Post by rammiepie November 30, 2011 (241 of 424)
|
|
Polarius T said:
I guess you, too, have trouble parsing those long, angry tirades the guy is posting. The issue was presumably reel-to-reel vs. digital, not RBCD vs. SACD (at least before it got buried under all that ranting).
Or you're just threadjacking? Re-read AmonRa's posts if you want to stay on track.
And where's the Thought Police that jumps in every time someone mentions B*u*a*? "This is SA-CD.net, not reel-to-reel.net."
AmonRa must have been heavily influenced by James Joyce's stream of consciousness tome "Ulysses."
Why else babble on so incessantly on an SACD forum about such utter nonsense..........
Aurally challenged is what AmonRa really is........
|
|
|
Post by Ogrady November 30, 2011 (242 of 424)
|
|
Polarius T said:
I guess your best of all psychology teachers forgot to tell you about the value of anecdotal evidence in science (sounds people say they hear and other such experiences).
Moreover, even if we'd take your subjective perceptions seriously, it's your own "argument method" that's "disfunctional" (sic): you criticize early examples, almost prototypes, of digital technology by comparing it to fully developed analog means, and do that moreover based on the language of corporate marketing departments (who would ever do that?). That the technical realization wasn't ideal at the time (on either the recording side or the delivery side) everyone knows. But that's no reason to fault the medium itself, what can be accomplished with it. What you seem to want to talk about is a technology and certain techniques still at their infancy, but to find out about what the medium itself is capable of you need to step into the present day. Or, the way things seem to be going, just wait: there's been a steep learning curve that shows no signs of abating. Have you heard any digital recordings as of late?
So where have *you* been -- buried under all those vintage tapes?
I'm not following you Polarius, first you question the possibility of a teacher forgetting to tell me about the importance of anecdotal evidence in science and then reverse this in the very next paragraph to talk of 'taking my subjective perceptions seriously'.
So, which way do you see me writing? I realize the written word is highly inaccurate and one's thoughts are easily interpreted completely another way even when one is trying to be as precise as reasonable without being ridiculous.
My main aim is to center on the idea that 44.1khz PCM is not the end all be all of recorded music as alluded to by AmonRa where his belief system is that one need look no further. For AmonRa it's 'damn the torpedo's full speed ahead to 44.1khz audio nirvana'.
Yes, I did bring current analogue tape performance into the discussion as AmonRa originally discussed 1950's tape performance as his argument against current 44.1khz PCM. CD was definitely not at prototype level in 1988, that's about 10 years earlier. In 1988 we were already in the 3rd level of CD player evolution if memory serves.
When did I last hear any digital recordings? Last night and almost every night.
How I evaluate what I hear would be a valid question to get an idea of what gives me qualification to believe 44.1khz PCM is lacking. I have the privilege of recording, (in 128fs DSD) live acoustic performances. It is being right up front with my recorder and then listening again to this same performance over my equipment that I am biased towards DSD/open reel analogue tape then hi-res PCM with 44.1khz PCM the bottom of what I'll listen to seriously. CD level performance is just fine, for critical listening; no it's not.
Both tape and DSD can reproduce a piano performance in my listening space that sounds the same as the performance of the same thing I just heard live, closing my eyes to relive a performance is wonderful, would be great to share this with others. Multiple strings in so many recordings have an edge to them, tape was the first in my listening equipment that would reproduce multiple strings silky smooth, this new Mytek DSD DAC is the second piece of gear I own to do so.
I own an extremely musical and accurate open reel tape recorder which was the last high end professional deck ever made, 1992 or so, (the current Otari is at best a broadcast deck, it's lacking, Otari stopped making their professional decks long ago), multiple PCM recording devices, two DSD recording devices, 3 SACD Players and the latest just released Mytek DSD DAC. I'm not locked in the past... at all, I've been waiting with baited breath for digital to catch up!
FINALLY, as in October of this year, I have a digital solution where in DSD, I can record and play back music that is a match for my reel to reel deck, as in I can't tell which one is playing! This is as anecdotal as it gets yes?
Vintage tapes? What about current ones? I 'make' my own.
My 5400ES Sony SACD player is no where near what this Mytek DSD DAC is doing for timbre and sound stage and by thus by extension, no where near my tape deck as well.
