|
|
|
|
|
|
Who needs PCM? The only reason it exists was for storage and editing. Now, that storage capacity is a non issue, it's best just to store the raw 1 bit sample ( and yes even a multibit converter uses a 1 bit front end).
|
|
|
|
|
|
hookedondsd said:
Who needs PCM?
there are some areas where a great transient response in the time domain is not needed, see telephone ringtones, mp3 streaming, voip, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kuiteh said:
In the meanwhile PCM is used millions of times more (all TV, all film, all CDs, MP3, DVD etc).
so what, there are millions of devices using LCD technology and people still prefer reading ebooks on dedicated e-readers (using e-ink technology) than LCD screens.
|
|
|
Post by madde March 3, 2010 (36 of 51)
|
|
I do not see any analogy with your e-book example. Besides Real Books stil rule about billoin to one compared to e-book readers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kuiteh said:
It is not a question of preferral, but about which tecnology works where. 99.9999999% of the time DSD does not work, as it can not be manipulated. PCM can. As simple as that. Practical facts, not wishfull thinking.
well.. DSD can be manipulated with the Sonoma workstation, according to Michi, Gus Skinas is currently working on new Nat King Cole SACD's in stereo and multichannel.
if you need heavy editing and special effects SACD format can still benefit from DXD (32/352,kHz) which has also a greatly improved transient response in the time domain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kuiteh, naysayers will always whine about limited editing options, how a recording can not be perfected, bla bla bla.. but when Channel Classics releases a new SACD it receives great feedback on the forum. Have you heard their latest Mahler 4? Even David Hurwitz was greatly impressed with the recording quality!
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12151
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kuiteh said:
For well done classical recorded at a good venue only edits, mixing and level settings should be necessary, sometimes slight equalisation on certain channels/mics. All this can be done in pseudo-DSD like Sonoma does, exept equalisation. Still this is limiting and many labels do a lot of edits (BIS), can not use perfect halls (reverb is added) etc, so more often than not this idealist Direct-to-Disk DSD-to-SACD principle just does not work when aiming for the best possible end result. Theoretical sound quality and purity is only one facet of a good disk.
No doubt Channel Classics make sonically exemplary disks, but maybe their reputation as pure DSD users (we are led to believe, what do we really know) walks in front and reviewers are not doing real "blind listening"? There has been so many cases of changing opinions and total opinion turnarounds about the sound quality of disks when the real facts have been revealed about their origin. Why else would any company print any recording information on the booklet if not to influence and impress the listener with non-aural information.
frankly I don't think that David Hurwitz even knows what dsd or grimm ad1 adc is...
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox March 3, 2010 (40 of 51)
|
|
bissie said:
The fact that noone on Earth can tell the difference between DSD and PCM in the guise of DXD with ears alone is irrelevant.
Robert
You could not be more wrong.
Sweeping generalisations based on the experience of your own ears and set-up and those of one or two of your employees and pals is hardly the collective view of the 6 billion artful souls included in your extrapolation...
I can tell the difference every time on my set-up. This is MY emphatic statement. I don't have to prove it to anybody.
It does not deter me from buying BIS products 'though because I also value artists and performance. In any case what you release on disc IS much better than RBCD even if it does not match material that started out as DSD.
|
|
