Post by DSD February 7, 2011 (31 of 50)
|
|
I was replying to AmonRa's assertions that SACD was not even as good as 24/96 PCM not the thread theme.
TAD Reference One speakers with their response to 100kHz are made for high resolution sources and the PROOF is in the listening.
Perhaps you should read this before commenting: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue52/ultrasonic.htm
If you don't believe in the benefits of ultrasonic response how did you end up with a SACD player which is based on ultrasonic research?
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa February 7, 2011 (32 of 50)
|
|
tailspn said:
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
I record classical as a hobby* (local artists, Sibelius Academy concerts, organ recitals). Equipment consists of a Sound Devices field recorder, Prism Orpheus with Maselec mic-pres, microphones form Sennheiser 8000 series, DPA, Gefell, Pearl, Sanken and Audio Technica.
There is energy within the audio band and it will be recorded with each system to the upper frequency limit of each method. Marketing talk says DSD has 120 dB dynamic range and frequency response reaches 100 kHz, but conveniently forgets that those things can not be achieved at the same time. To get enough DR even within the audible range drastic noise shaping must be done, which ruins the frequencies above 35 kHz. If somebody wants those frequencies intact for some strange reason, the 10-20 kHz audible range would have only 60 dB or so of dynamic range, thousand times less than CD. If you analyze any pure DSD file you can see the rising noise hump which drowns all real content starting form 30 kHz. Speakers must be protected with a lowpass filter form this. So the ultra high frequency superiority of DSD is a myth, even the lowly 88.2 has perfectly noiseless HF up to 44 kHz. If anybody needs, hears or can reproduce it is another matter.
*) one disk published so far: http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2011/Feb11/siimes_9298.htm
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa February 7, 2011 (33 of 50)
|
|
DSD said:
I was replying to AmonRa's assertions that SACD was not even as good as 24/96 PCM not the thread theme.
TAD Reference One speakers with their response to 100kHz are made for high resolution sources and the PROOF is in the listening.
Perhaps you should read this before commenting: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue52/ultrasonic.htm
If you don't believe in the benefits of ultrasonic response how did you end up with a SACD player which is based on ultrasonic research?
Dear Teresa, DSD and SACD has only noise shaping noise starting form 30 kHz and up. It is a blessing we do not hear it, no matter if somebody is foolish enough to try to reproduce it. I would only annoy dogs and put unnecessary strain on the amplifiers causing added distortions. This has been discussed zillion times, with and without graphs and real SACD output frequency analysis.
|
|
|
Post by ARQuint February 8, 2011 (34 of 50)
|
|
Thank you one and all for ringing in—even those who managed to get pretty far afield of the thread topic. As I'd hoped, collectively you have helped to clarify my thinking about the HDMI interface for SACD. I'll summarize my personal conclusions; all the points are debatable, I know—except for the last.
1. For me, and many others, multichannel is a must. IMO m-c is the single most important step toward concert hall realism to have occurred in my career as a listener/record reviewer. So if S/PDIF does sound better than HDMI with stereo RBCD, that's interesting but for me unimportant.
2. DSP room correction is also indispensable. I moved to a new listening room a year and a half ago and thought it was pretty close to ideal—until I looked at the frequency response graphs for the space generated by both Audyssey and Anthem's ARC. I can't imagine being without RC, especially when the source material is large-scale orchestral music and opera. Returning to analog m-c outputs from a player isn't in my best interest.
3. Not discussed (and, I know, controversial) is that the HDMI cable employed matters. I use Transparent's pricy PDVI—plenty of audiophiles roll their eyes—but I've made extensive comparisons and it's subjectively and significantly better than the other wires (various AudioQuests and a Pangea cable) that I've tried. I was without the Transparent for a couple of weeks and it was sorely missed.
4. It is not universally agreed on that the differences in HDMI jitter performance among commercial products is audibly meaningful, even to critical listeners. I've seen one study—I was led to it by a much earlier SA-CD.net thread—suggesting that the threshold for hearing jitter with musical material is measured in hundreds of nanoseconds. The jitter levels I've seen for various SACD machines are in the picosecond realm. A ten-fold difference looks major but may not be relevant.
