Post by zeus May 18, 2009 (31 of 41)
|
|
RWetmore said:
There is no question had there been more disc space available, they would have gone with DSD 128 ...
I question this.
|
|
|
Post by RWetmore May 18, 2009 (32 of 41)
|
|
zeus said:
I question this.
Why?
|
|
|
Post by zeus May 18, 2009 (33 of 41)
|
|
RWetmore said:
Why?
Because I've read pretty widely on the subject and this is the first time I've heard this. Because, from a consumer delivery point of view, it wouldn't have been deemed necessary. I could be wrong though, which is why I ask for a reference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is becoming somewhat of a debate on DSD vs PCM 192KHz. My own opinion hinges both in my subjective perception as well as my understanding of which process is likely to more faithfully reproduce the original sound wave:
Leaving A/D/A common filtering considerations aside, DSD seemingly has a strong argument in its favour that is higher sampling frequency (many fold), however single bit incremental, which could arguably filter-off some high ultrasonic harmonics. PCM’s lower sampling rate will result in a more obvious digitised sound wave, which will filter-off even more ultrasonic harmonics than DSD, however introducing those (distortion) harmonics characteristic of discrete digitised steps in the sound wave.
Hard for me to compare my favourite DSD label (Channel) versus my favourite PCM (Linn, Bis), but if pushed, I would stick to Channel, and it is because my perception that is reproduces a more natural faithful sound. That said, there is an element of “added” clarity in Linn records which could be the result of the still more obviously digitised sound wave… very hard to tell. As someone said, don't forget microphones+preamps are playing a crucial role here.
If I had the equipment I’d love to display against representative set of sound waves, the result of comparative the sampled (and D/A’d back) using DSD and PCM. Perhaps someone in the forum working for and OEM (Arcam, Yamaha, Sony) could bring the “truth” discussion.
Now, however fascinating is this debate on DSD vs PCM let me remind the forum that in this thread we are mostly looking for key success factor to create a positive economic model for SACD.
|
|
|
Post by palinuro May 25, 2009 (35 of 41)
|
|
For whatever it is worth, here are some economic arguments why I jumped very recently to SACD, as an additional (not alternative!) source to my (good) CD playback. Of course tastes may differ and had I not liked SACD, all arguments below would be worthless:
1. "Least expensive entry for quality playback" going beyond the "red book". Hi-rez downloads, in particular, have many set up/back up costs/headaches that the audio press tends to gloss over. (Blue-ray is nowhere in the scene so far).
2. "Least painful exit strategy": if I decide that I can live with "CD only", I can recycle my SACDs into CDs, sell the SACD/CD player, get a better CD player and forget all about it. For LPs and DVD-As things are not quite as simple.
3. "The last player" argument: if one listens to classical music, there has never been a better time (and a better back catalogue) for buying a SACD player, whatever other playback one may have, even if this is the "last" SACD player one buys.
4. "Desperate record companies cannot afford to ignore niche markets": they want to find ways to sell physical discs with high protection and they may come to see SACD (as well as LPs) as good selling propositions, albeit always in niche markets. (Not surprising therefore that a number of new SACD players have come to the market lately).
Unfortunately, argument 3 above does not hold true for contemporary pop/rock, perhaps because of the wrong assumption of record companies that people caring about quality of music reproduction listen only classical and jazz.
|
|
|
Post by wolf359 May 26, 2009 (36 of 41)
|
|
Michelten said:
We can write letters to Stereophile demonising journalists like Sam Tellig, and praising professionals like Jarred Sacks or Robert von Bahr; we can write blogs after blogs telling the wonders of SACD, we can get all the emotional we want as passionate we all are in this site for hi-rez/hi-sampling DSD technology; we can beg SACD labels and Hi-Fi equipment manufacturers to keep this wonderful media going… but at the end the only realistic way forward is for SACD to create its own economic space that is sufficiently attractive for labels and equipment manufacturers to invest their resources… but why does it take so long to create this space?
If wishes were horses we could all come up with creating an economic model for SACD. Its not a question of why is it taking so long as more a question of why it has failed so far and what can be done to recify it.
When RBCD was introduced it was a radical product small , light , no longer prone to scratches and clicks and very convienient to play. It was in a word cool! SACD has no percived differences all it can offer is better sound quality albiet it at a higher price and the enticement of multi channel if required. This is not enough for the man in the street to change directions when RBCD quality is just good enough. So how do we change this perception is what we need to think about.
I would forget the DSD/PCM divide joe public is easily confused and could view it as a format war and stay away (we are trying to grow the format not confuse the public).
Add in bonus extras onto the disc but only playable on the SACD layers. This is to add its perceived added value ,related to this stop the reissue of the equivalent CD go for single inventory. this will hopefully fire up peoples curiosity.
Spread the Genres it is perceived as an audiophile niche because of is heavy biase towards Classical and Jazz ,so many people who buy the mass market CD product are not aware of its (SACD) existence. A greater choice of discs in differing genres would make for a higher profile and bigger base of discs which should hopefully result in lower unit costs.
How about a new advertising campaign comparing SACD to Blu ray stating that SACD offers Hi DEF sound asevery bit as radical as Blu ray offers Hi def pictures.
Stress the backward compatiblty everyone can play them on any CD playing device but if they want the extras or High res sound ,appeal to the 13m player owners to check out if they already have compatitble hardware look for the logo
As the RBCD market continues to shrink. boycott those companies such as Universal who purse arrogant and inconsistent release policies (take a look at the Black Sabbath thread to see what I mean)
We are a small niche but our sales are guaranteed ,as sales dry up genrally we will assume hopefully more importance and become a greater force. Stress to companies the importance of copy protection on SACD.
