|
|
|
DSD said:
I agree DSD in my system is sonically superior to PCM. If one has a lot of SACDs from Chandos and BIS one can hear how they sound different. BIS switched from DSD to PCM about the same time Chandos switched from 24/96 PCM to DSD masters.
on my system also, but I don't think it's about mine or your system, look for example at this comparison between DVD-A (24/96), Linn FLAC (24/96) and SACD
"What happens with classical music? One example of the 22 tracks, the stereoplay auditioned over hours, particularly documents that: Mozart's "Adagio In c-minor" (96kHz/24bit). Via DVD-A it seemed, as if the recording had taken place in a well-built theatre. Via harddisc, the place turned into an opera-house, but the awe-inspiring, (tone)colorful concert hall only was audible via SACD. Especially during pianissimo, the musical suspense, that only SACD was able to provide, was merely written into the reviewer's faces.
http://www.cirlinca.com/include/stereoplay0907report-en.pdf
http://www.redrosemusic.com/essay.shtml
Happy new year!
|
|
|
Post by tailspn January 1, 2009 (72 of 92)
|
|
DSD said:
I agree DSD in my system is sonically superior to PCM....
Great post Teresa!
Here is a link I think you, and others would enjoy:
http://www.superaudiocenter.com/
Down at the bottom left are links to the Demery Chronicles, a recounting of the development and application of SA-CD. It's very good reading from the people who first applied DSD recording.
All the best,
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just want add I think the best archiving digital media is the glass CD http://www.glasscd.com as it is made of glass it do not suffer attack of mould, bad news the price is 98,700Yens (2006)
per CD (handmade) but the laser reading is very superior to polycarbonate CD.
The SONY engeneers are better than the marketing people, cause for my taste DSD,SuperAudio,SuperBitMaping,BluRay and the olds Elcassete and Betamax are all silly and ugly names.
DVD name become synonynous of video image or film while some music shop salesmen do not know what SACD is !
|
|
|
Post by DSD January 2, 2009 (74 of 92)
|
|
audioholik said:
on my system also, but I don't think it's about mine or your system, look for example at this comparison between DVD-A (24/96), Linn FLAC (24/96) and SACD
"What happens with classical music? One example of the 22 tracks, the stereoplay auditioned over hours, particularly documents that: Mozart's "Adagio In c-minor" (96kHz/24bit). Via DVD-A it seemed, as if the recording had taken place in a well-built theatre. Via harddisc, the place turned into an opera-house, but the awe-inspiring, (tone)colorful concert hall only was audible via SACD. Especially during pianissimo, the musical suspense, that only SACD was able to provide, was merely written into the reviewer's faces.
http://www.cirlinca.com/include/stereoplay0907report-en.pdf
http://www.redrosemusic.com/essay.shtml
Happy new year!
Thanks for the links, I enjoyed them! I added the Mark Levinson: CD vs. SACD and LP to My Space page. THE BIT-ER TRUTH was good reading as well.
|
|
|
Post by DSD January 2, 2009 (75 of 92)
|
|
tailspn said:
Great post Teresa!
Here is a link I think you, and others would enjoy:
http://www.superaudiocenter.com/
Down at the bottom left are links to the Demery Chronicles, a recounting of the development and application of SA-CD. It's very good reading from the people who first applied DSD recording.
All the best,
Tom
Tom, thanks for the link I enjoyed "The Demery Chronicles". I wonder what Demery is up to nowadays? In the early 2000's he used to post a lot on the Hi-Rez Highway. I haven't heard anything from him in years.
I loved this quote from Sonoma's home page http://www.superaudiocenter.com/
"Sonoma - It sounds like an Analog Recorder - Without the flaws
An ideal companion for the analog studio, the Sonoma DSD recording workstation offers an "analog like" quality because its sample rate (2.8MHz) is far closer to the infinite character of music than traditional digital recorders and workstations.
|
|
|
Post by Julien January 2, 2009 (76 of 92)
|
|
raffells said:
Its interesting that you dont archive master tape and still have an opinion.
