|
|
|
glidepath said:
I've tried the analogue multi but it does not sound at all better to me than hdmi. So the sound being equal, hdmi wins hands down for me from a ease of use and cable management standpoint. I'm no purist obviously. But for my money (and time) hdmi works very well.
I agree HDMI works extremely well .
|
|
|
Post by ninogui February 7, 2011 (22 of 50)
|
|
Unfortunately I think otherwise.
SACD on 5.1 analog outs did sound better and more lively to me than 88khz conversion either dsd or not
So much it will get me to change receiver again to get to where I was before on that particular issue
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie February 7, 2011 (23 of 50)
|
|
Kal Rubinson said:
I would not say that anyone has "eschewed HDMI" (although I have used that verb with delight). It more likely that there are high end companies that default to analog because they have, will or can not afford to develop HDMI or, very possibly, find that it is effective marketing for their following to appear to "have eschewed HDMI in favor of pure analogue."
It is not a matter of dedicated vs. universal but that, as good as the Meridian v6 is via its analog inputs, they are superfluous. It is hard to accept that bypassing them and the D/A stage of any player cannot result in an improvement.
Kal
Kal, Eschew Obfuscation!
The V.6 is a powerful computer capable of digitizing the human mind.......
I've named mine HAL.......and the SooLoos......what else, HANS!
But I have to concur, in theory, you are right.
And what have you named your V.6........HALLE BERRY?
ESCHEWBACCA!
|
|
|
Post by tailspn February 7, 2011 (24 of 50)
|
|
AmonRa said:
There is the funny picture of a 333333 Hz signal in real life and different digital recording systems again. What relevance does this signal, about 15 times higher in frequency than what we hear and ten times higher what SACD can reproduce has with anything?
Actually, everything. Do a Fourier transform on a 3uS rectangular pulse. The frequencies are very broadband, and even include a DC component. What that "funny picture" shows is the phase linearity of the various recording formats and sampling rates, better known as impulse response. Coincidently, relatively close to music as test waveforms go. That is, if you're into Castanets.
What do you do with that Pyramix of yours?
Tom
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa February 7, 2011 (25 of 50)
|
|
Impulse response if you record up to 333333 Hz signals, yes. All that is filtered out of course before ADC, and SACD players have to lowpass filter their output at 50 kHz at the latest to protect the poor tweeters. So nobody is ever going to be exposed to an audio signal like that. DSD does have better impulse response, that is true, and that is the only thing going for it. Dynamic range and frequency response are better already with 24/88.2 PCM (no drastic noise shaping like in DSD) and up.
With Pyramix? Edit (classical) music, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ninogui said:
Unfortunately I think otherwise.
SACD on 5.1 analog outs did sound better and more lively to me than 88khz conversion either dsd or not
So much it will get me to change receiver again to get to where I was before on that particular issue
You must have used a receiver/ player with large amounts of jitter
|
|
|
Post by tailspn February 7, 2011 (27 of 50)
|
|
AmonRa said:
With Pyramix? Edit (classical) music, of course.
So do I, with a Sonoma. Mine's a retirement interest. You with a studio?
Do the Fourier transform on that pulse. You'll see that there's lots of energy within the audio band. And I agree with you about the passband and DR of 88.2 PCM. It's just not the best that can be done for recording acoustical music, IMO.
Tom
|
|
|
Post by DSD February 7, 2011 (28 of 50)
|
|
AmonRa said:
SACD players have to lowpass filter their output at 50 kHz at the latest to protect the poor tweeters.
This is not true of all SACD players. The SCD-1 gives you a choice of switching the 50kHz filter in or out. My Yamaha player claims frequency response with SACD of over 100kHz meaning they don't use a filter either, so I am getting all that ultrasonic noise that is shifted above 50kHz. My EMIT tweeters extend only to 45kHz though, so I am not getting the full 100kHz response in my system. FYI the ultrasonic response on LPs from 20kHz-35kHz is about 50% noise and moving coil cartridges with ultrasonic response sound better than those limited to 20kHz.
The Sanken CO-100K microphone has frequency response to 100kHz, it was used in the last Telarc SACDs for the main orchestra pickup, here is Michael Bishop's report.
http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/report/reports.cfm?top=1&id=12
|
|
|
Post by DSD February 7, 2011 (29 of 50)
|
|
|
P.S. The best sounding speaker at T.H.E. Show 2011 was the TAD Reference One speakers, frequency response: 21Hz - 100kHz -10dB. Perfect for SACD players that pass the full 100kHz.
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSD said:
P.S. The best sounding speaker at T.H.E. Show 2011 was the TAD Reference One speakers, frequency response: 21Hz - 100kHz -10dB. Perfect for SACD players that pass the full 100kHz.
Yes, all the dogs and bats, also dingbats, in my neighborhood just love'em. The humans are another matter.
By the way, what on earth is this off topic post doing in this thread? Did you miss something, or are you just trying to start another argument?
|
|
