DSD. It captures the instruments perfectly well.
|
|
|
Post by tream June 25, 2013 (3 of 44)
|
|
Reading this (and then supplementing by actually going back to the web site) - it seems that they are saying that SACD is great as long as the mastering process is carefully done, following their special way. Conventional mastering results in colorations,etc. while their special mastering results in a superior product.
So perhaps it is true that they take a generally dim view of conventionally mastered SACDs, they are enthusiastic if mastering follows their principles.
Do others think I have captured this correctly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Now that our first SACD has been mastered, the results are convincing all around. The chosen method in particular - recording in 4fs (24bit/192kHz) multi-track, analogue mixing, then converting it very puristically 1:1 in DSD on the SACD - appears to be the ideal way for this format."
I do not see how it is possible to convert 24/192 "puristically 1:1" to DSD. It would be more likely if they had started with 24/176.4.
Kal
|
|
|
|
|
|
tream said:
Reading this (and then supplementing by actually going back to the web site) - it seems that they are saying that SACD is great as long as the mastering process is carefully done, following their special way. Conventional mastering results in colorations,etc. while their special mastering results in a superior product.
So perhaps it is true that they take a generally dim view of conventionally mastered SACDs, they are enthusiastic if mastering follows their principles.
Do others think I have captured this correctly?
Esentially MY way or the HIGHWAY is correct, tream!
In our endless dissertations over DSD vs PCM I am of the opinion that the user playback equipment is way more important than the recording methodology.
Dr. Mark Waldrep of AIX Records detests DSD/SACD and still prefers 96/24 PCM (and also prefers Dolby True HD 96/24 over DTS Master Audio 48/24 for his current BD releases).
So proudly proclaiming "Our First SACD", does this mean that Acousence will produce more SACDs, "their way?"
The canine ears among us may be able to detect DSD vs. PCM ..............but, in the end, On the RIGHT playback equipment, it would certainly, IMO, diminish the controversy!
And until the PERFECT Universal Player emerges capable of doing 'absolute justice' to ALL formats (DVD~A, SACD mch and SACD stereo, RBCD and BD~V/A), we'll still be in the dark concerning the ABSOLUTE verdict!
And what such a beast would cost would be anyone's guess......IF it was ever feasible......considering the inherent trade~offs in quality attributed to anything "Universal!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Waldrep's problem was that he always took the DVD-Audio and SACD fight personally. As if it was an attack on him personally.
|
|
|
Post by RWetmore June 25, 2013 (7 of 44)
|
|
Kal Rubinson said:
"Now that our first SACD has been mastered, the results are convincing all around. The chosen method in particular - recording in 4fs (24bit/192kHz) multi-track, analogue mixing, then converting it very puristically 1:1 in DSD on the SACD - appears to be the ideal way for this format."
I do not see how it is possible to convert 24/192 "puristically 1:1" to DSD. It would be more likely if they had started with 24/176.4.
Kal
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
samayoeruorandajin said:
Waldrep's problem was that he always took the DVD-Audio and SACD fight personally. As if it was an attack on him personally.
Agreed, because he made a major investment in PCM equipment and although his recordings are also somewhat "personal" they do achieve a nice balance but certainly no better nor worse than a lot of PCM and/or DSD recordings I have in my collection.
When it DOES become personal, a certain perspective is somewhat lost in translation.
A good point, FD!
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox June 25, 2013 (9 of 44)
|
|
Kal Rubinson said:
"Now that our first SACD has been mastered, the results are convincing all around. The chosen method in particular - recording in 4fs (24bit/192kHz) multi-track, analogue mixing, then converting it very puristically 1:1 in DSD on the SACD - appears to be the ideal way for this format."
I do not see how it is possible to convert 24/192 "puristically 1:1" to DSD. It would be more likely if they had started with 24/176.4.
Kal
Exactly
|
|
|
Post by tailspn June 25, 2013 (10 of 44)
|
|
It would appear Herr Koschnicke has been drinking the PCM_is_better Kool-Aid. Better yet, he's trying to sell it like kids with a lemonade stand. He got one thing right however; do a balance and mix in analog, and use the analog to digital converter to archive the result. This is what Jared discovered, and has been doing for the last twenty-one years. But after that, the Acousence Label Chief's "reasoning" goes down hill fast.
Of one fact there is no argument. Every time you convert from one form of the many types of PCM (of which 1-bit two level (DSD) is one) to another, you loose quality. If you're simply up-sampling, say from 64fs DSD to 128fs DSD, the losses are minimal. But there's still a low-pass filter, with it's incumbent phase shift involved. If you're going in the other direction, say 64fs 1-bit two level, to 192KHz/24 bit, the low-pass filter is much more drastic, as are the sonic consequences.
So these guys are trying to sell the idea that they take a native 1-bit two level ADC (the EMM ADC IV), and down sample it to 192KHz/24 bit, post process with that, then up sample it to 64fs DSD for SACD authoring, and say that's a break through? They too cheap to buy a Pyramix and at least post process at 352.8KHz/32 bit (DXD)?
IMO, they're simply charlatans with graphs to argue meaningless conclusions.
|
|