It would be even better if everyone who claims to hear these imperfections has a even a half decent system that isnt causing or exagerating these perceived sonic differences.
Thank you Raffells. I don't share all your opinions, but you are one of the very rare people on this site who actually understand how the DSD vs PCM debate can only be DSD playback equipment vs PCM playback equipment. We all support SACD because it is to date the best available media, but saying things like "DSD is better than PCM" is totally ignorant. I have a lot of respect for Teresa and her work, but her stating that CD has always sounded awful makes me believe that not only she has maybe never listened to CD on some decent equipment, but also her SACD player is definitely not good either. Otherwise she would realize how much equipment to the source is what the room is to the equipment. I've heard a handful a CD players, not even too expensive, that sound richer on redbook CD than the so-called excellent but actually mediocre Sony SCD-1 on SACD. I'd fool Teresa and many of this site users anytime playing a CD on one of those CD players and saying that SACD is so much better than CD. I'd then play the SACD on the so not open sounding flagship Sony and say, "see, CD is so not alive..."
The recording quality comes first. I'd trade most of my Naxos and Capriccio SACDs for one decent recording or mastering on CD.
Also, have any of the guys who know how the best equipment out there sounds, and then played with AV receivers through HDMI, noticed how most receivers sound better after the PCM conversion rather than staying DSD all the way? I'd bet that the DSD conversion to analogue is just not at the same quality level than the PCM conversion.
Let's stop being blind and fanatic! It doesn't help the format.
And by the way if we want really good high-rez sound, according to what I've read I think DSD128 would eliminate the DSD high frequency noise problem, and make it a lot easier to manufacture decent DSD/SACD players. Or use 32 bit PCM, aka DXD, with at least 352.8khz sampling rate. And solve the difference between formats in the equipment. For God's sake, my Edirol 24/96 PCM recorder sounds warmer and richer than the twice as expensive Korg MR1. I could say PCM is better than DSD too... boring...
Raffells, any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by raffells January 2, 2009 (77 of 92)
|
|
Julien said:
Thank you Raffells. I don't share all your opinions, but you are one of the very rare people on this site who actually understand how the DSD vs PCM debate can only be DSD playback equipment vs PCM playback equipment. We all support SACD because it is to date the best available media, but saying things like "DSD is better than PCM" is totally ignorant. I have a lot of respect for Teresa and her work, but her stating that CD has always sounded awful makes me believe that not only she has maybe never listened to CD on some decent equipment, but also her SACD player is definitely not good either. Otherwise she would realize how much equipment to the source is what the room is to the equipment. I've heard a handful a CD players, not even too expensive, that sound richer on redbook CD than the so-called excellent but actually mediocre Sony SCD-1 on SACD. I'd fool Teresa and many of this site users anytime playing a CD on one of those CD players and saying that SACD is so much better than CD. I'd then play the SACD on the so not open sounding flagship Sony and say, "see, CD is so not alive..."
The recording quality comes first. I'd trade most of my Naxos and Capriccio SACDs for one decent recording or mastering on CD.
Also, have any of the guys who know how the best equipment out there sounds, and then played with AV receivers through HDMI, noticed how most receivers sound better after the PCM conversion rather than staying DSD all the way? I'd bet that the DSD conversion to analogue is just not at the same quality level than the PCM conversion.
Let's stop being blind and fanatic! It doesn't help the format.
Thanks Julien,
I probably agree with EVERYTHING you have said in this post.
I may add that I was alerted to the reasons for better performance by PCM Conversion on another website by someone who mods equipment to that Nth degree.
He is not currently posting and returned to Europe.Ok some of the very top designers also do it.