And finally, the one inarguable conclusion:
5. My current digital playback sounds superb. I am getting a specificity of venue and a "sense of occasion" with the best high-resolution multichannel recordings that even ten years ago I wouldn't have dreamed possible from home music reproduction. I have no doubt that the HDMI interface will get better and that this will contribute to further incremental improvements. But for now, Mr. Hansen's undeniably stellar jitter measurements on his state-of-the-art player may be serving mostly to help justify the high asking price.
Andy Quint
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARQuint said:
1. For me, and many others, multichannel is a must. IMO m-c is the single most important step toward concert hall realism to have occurred in my career as a listener/record reviewer.
2. DSP room correction is also indispensable.
3. Not discussed (and, I know, controversial) is that the HDMI cable employed matters.
4. It is not universally agreed on that the differences in HDMI jitter performance among commercial products is audibly meaningful, even to critical listeners.
And finally, the one inarguable conclusion:
5. My current digital playback sounds superb..
Andy Quint
Andy - well said. And, I must say, having heard your system, it is indeed superb. It is one of a tiny handful of the very best sound systems I have ever heard. I share your sentiments exactly about the state of sound reprodution we are able to achieve today. Having been a music-loving audiophile since the dawn of the stereo era, I think we have just witnessed audio's greatest decade in making much more progress toward the elusive goal of concert hall realism than ever before. Hi rez multichannel and room correction EQ are the main breakthroughs which have raised the bar exponentially. This was on top of the numerous, ongoing, more incremental refinements and improvements to the components in our systems. Are we there in paradise yet? No, of course not. But, we have come a long, long way in a short time.
HDMI is a secondary, but significant, player in this as a new enabling technology. I agree completely that it will be further refined and improved somewhat in the years ahead. But, in the mean time, it does the job quite nicely for you and for me, as well.
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie February 8, 2011 (36 of 50)
|
|
Now, if we could only convince more companies, other than classical, that multi~channel's time is here and now (Blu~Ray, soundtracks, etc.) and that with these further improvements, as stated above, that SACD does have a multi~channel layer, as well.
We desperately need SHM~SACDs to heed that call and start a mch release program and if it's stereo that the "purists" want, its there, also.
The Multi~channel equality fight is just beginning........we're here, we demand the best and you know the rest (we're not going to take it ANYMORE!).
A grass roots tea party movement for MCH~Audiophiles! And NOT the decaffeinated type.........either!
|
|
|
Post by Stanbury February 8, 2011 (37 of 50)
|
|
ARQuint:
I love your SACD reviews in TAS, but there haven't been many recently on mch:
Ravel in March
None in February
None in January
Is TAS reverting to a two-channel publication?
|
|
|
Post by ARQuint February 8, 2011 (38 of 50)
|
|
Stanbury said:
Is TAS reverting to a two-channel publication?
Definitely not!
No SACD in February but I did write up the first Naxos audio-only Blu-ray, a surround sound demo disc, if there ever was one. Covered an Audite disc of Janacek quartets for April.
The magazine's starting a new music item, as people reading all periodicals seem to love lists. It's called "Fave Fives" (don't blame me for the title) and I've got one in the May/June issue - my top five "surrounded" classical recordings; that is, those that are supposed to have direct sound in the rear channels. Won't reveal my choices but what are yours? Worth starting another thread over?
Also in that issue have a long write-up of a Channel Classics choral SACD, "Nordic Sounds" - music of Sven-David Sandstrom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AmonRa said:
...one disk published so far: http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2011/Feb11/siimes_9298.htm
I need to get that one next time I'm in town: I used to live right next to the location but that was before these pipes were built (and am too far away from it where I live right now).
To Mighty Zeus: Can we not get that silly little red flag removed? It's getting a little ridiculous and, while it's true that it probably serves a purpose in attracting more readers to this poster's contributions, it's also starting to wear a little on the eyes of those of us who anyway spend most of their time reading for work.
Thnx.
PT
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie February 9, 2011 (40 of 50)
|
|
Polarius T said:
I need to get that one next time I'm in town: I used to live right next to the location but that was before these pipes were built (and am too far away from it where I live right now).
To Mighty Zeus: Can we not get that silly little red flag removed? It's getting a little ridiculous and, while it's true that it probably serves a purpose in attracting more readers to this poster's contributions, it's also starting to wear a little on the eyes of those of us who anyway spend most of their time reading for work.
Thnx.
PT
Especially, since I find that moniker self~deprecating and does it really serve a purpose?
|
|