Lastly, I would presume the spelling of 'disfunctional' spelled as 'dysfunctional' is more to your liking?
The word is spelled both ways actually and has been for some time.
disfunction
1927, variant of dysfunction (q.v.).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by Ogrady November 30, 2011 (243 of 424)
|
|
AmonRa said:
I really do get under your skin... You need about 30 times more words than me.
No... actually... there's no point in attempting to discuss anything with you AmonRa.
I suspect words flow from my keyboard quiet easily and it DOES take a lot more words to explain a position than counterpoint, which takes almost no words and almost no thought.
'No it doesn't', or 'yes it does' in 180 degree reversal of someone's position takes 3 words.
|
|
|
Post by Ogrady November 30, 2011 (244 of 424)
|
|
rammiepie said:
And, Ogrady, don't forget about RBCD's pre-ringing characteristics which the Meridian SooLoos, 808.3 and new 861 v.6 address (with an apodizing filter) which renders RBCD playback MUCH more bearable.
RBCD needs too much coddling where formats such as DVD~A and SACD are effortless.
IMO, if we didn't have those stupid format wars between DVD~A and SACD which really did MORE harm than good, hi~rez digital would've captured the imagination of more than just a niche market and technology could've been poured into making better early players instead of causing so much confusion in the marketplace and all those wonderful vinyl releases could've been either DVD~A or SACD multichannel.
I think I have an idea what you mean rammiepie, I'm no longer using an optical player at all, all my digital is read from a HD, be it a DSD recorder or from my PC through a software player with multiple filtering/aliasing options output directly to my DAC.
This was a big improvement over any of my CD/SACD players.
I think we're about to see DSD take off in down-loadable form. So we'll have our SACD 'cake' and be able to eat it too!
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie November 30, 2011 (245 of 424)
|
|
Ogrady, that's {HD} certainly the way to go but do you have any multichannel DSD files, as well?
It has been said that Blu~ray is the BEST 5" optical disc ever manufactured with its bountiful storage capacity, etc...........a simple $250 player will give you an awesome Hi~Def picture but of course, I wouldn't expect too much from the audio portion at that paltry price point.
And quite honestly, I would've been quite content with DVD~Audio because it could've utilized all those DVD pressing plants already peppered throughout the world, has a larger storage capacity than SACD (one can fit over 2 1/2 hours of mch content at 24/48 AND stereo content (96/24) on ONE side of the disc and instead of dying the slow death it invariably did, refinements could've been made in that technology over time. And a lot of 96/24 masters and analogue>PCM content are being transferred to SACD, anyway......
What we have now is SONY controlling all the pressing plants and except for a few titles, has basically abandoned the format.
So in the end, SONY giveth and SONY taketh away.
Format Wars are like modern warfare: A No Win Situation and everyone loses.
|
|
|
Post by Ogrady November 30, 2011 (246 of 424)
|
|
rammiepie said:
Ogrady, that's {HD} certainly the way to go but do you have any multichannel DSD files, as well?
............
Format Wars are like modern warfare: A No Win Situation and everyone loses.
No multichannel DSD as yet. I consider that I don't have a real multi-channel playback system being that I'd be limited to SACD over HDMI to my Yamaha multichannel receiver.
I suppose I could cobble together enough mix and match speakers to hear the result and I have thought of it, but feel I'd be disappointed, as I am/was when I listen to my receiver in stereo mode.
Actually now that I have this newly discovered DSD played as a file to my DAC in native DSD ability, my SACD purchases are on the rise. As in, I never knew the level of what's captured on them until now, oh I suspected the information was there but my 5400ES never let me in on the party.
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie November 30, 2011 (247 of 424)
|
|
Ogrady said:
No multichannel DSD as yet. I consider that I don't have a real multi-channel playback system being that I'd be limited to SACD over HDMI to my Yamaha multichannel receiver.
I suppose I could cobble together enough mix and match speakers to hear the result and I have thought of it, but feel I'd be disappointed, as I am/was when I listen to my receiver in stereo mode.