Its possibly and simply a matter of avoiding the weaknes of DSD ie ultrasonic noise.Even going to my extremes with super low noise regs and caps as well as the cloth to absorb RFI internally.(follows mains cable filtering and DC removal on the input lines) This noise is Not present in PCM.The faster sampling at higher fq also gives pcm ad advantage up there as well. It seemed to this person that switching a DSD signal to PCM is a near ideal halfway house.
It has also become evident from reviews as to how this pcm/dsd issue manifests itself in the equipment used.ie the faster and more energetic pcm can be a problem for some amplifier / tweeter combinations....Even the wiring may be relevant.
PS.Theresas opinion on CD?.It has varied a lot.Telarcs were the latest IN fad?. Mind you a couple of Lyritas would convince her otherwise.
PS"2 If you respect Sony engineers as quality then you must accept they went blueray without using DSD for a very good reason.
Thanks for the tip on HDMI,I was about to give up on that area.
|
|
|
Post by RWetmore January 2, 2009 (78 of 92)
|
|
Julien said:
Thank you Raffells. I don't share all your opinions, but you are one of the very rare people on this site who actually understand how the DSD vs PCM debate can only be DSD playback equipment vs PCM playback equipment. We all support SACD because it is to date the best available media, but saying things like "DSD is better than PCM" is totally ignorant. I have a lot of respect for Teresa and her work, but her stating that CD has always sounded awful makes me believe that not only she has maybe never listened to CD on some decent equipment, but also her SACD player is definitely not good either. Otherwise she would realize how much equipment to the source is what the room is to the equipment. I've heard a handful a CD players, not even too expensive, that sound richer on redbook CD than the so-called excellent but actually mediocre Sony SCD-1 on SACD. I'd fool Teresa and many of this site users anytime playing a CD on one of those CD players and saying that SACD is so much better than CD. I'd then play the SACD on the so not open sounding flagship Sony and say, "see, CD is so not alive..."
The recording quality comes first. I'd trade most of my Naxos and Capriccio SACDs for one decent recording or mastering on CD.
Also, have any of the guys who know how the best equipment out there sounds, and then played with AV receivers through HDMI, noticed how most receivers sound better after the PCM conversion rather than staying DSD all the way? I'd bet that the DSD conversion to analogue is just not at the same quality level than the PCM conversion.
Let's stop being blind and fanatic! It doesn't help the format.
And by the way if we want really good high-rez sound, according to what I've read I think DSD128 would eliminate the DSD high frequency noise problem, and make it a lot easier to manufacture decent DSD/SACD players. Or use 32 bit PCM, aka DXD, with at least 352.8khz sampling rate. And solve the difference between formats in the equipment. For God's sake, my Edirol 24/96 PCM recorder sounds warmer and richer than the twice as expensive Korg MR1. I could say PCM is better than DSD too... boring...
Raffells, any thoughts?
I also agree with most of this. DSD or even DSD 128 is not a viable long term solution because it cannot be edited in its native 1 bit form. It also requires a lot of noise shaping which is gimmicky and unnatural. The best and purest solution is DXD 352.8khz/24bit because it requires no filtering and can easily be edited. It is the holy grail. Unfortunately, it seems likely that the blu-ray audio only standard will max out at 192khz/24bit.
It's a shame we can't get DXD on blu-ray since there is plenty of space for it. I really wish SACD would have been DXD stereo only from the get go (there is enough space on a DVD with lossless compression for stereo DXD). It would have paved the way for DXD multichannel on blu-ray audio - giving us "perfect sound forever" in both multichannel and stereo. Instead we got DSD, which really should have been DSD 128, but there wasn't enough space for it with the inclusion of multichannel. So now we are where we are. Very frustrating, especially since the technology for perfect sound has been around for nearly 10 years now.
|
|
|
Post by l-2044 January 2, 2009 (79 of 92)
|
|
Enough of this ! ! !
Where is the petition?
|
|
|
Post by tailspn January 2, 2009 (80 of 92)
|
|
Clueless audiophiles
|
|
