Post by DSD March 2, 2010 (11 of 51)
|
|
Kal Rubinson said:
Can you provide any real science references for the abilities and mechanisms for transduction of ultrasonic frequencies?
Kal
HiSonic bone conduction hearing aid: "It shifts auditory sounds into the supersonic range (above 20,000 hertz) and converts them into vibrations which are transmitted to the brain by our vibrating bones (a process called bone conduction). HiSonic(r) represents the very latest technology used for hearing impairment and is the only device of its kind."
http://www.hearinglossweb.com/res/ha/hisonic.htm
|
|
|
Post by xmen269 March 2, 2010 (12 of 51)
|
|
Kuiteh said:
when recorded in DSD, edited anyway, which means they have been converted to PCM internally by the DSD workstation no matter what is claimed.
unfortunate sad reality.
|
|
|
Post by DSD March 2, 2010 (13 of 51)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by DSD March 2, 2010 (14 of 51)
|
|
Ralph I agree totally, the best SACDs offer the comfort of analog with none of the fatiguing qualities or stridency of RBCD.
The benefits of high resolution in 2 channel stereo is quite obvious to many, witness the fact that most expensive SACDs players are stereo only!
The veiled insults by Steve and Kuite that 2 channel stereo does not matter to SACD lovers can only be damaging to our beloved format. LONG LIVE 2 CHANNEL STEREO SACD!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kuiteh said:
And nobody in the world can hear the difference, only read the DSD label on the disk. It is all just marketing.
Hi Petrus. Still trolling, I see///
|
|
|
Post by zeus March 3, 2010 (16 of 51)
|
|
canonical said:
Hi Petrus. Still trolling, I see///
Different guy, unless our Nordic friend is holidaying in Washington. Though he's just as opinionated and irritating so you're excused from confusing the two.
|
|
|
Post by zeus March 3, 2010 (17 of 51)
|
|
Kuiteh said:
DSD's special sonic atributes are always mentioned in connection with SACD, even though only tiny-weeny minority of them are real DSD all the way.
I think it's fair to say you don't know what you're talking about.
If you don't have anything constructive to contribute here it would be appreciated if you would stay away. Consider this your final notice.
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox March 3, 2010 (18 of 51)
|
|
Kuiteh said:
Who is this mythical Petrus, my lost brother?
Who here can claim he/she can really hear if the "DSD" is pure or contaminated by PCM editing? Really? It is all imagination.
Y - A - W - N !!!!
Please go back to sleep... and stop waking the other children.
|
|
|
Post by bissie March 3, 2010 (19 of 51)
|
|
zeus said:
I think it's fair to say you don't know what you're talking about.
If you don't have anything constructive to contribute here it would be appreciated if you would stay away. Consider this your final notice.
With all due respect and reverence to you, zeus, that was unfair.
A question is put on the table, a question that also I have been unable to get answered:
If a DSD recording is edited in the PCM domain, how can it be claimed that the SACD is pure DSD??
Answer me, and I'll shut up. This question is fair.
Robert
|
|
|
Post by zeus March 3, 2010 (20 of 51)
|
|
I remember one of my university lecturers posing the following: if you have a tanker full of milk and add a drop of raw sewage to it, what do you have? The answer: milk. Two drops? Milk. Three drops? Sewage.
How long do your edits typically last?
|
|