Actually now that I have this newly discovered DSD played as a file to my DAC in native DSD ability, my SACD purchases are on the rise. As in, I never knew the level of what's captured on them until now, oh I suspected the information was there but my 5400ES never let me in on the party.
Ogrady. Don't discount the 5400ES..........I suspect it's more your Yamaha Receiver than the 5400. No, the 5400ES is NOT state of the art.....but I would guess it's about 85-90% (in mch) of what's really on those discs.
If, at some point, you do upgrade (I knows times are tough), a better pre~amp would better serve your 5400ES. Also I swapped an HDMI cord with a better one and it did make a major improvement although a lot of posters think a 10 cent HDMI cable is as good as any (believe me, NOT true).
At times, the 5400ES simply amazes me with its musicality, especially in multichannel....so please don't put it on e~bay just yet. For the money, it's a pretty amazing machine......I think (no, know) better than the OPPOs especially via HDMI (I've DONE the comparison).
Two more tips re: 5400: use a better power cord and try elevating it on brass feet....also it needs about 250-300 hours (some say more) of break~in. Those two tweaks will yield a big improvement, believe me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
rammiepie said:
AmonRa must have been heavily influenced by James Joyce's stream of consciousness tome "Ulysses."
Why else babble on so incessantly on an SACD forum about such utter nonsense..........
Aurally challenged is what AmonRa really is........
What babble, nonsense? I've seen none thus far, only terse and clear statements of fact that anybody can check if they want (they usually don't).
I wasn't talking about AmonRa but about those posts addressed to him.
And, apropos babbling on an SACD forum, look at the posts you make. How many are there without that ad byline about your DVD player and its DVD performance? That's a competing format (where's Arnaldo the Watchdog when you need him!). And apropos nonsense, shall we go into those lubes, tints, radiation catchers, and other magical substances you favor for your audio cult...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ogrady said:
1) I'm not following you Polarius, first you question the possibility of a teacher forgetting to tell me about the importance of anecdotal evidence in science and then reverse this in the very next paragraph to talk of 'taking my subjective perceptions seriously'.... So, which way do you see me writing?
2) ...My main aim is to center on the idea that 44.1khz PCM is not the end all be all of recorded music as alluded to by AmonRa where his belief system is that one need look no further.
3) The word is spelled both ways actually and has been for some time.
1) Both ways, and that's part of the problem (although I did say "IF we take your perceptions seriously..."). Measurements are there to give us an idea of verifiable performance so we don't have to every time check everything ourselves with, moreover, nothing but limited means to do so. They obviously can't cover everything, such as, for instance, subjective "listener pleasure," and many people, for whatever reason, indeed find the distortions and limitations of, say, tube and analog technology more to their liking next to the accuracy and greater dynamic range digital means offer (these are the usual complaints: "too many details," "it gets too loud in loud passages and too quiet in the quiet passages," etc.). Sometimes indeed too much information and great precision can be found disturbing by some: to take an example, the poster DSD (Teresa) here favors the sound from her basically MP3-quality Mac Mini over hi-rez media, thinking that from it she hears real "hi rez."
2) No one is saying that incl. AmonRa so that's just a strawman. What I think myself, however, is that the personal skills of the recording and mastering engineers (and editors) matter signficantly more than any magical numbers (talk about measurement obsession) within a medium, and that this is too often ignored or overlooked. And these have really improved, quite drastically so, over the years, as you too can then tell since you listen to today's recordings in today's equipment. Which means that the "inherent limitations" of the medium weren't that inherent after all.
3) I stand corrected, I guess. "Dis" is Latin and "dys" is Greek and while what you say may then be true where you live they don't mean exactly the same thing.
PT
|
|
|
Post by DSD December 1, 2011 (250 of 424)
|
|
Polarius T said:
...DSD (Teresa) here favors the sound from her basically MP3-quality Mac Mini over hi-rez media, thinking that from it she hears real "hi rez."
You don't have a clue what I favor do you? I'll give you a hint, my moniker is DSD. I prefer DSD recorded SACDs.
My Mac Mini is for music not available on SACD or DVD-Audio. I don't like the sound quality of any 16/44.1k music files including MP3. The Mac Mini doesn't start to sound good until one plays 24 bit lossless music files and the best sounding are at 24/88.2k or higher.
|
|
