Post by zeus March 3, 2010 (41 of 51)
|
|
bissie said:
Also I am not personally competent to answer...
Then maybe we should leave it up to those that can. Let me instead try with this alternate tack and I'll leave it up to you to draw parallels with recording practices.
As some of you may know I run a one-man digital printing operation, doing prints for others mainly for exhibition. I completed three shows just recently (to be hung over the next few months) and am always involved in planning for future shows. The gestation is often many months. Only a little of what I do is actual printing; most of it is in talking with the client, finding out about their work, where and how it will be hung, what's important to them etc. I don't make a lot of money out of this business (for reasons that will become apparent) but it's something I enjoy and am pretty good at, if I can be so immodest.
While my services aren't cheap by any means, there's a finite amount you can charge for printing as the sad fact is that most prints at exhibition don't sell. But many artists/photographers are driven to show their work regardless. The way to make money in this business is to advertise (or otherwise promote yourself) heavily, use a printer a few generations old, maybe third-party inks and limit yourself to a few good-enough papers. Materials (especially rag papers) aren't cheap and inventory is a significant issue. But if you can keep the printer busy, there's potential for good returns. And some clients, to be honest, aren't particularly discerning.
Needless to say none of this is how I work. A large proportion of my time is spent in research (into technology, techniques, papers) to better understand and maximize the printed results. I use the best inkjet printer currently available, most beautiful papers from France and Germany, specialized colour management tools that most haven't even heard of and continually monitor the results with my own output from the past and similar prints by others to ensure I'm ahead of the game. Does all this count? If I'm honest the answer would often be no as I'm always limited by the originals provided. But with some images it all comes together and something of real beauty is created, a marriage of the absolute finest in everything. Over the years I've built up a loyal set of clients that appreciate this no compromise approach. I don't waste time running down the efforts of others because the only person I'm competing with is myself.
|
|
|
Post by stvnharr March 3, 2010 (42 of 51)
|
|
audioholik said:
frankly I don't think that David Hurwitz even knows what dsd or grimm ad1 adc is...
Is that important or of any relevance to anything?
|
|
|
Post by bissie March 3, 2010 (43 of 51)
|
|
zeus said:
Then maybe we should leave it up to those that can. Let me instead try with this alternate tack and I'll leave it up to you to draw parallels with recording practices.
Needless to say none of this is how I work. A large proportion of my time is spent in research (into technology, techniques, papers) to better understand and maximize the printed results. I use the best inkjet printer currently available, most beautiful papers from France and Germany, specialized colour management tools that most haven't even heard of and continually monitor the results with my own output from the past and similar prints by others to ensure I'm ahead of the game. Does all this count? If I'm honest the answer would often be no as I'm always limited by the originals provided. But with some images it all comes together and something of real beauty is created, a marriage of the absolute finest in everything. Over the years I've built up a loyal set of clients that appreciate this no compromise approach. I don't waste time running down the efforts of others because the only person I'm competing with is myself.
Well, I just found out, didn't I, so 'yes, I can'.
I like your post, and it does show your quest for excellence.
Now here is my variant of it, and I take the liberty to draw the relevant conclusions.
OK to everything you write. You have the advantage that *all your given factors work in confluence* towards the final superlative result.
But, wait, change the parameters a little:
- The 'best inkjet printer currently available' does NOT function with that new 'most beautiful paper' just invented. Choose either one, but not both.
- The new colour management tool doesn't use the same system and is incompatible with that new printer. Choose either one, but not both.
NOW WHAT DO YOU DO????
THAT, dear zeus, is the situation that we have to live with.
We cannot keep everything in the DSD realm AND do the necessary editing to save the best musical result. Our result WOULD be a "gold chain" with links of different materials, incl. gold, and cannot therefore be advertised as "gold chain" (read "pure DSD").
Telling that simple truth isn't "running down the efforts of others", but, until I get a declaration from "those others" which part of the equation they have left out - consistent use of pure DSD OR the possibility to do proper editing, incl. filtering rumble, taking away creaking floor sounds etc. I will pose 'awkward' questions.
And, as I said, theoretically speaking, it is immaterial if anyone can hear the difference or not. Is audioholic telling me that he can hear every PCM/DXD edit in a "pure DSD" SACD because of the 'degraded' sound? If so, while doffing my hat to him, I pity him. How horrible it must be to listen to music under those circumstances! Yet, I don't think he can or he would go bananas.