Get Sony to change the licensing arrangements so that it is easier and more profitable for companies to get into SACD production
Lastly instead of bickering amongst ourselves about a labels release policy of DSD/PCM remember that we need all SACD labels to grow and prosper so sniping at Bis (for example) demeans the cause
Go after magazines who do not openly support the format and ask them why they are so reticent. I belive the recent questions over Stereophiles policy have been helpful in exposing the bias that certain contributors have against the format. these contributors should be asked outright to say why they are so anti and if they cannot provide concrete evidence for their bias.They should have at least the courage of their convictions instead of hiding behind rhetoric and the magazine concerened should give space to the opposing pro SACD view on grounds of fairness and imparitality
Just a few thoughts
|
|
|
|
|
|
wolf359 said:
.../
1. We are a small niche but our sales are guaranteed,as sales dry up genrally we will assume hopefully more importance and become a greater force...
.../
2. Get Sony to change the licensing arrangements so that it is easier and more profitable for companies to get into SACD production
Great points!! I particularly appreciate the two left above:
1. Yes, small niche but extremely loyal, and fanatic about the product; I don't have data, but imagine SACD buyers regularly add/buy new SACD's into their collections (as opposed to one-off or a few-off).
2. Totally agree: Sony has created a counterproductive barrier by making proprietary/licensing rights so stringent; it's about time they realise they (and all) would be better off if they lifted, or at least considerably softened royalties for the use of DSD technology.
|
|
|
Post by RWetmore May 31, 2009 (38 of 41)
|
|
DSD said:
You are missing a bigger point the artificial softness you are talking about is an untrue myth, IT DOES NOT EXIST.
I just made an observation that is interesting. While reading some booklets today I noticed that Telarc and Pentatone both use Meitner DSD A/D converters. It's these two labels whose sound I find to have a slight artificial softness or roundness to their sound. Other transfers I've heard that use DCS DSD converters seem to only have a very small amount artificial softness (only slightly noticeable really). I also have some 2006 Japan DSD SACD transfers of the Miles Davis catalog that are totally absent of even the slightest amount of softness. I'm not sure what DSD converters they were done with, but perhaps they were done with a more recent design - one that has eliminated or minimized below audible levels any such softness or distortion.
Also, as I stated in the thread, the new Sony XA5400ES is also a big leap in DSD D/A conversion - virtually eliminating and softness in the D/A conversion process.
Maybe Telarc and Pentatone need to upgrade to better converters. I think Telarc actually may have. Aren't they using the new one from Digital Audio Denmark (DAD)???
I also wonder which converter Morten Lindberg was using when he compared it to the microphone feed and found it to not be transparent? Anyone know?
|
|
|
Post by DSD May 31, 2009 (39 of 41)
|
|
RWetmore said:
I just made an observation that is interesting. While reading some booklets today I noticed that Telarc and Pentatone both use Meitner DSD A/D converters. It's these two labels whose sound I find to have a slight artificial softness or roundness to their sound. Other transfers I've heard that use DCS DSD converters seem to only have a very small amount artificial softness (only slightly noticeable really). I also have some 2006 Japan DSD SACD transfers of the Miles Davis catalog that are totally absent of even the slightest amount of softness. I'm not sure what DSD converters they were done with, but perhaps they were done with a more recent design - one that has eliminated or minimized below audible levels any such softness or distortion.
Also, as I stated in the thread, the new Sony XA5400ES is also a big leap in DSD D/A conversion - virtually eliminating and softness in the D/A conversion process.
Maybe Telarc and Pentatone need to upgrade to better converters. I think Telarc actually may have. Aren't they using the new one from Digital Audio Denmark (DAD)???
I also wonder which converter Morten Lindberg was using when he compared it to the microphone feed and found it to not be transparent? Anyone know?
I looked at some of my favorite Telarc SACDs Britannia - Runnicles , Russian Nights - Erich Kunzel and Gandolfi: The Garden of Cosmic Speculation - Spano they were recorded with: Sonoma Direct Stream Digital with EMM Labs ADC and DAC custom engineered by Ed Meitmer; Genex 8500 DSD recorder.
However Boléro - Kunzel was recorded with: Sonoma Direct Digital stream Digital Workstation with DAD AX-24 ADC and DAC, EMM Labs; Genex 8500 DSD recorder.
Based on these four SACDs any audible differences seem small, I'll have to listen a few more times. I have heard artificial softness on a few DSD recordings, but seldom from Telarc, PentaTone or Channel Classics. I more often hear artificial softness from 48kHz PCM such as the poor sounding Naxos SACDs and DVD-Audios.
I could go through all of my Telarcs to list the DSD recorder/ADCs used but it would be too time consuming. On my equipment I have only found one Telarc SACD that suffered from softness but it sounds more like the microphones were too far away Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 6, Romeo & Juliet - Paavo Järvi I don't know what DSD recorder/ADC was used as I have since sold it as the sound to me was unacceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RWetmore said:
I've heard many orchestras live, so I know what real instruments sound like. With DSD all the instruments sound slightly rounded or smoothed over. That's not the same as softening the impact or umph, which DSD does not do.
Critics of DSD say that it is not as good as PCM at reproducing frequencies over about 10kHz. A good test is to listen to piano music. I listen to a lot of chamber music where the piano is often present, and it seems to me that DSD reproduces piano sound just about as well as PCM in the top register, but where for me it really scores is in the mid-range. If one listens to woodwind instruments in particular, they seem to have much more "life" on SACD than they did on CD. Having said that, I don't own a DVD audio player, so I can't really comment with any authority on high-res PCM. In the end, I think that the subjective sound quality is the important thing. No format is perfect - bear in mind that LPs wear out and also distort towards the end of a side. So if SACDs do sound slightly rounded, then that's fine because it's a sound that suits me.
|
|
