|
|
|
Nagraboy said:
Seems the author has selected the parts of DSD he doesn't like and neglected to mention the unsolvable practicalities of 24 bit playback.
Yawn.
What's interesting, after his litany of nonsense arguments, IÖ concludes " The SACD recordings from Jan-Erik Persson at Opus3 are far superior everything released from DVD-A."
|
|
|
Post by Haider April 23, 2012 (12 of 26)
|
|
canonical said:
Why? Do you listen in stereo or MC?
> Yo-Yo Ma Plays Ennio Morricone
Is this a hi-rez recording??
> Richard Tunnicliffe, Linn
What is the recording resolution? Linn productions seem to have 20 or 22kHz cut-offs.
> Royal Fireworks Federico Guglielmo
Recording resolution?
If you are listening in multi-channel, by all means ... go for it. But if you are listening in stereo, these seem unlikely candidates.
The Yo-Yo Ma is a hybrid SACD/CD by Sony Classics, I have only read that it is a 'good' SACD.
Richard Tuncliffe On the Linn website says 192KHz or 96KHz at 24 bits for the studio master?
I do get what you are alluding to but how do you find out if the original recording where recorded to SACD quality and not recorded on an 128 kb/s MP3 dictaphone and then edited and put on a SACD?
|
|
|
Post by Nagraboy April 23, 2012 (13 of 26)
|
|
Most speakers can't produce much above 25kHz and most 50 year old, middle-aged HiFi listeners can't hear anything above about 14kHz at the most anyway. In practice, these concerns are irrelevant.
Secondly, real music doesn't have much content in the high treble in general, whereas at the lower frequencies at which the author says DSD does better, there is a lot more important information in a lot of music which everyone CAN hear. And guess what? People often find the bass much better on SACD than any other digital format.
The musical results speak for themselves as hiredfox would agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haider said:
how do you find out if the original recording where recorded to SACD quality and not recorded on an 128 kb/s MP3 dictaphone and then edited and put on a SACD?
You look on the box (or web site) what the recording resolution is. If they don't state it (or won't tell you), just buy something else.
This site, for reasons that remain murky, does not list the recording resolution, even when the label provides it, ... even when the director of the record label (I'm referring to BIS) admirably asks for it to be included and listed here. All a bit odd.
But you can select pure DSD recordings (which are listed here), or recordings from labels like Pentatone, Channel Classics, Caro Mitis, Hyperion, analog recordings re-issued by Mercury Living Presence, newer recordings from Da Capo (check the resolution on their web site), or new chamber recordings from BIS (check the resolution on their site or eclassical.com). That's a good starting point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nagraboy said:
And guess what? People often find the bass much better on SACD than any other digital format.
Yes! I often notice that the bass on piano recordings on SACD sounds noticeably more real and vivid than on CD.
|
|
|
Post by Nagraboy April 23, 2012 (16 of 26)
|
|
Haider said:
I do get what you are alluding to but how do you find out if the original recording where recorded to SACD quality and not recorded on an 128 kb/s MP3 dictaphone and then edited and put on a SACD?
This site lists a huge number of discs recorded natively in the DSD format.
/dsd
When using the Search function on this site, DSD recorded discs have the DSD symbol next to the listing.
|
|
|
Post by SnaggS April 23, 2012 (17 of 26)
|
|
alan_dorkin said:
Best DSD converters give about 117 dB dynamic range (Grimm & al.), and the format has problems with higher frequencies, that should not be a secret anymore. Best 24 bit converters give about 127 dB dynamic range, and have no high frequency problems before the antialiasing filtering. It is true that no 24 bit converter, AD or DA, achieve true 24 bit performance, 21 or 22 bits at best, but even that is about 2 bits better than the DSD format is capable of. So the "unsolvable practicalities of 24 bit playback" sounds slightly funny. How about the unsolvable practicalities of HF noise shaping, restricted HF dynamic range and uneditability of DSD?
Of course that link given in the OP is not a nice read for DSD believers, as it critically points at the DSD HF problems, which Sony tries to cloud over in their marketing.
All this does not take away the superior impulse response DSD has, and as we can not hear those problem frequencies, and can not fully utilize over 100 dB dynamic range anyway in real life, the whole point is academic. Pure DSD-SACD is better than CD on paper, but not better than 24/96 PCM except in impulse response.
Dynamic range has no use. No music and no speakers can resolve it. You just get a band of sound swimming in a matrix of zeros. Spec sheet hifi at its best. Give me less bits and higher sampling plz.
Vinyl only has 30-40db and it leaves a clean pair of heals to 24/96.
Bah humbug.
|
|
|
Post by Haider April 23, 2012 (18 of 26)
|
|
Kutyatest said:
Here's a bit of advice from someone with just a smattering of technical knowledge, and no preference whatsoever of SACD or DVD-A.
Enjoy listening to the music, and try not to let the technicalities cloud your enjoyment.
Hear hear...
|
|
|
|
|
|
alan_dorkin said:
If you can not hear it what does it matter?
The technically minded can resample the SACD analog outputs at high-res PCM rate and analyze the file on a PC with a frequency analyzer to see it it has a suspicious looking HF cut-off.
Nah - you miss the point. The original poster is seeking the information in advance, so he can make sure he is purchasing SACDs that were actually recorded in hi-rez for his listening test ... not play catch the monkey after he has already spent his money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
alan_dorkin said:
... Of course that link given in the OP is not a nice read for DSD believers, as it critically points at the DSD HF problems, which Sony tries to cloud over in their marketing. ...
You're funny! We all know Sony is not marketing SACD at all.
|
|