Since I have ascertained that very few, if anyone, can really hear the difference between different recording techniques, once you've passed a certain level, whereas any Tom, Dick and Harry CAN hear musical, acoustical, equalizational problems left unattended to by a system that isn't up to dealing with them, my choice was simple.
In the end of the day, zeus, it is a question about intellectual honesty, like the Brahms's 3rd PC. Start fiddling with that, and the slope grows more and more steep.
Robert
PS. Take our Tchaikovsky cycle, some of the works recorded and edited in pure DSD, some not. Same artists, venue, production team throughout.
General critical reaction as I remember it (it is in the middle of the night here, and I don't have access to the reviews):
DSD repertoire: Wonderful sound, sloppy performances.
PCM repertoire: wonderful sound, superb performances.
Goes to show how much a good production team can do, given the proper tools to work with.
PPS. So what is more important, sloppy vs superb or "w" vs "W"? For me, an easy choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bissie said:
And, as I said, theoretically speaking, it is immaterial if anyone can hear the difference or not. Is audioholic telling me that he can hear every PCM/DXD edit in a "pure DSD" SACD because of the 'degraded' sound? If so, while doffing my hat to him, I pity him. How horrible it must be to listen to music under those circumstances! Yet, I don't think he can or he would go bananas.
Not being entirely crazy, I point out that regardless whether BIS recordings are pure DSD or PCM, they do sound appreciably better(*) than any RBCD recording I have heard, even if the difference is still subtle. I am willing to accept the largely theoretical compromise of BIS SACDs being the product of editing via PCM/DXD in order to have such a profusion of SACD recordings instead of RBCD ones from this one, relatively small and relatively cash-strapped record label.
(*) "better" means more detailed and transparent without losing the BIS trademark bloom in the sound and more naturally balanced as between the instruments/voices and the resonances of the room around them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I trust the "newbie's" DSD question has been thoroughly answered!
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox March 4, 2010 (46 of 51)
|
|
rammiepie said:
I trust the "newbie's" DSD question has been thoroughly answered!
Probably he wished he'd never asked!
What can he take away from this debate? Too many on here have vested interests limiting the value of their inputs. As he may not know who 'they' are he needs to be cautious about the responses.
|
|
|
Post by bissie March 4, 2010 (47 of 51)
|
|
hiredfox said:
Probably he wished he'd never asked!
What can he take away from this debate? Too many on here have vested interests limiting the value of their inputs. As he may not know who 'they' are he needs to be cautious about the responses.
You are absolutely right, however, I maintain that even those with a vested interest can be intellectually and factually honest. Not everyone can be 'bought'.
Robert
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 March 4, 2010 (48 of 51)
|
|
steviev said:
SACD is high quality because of multichannel, nothing more. So if you don't have a surround setup and do not intend to get surround speakers, SACD is a waste of your money. Stick with regular stereo CD -- virtually no one can tell the difference in a double blind test.
And now, the usual suspects may fire at will.
I have not posted to this forum in some time. But I came to the exact same conclusion. 2-CH SACD has no audible difference over a well mastered CD. People went all nuts saying I was trolling, blaming my equipment, attacking me, etc. Technical arguments were at best a waste of time. It was very child-like and defensive and why I stopped posting. Despite evidence to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by Jonty March 4, 2010 (49 of 51)
|
|
urbo73 said:
I have not posted to this forum in some time. But I came to the exact same conclusion. 2-CH SACD has no audible difference over a well mastered CD. People went all nuts saying I was trolling, blaming my equipment, attacking me, etc. Technical arguments were at best a waste of time. It was very child-like and defensive and why I stopped posting. Despite evidence to the contrary.
Yes, we disagree with you and steviev.
|
|
|
Post by armenian March 4, 2010 (50 of 51)
|
|
I have not posted to this forum in some time. But I came to the exact same conclusion. 2-CH SACD has no audible difference over a well mastered CD. People went all nuts saying I was trolling, blaming my equipment, attacking me, etc. Technical arguments were at best a waste of time. It was very child-like and defensive and why I stopped posting. Despite evidence to the contrary.
With absolutely no intention of re-starting that old argument, CD vs SACD, my own take is that well executed CD’s are capable of producing a spectacular sound, and I have large number of CD’s with amazing sound.
In the quality ladder you can move up to a certain point with CD’s, well executed SACD’s will allow you to move up a step above that point, ONLY IF you have a playback system capable of extracting that last ounce of quality from these hi-rez recordings, and that is a tall order when it comes to assembling a system capable of doing justice to some of the better SACD’s.
Vahe
|
|
