|
|
|
DSD said:
Problem is what you believe is dead wrong.
Why?
|
|
|
Post by DSD January 20, 2013 (62 of 358)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSD said:
Because his "bits are bits" nonsense is dead wrong:
I'm afraid I cannot see any reason in any of those why any difference will exist (let alone be audible). In a digital binary system, it will work or it won't.
re compression - if it's compressed without loss, the system doing so is irrelevant (except for knowing how to read the compressed file); all will be identical upon un-compressing. Think about another type of digital file - one could compress a spreadsheet with a whole host of different software implementations & could send a each one to a colleague. Each file sent in compressed form will be "different" but (and this is crucial) when reversed, the spreadsheets will be identical. That is what lossless compression does & means.
re objectivity - you are free to make your own choices but there is a simple premise that "those who makes a claim without evidence may be dismissed without evidence". Scientific thinking made all of digital audio, www, space travel, modern medicine etc possible & work - you think something makes listening better? Demonstrate why it should or be dismissed. The only subjectivity in listening is how we describe what we hear and what we like; how it is reproduced is firmly in the camp of science.
The last two contain nothing but waffle and/or sales jargon. I refer you to the point above under objectivity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
I'm afraid I cannot see any reason in any of those why any difference will exist (let alone be audible). In a digital binary system, it will work or it won't.
I am now confused why Polly supports this site as surely he would be quite happy with RBCD for stereo at least?
More generally, why is it that the perceived quality of today's RBCD is better than that of those released in the first 10 years of the format?
|
|
|
Post by Nagraboy January 20, 2013 (65 of 358)
|
|
tailspn said:
Here's an interesting video of the RMAF 12 (last October) panel discussion on this topic. It's two hours long, and even has Cookie in it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj7d7Jnx0xc
For us technically interested, the discussion by Andreas Koch of Playback Designs (and the designer/inventor of much of the DSD hardware used today) from about 16 minuets to 34 minuets will answer allot of questions posed here, and dispel all of the misinformation.
Great video Tom, thanks for posting that.
It's great to see more exposure for DSD but I did find it slightly annoying that all these people suddenly proclaiming DSD to be fabulous could have been supporting the SACD bandwagon years ago. I thought David Robinson saying how much better DSD from a hard drive is than from an SACD was an unhelpful and damaging thing to say about SACD, which - right now - is the primary source of DSD recorded music. It just fuels the audiophile neurosis to start needlessly criticising DSD-SACD versus download DSD.
For my part, I don't buy vinyl anymore and won't buy any hi-res downloads until it's a simple process and easy to set up. SACD hits the sweet spot for convenience and quality.
I was inspired by Chad Kassem talking about how he only works from the original analogue master tapes when he puts out an SACD. I think I'll be supporting him through purchases a lot more this year.
|
|
|
Post by tailspn January 20, 2013 (66 of 358)
|
|
zeus said:
If you consider music delivery as a pyramid with MP3/AAC at the bottom, CD on top of this, SA-CD hybrids next, then 64fS downloads and finally 128fS downloads on top, it gets awfully windy at the top.
That panel would make one think that. There's allot of new technology arm waving going on there, but that's how new markets get developed. Never the less, there's some very good information in that video, especially from Andreas, that is worth viewing. His main contribution is only 18 minutes, starting at the 16 minute point. But you're correct. The market for DSD downloads is microscopic now, but growing. Eighteen months ago there were two DACs available that were DSD file capable. Today there are sixteen, with six more to be announced within a few months. But on the other hand, music servers and computer audio are pretty much the province of technically interested early adopters.
But to the point I think you're addressing, it's a diminishing market as you advance beyond CD's, and SACD seems to have the best cost/technology benefit. There really is no sound quality advantage to DSD downloads over its sibling SACD. It's the same data file. But downloads open up a new interest area for us hobbyists, and provide another income stream to a much compromised music recording industry. Especially the independent labels.
The 128fs (Double DSD) thing is all fairy dust. There are no production companies/labels recording in it, there are no editors or post production tools yet, and there's questionable tradeoffs to its adoption. That will change in a year as the Merging Horus gets its 128fs record and play capability turned on, its Pyramix 8 software does DSD, and labels actually record real acoustic music with it. Until then, it's some guys with their Korg 1000/2000 making some non-commercial experiments with previously recorded music (tape), and someone playing a harmonica. Talk about windy….
|
|
|
Post by tailspn January 20, 2013 (67 of 358)
|
|
Nagraboy said:
Great video Tom, thanks for posting that.
It's great to see more exposure for DSD but I did find it slightly annoying that all these people suddenly proclaiming DSD to be fabulous could have been supporting the SACD bandwagon years ago. I thought David Robinson saying how much better DSD from a hard drive is than from an SACD was an unhelpful and damaging thing to say about SACD, which - right now - is the primary source of DSD recorded music. It just fuels the audiophile neurosis to start needlessly criticising DSD-SACD versus download DSD.
+1
I agree!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nagraboy said:
It's great to see more exposure for DSD but I did find it slightly annoying that all these people suddenly proclaiming DSD to be fabulous could have been supporting the SACD bandwagon years ago. I thought David Robinson saying how much better DSD from a hard drive is than from an SACD was an unhelpful and damaging thing to say about SACD, which - right now - is the primary source of DSD recorded music. It just fuels the audiophile neurosis to start needlessly criticising DSD-SACD versus download DSD.
Agree 100%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nagraboy said:
I was inspired by Chad Kassem talking about how he only works from the original analogue master tapes when he puts out an SACD. I think I'll be supporting him through purchases a lot more this year.
He also closely collaborates with Gus Skinas (Super Audio Center) who is responsible for the final DSD/SACD authoring. As far as I am aware, the Sonoma system Gus using is currently the only digital workstation operating at 2.8MHz.
|
|
|
Post by Max74 January 20, 2013 (70 of 358)
|
|
tailspn said:
Here's an interesting video of the RMAF 12 (last October) panel discussion on this topic. It's two hours long, and even has Cookie in it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj7d7Jnx0xc
For us technically interested, the discussion by Andreas Koch of Playback Designs (and the designer/inventor of much of the DSD hardware used today) from about 16 minuets to 34 minuets will answer allot of questions posed here, and dispel all of the misinformation.
I find what Andreas starts talking about at roughly the 26:00 minute mark very pertinent (with regards to the provenance of DSD material). One may argue of its actual importance or value, but personally speaking (as an average consumer) I'd like to know I'm listening to something produced and preserved with DSD from the beginning when I purposely wish to seek out a recording in the DSD domain.
This should be an easy marketing win for record labels who know that there are consumers out there who care (and are not necessarily enthusiasts who have time or the wherewithal to research this).
|
|
