Post by mdt November 24, 2005 (11 of 22)
|
|
Scott said:
I think his most interesting comment was on the "softening" effect of DSD that he believes does not exist similarly in 24 bit PCM. I wonder if anyone could comment on whether the effect he's describing sounds like it would occur in someone who sustained mild hearing loss and doesn't realize it...
Have posted the same several times by mistake. How can i delete the extra postings ?
|
|
|
Post by mdt November 24, 2005 (12 of 22)
|
|
Scott said:
I think his most interesting comment was on the "softening" effect of DSD that he believes does not exist similarly in 24 bit PCM. I wonder if anyone could comment on whether the effect he's describing sounds like it would occur in someone who sustained mild hearing loss and doesn't realize it...
Shouldn't think so. In that case they would hear everything softened,but not realise it, since they'd have no reference.
|
|
|
Post by mdt November 24, 2005 (13 of 22)
|
|
Scott said:
I think his most interesting comment was on the "softening" effect of DSD that he believes does not exist similarly in 24 bit PCM. I wonder if anyone could comment on whether the effect he's describing sounds like it would occur in someone who sustained mild hearing loss and doesn't realize it...
Shouldn't think so. In that case they would hear everything softened,but not realise it, since they'd have no reference.
|
|
|
Post by mdt November 24, 2005 (14 of 22)
|
|
Scott said:
I think his most interesting comment was on the "softening" effect of DSD that he believes does not exist similarly in 24 bit PCM. I wonder if anyone could comment on whether the effect he's describing sounds like it would occur in someone who sustained mild hearing loss and doesn't realize it...
Shouldn't think so. In that case they would hear everything softened,but not realise it, since they'd have no reference.
|
|
|
Post by mdt November 24, 2005 (15 of 22)
|
|
mdt said:
Shouldn't think so. In that case they would hear everything softened,but not realise it, since they'd have no reference.
Anyone know how i can delete the multiple postings made by mistake ?
|
|
|
Post by mdt November 24, 2005 (16 of 22)
|
|
ramesh said:
Absolutely. The first time I ever heard DSD was when Mark Levinson ( the man not the Harman ) played me a piano work recorded onto a hard drive, over his Red Rose demo system. ( I think he mistook me for some Asian tycoon rather than a scruffy nobody from downunder ). The edge of the piano attack was reduced, and he remarked that most people had become 'accustomed' to PCM sound, so they mistake sonic artefacts for the real thing.
From the impression i got on Levinson, by reading his booklet notes to the Red Rose SA-CD sampler, i believe he merely loves music and is pasionate about his work, surely he simply enjoyed to give his enthusiasm on to someone else and didn't think about wether you were a tycoon or not.
I believe he's very right on that. I've made the same experience when upgrading my Hi-Fi, it kept sounding more and more "normal". Since this also meant less spectacular in some cases, i some times doughted the improovement until i realized that i had been listening to an effect. I think the same goes for comparisions of PCM and DSD. When i listen to CD it seems fine (upsampling to 24/172), SA-CD seems better in direct comparision but it's about subtleties not hughe differences. After having listened only to SA-CD for some time, when switching back to CD the differnce seems hughe and the CD sound unbearably harsh and compressed.
|
|
|
Post by Scott November 25, 2005 (17 of 22)
|
|
ramesh said:
Absolutely. The first time I ever heard DSD was when Mark Levinson ( the man not the Harman ) played me a piano work recorded onto a hard drive, over his Red Rose demo system. ( I think he mistook me for some Asian tycoon rather than a scruffy nobody from downunder ). The edge of the piano attack was reduced, and he remarked that most people had become 'accustomed' to PCM sound, so they mistake sonic artefacts for the real thing.
On recordings straddling the digital divide, eg DGG's Beethoven piano sonatas played by Gilels in their last remastering as a set, it is palpable how more natural the analogue recordings are, whereas the later digital ones are overlit, though they sound more impressive in terms of brilliance on a boombox.
For piano music, I also find this "softening effect" to be the case. It is very noticeable on Alfred Brendel's recent of Mozart Piano Sonatas, for example. I don't base my opinion on anything other than my own hearing and mental comparison of the SACD to how a live piano sounds.
The reason for my initial comment is that I also think the "softening effect" is not really an effect, but a more accurate rendering of how the music usually sounds. As someone noted above, it would seem to have to do in some way with either the reproduction of certain sound frequencies or how the listener hears the same.
I thought it was interesting that someone in the recording industry would use such a non-technical term or description for a DSD vs. PCM comparison. I suppose there are always things that cannot be accurately described, but to my mind using such a description for sound would be akin a doctor trying to describe a faulty heart rhythm by "sounding it out" rather than being able to identify and state that the patient is in "A-Fib" (atrial fibrulation) or something similar.
|
|
|
Post by kwcc November 26, 2005 (18 of 22)
|
|
Scott said-
The reason for my initial comment is that I also think the "softening effect" is not really an effect, but a more accurate rendering of how the music usually sounds.
Hi All-
Been lurking for months, but had to come in on this one. I think the above hits the nail on the head. However, you have to take into account the kind of music the engineer in this article mixes (rock and roll). The gestalt for recording rock is totally different from classical and jazz since there is no such thing as a live, un-amplified, acoustically existing performance of a rock song. The music exists only through the mixing board, whether live or on recording.
Engineers in the pop field will have spent their whole recent careers trying to take advantage of the sound qualities of PCM recording. They've spent 25 years mixing records to sound bright, immediate and transparent. Of course the actual warmth of real musical sound sounds foreign to them! Of course the engineers on this project worked toward a sound concept better suited for PCM.
KW
|
|
|
Post by mdt November 26, 2005 (19 of 22)
|
|
kwcc said:
Hi All-
Been lurking for months, but had to come in on this one. I think the above hits the nail on the head. However, you have to take into account the kind of music the engineer in this article mixes (rock and roll). The gestalt for recording rock is totally different from classical and jazz since there is no such thing as a live, un-amplified, acoustically existing performance of a rock song. The music exists only through the mixing board, whether live or on recording.
Engineers in the pop field will have spent their whole recent careers trying to take advantage of the sound qualities of PCM recording. They've spent 25 years mixing records to sound bright, immediate and transparent. Of course the actual warmth of real musical sound sounds foreign to them! Of course the engineers on this project worked toward a sound concept better suited for PCM.
KW
That's right but i think it doesn't mater when comparing DSD to PCM. To compare the two one has to only compare theire outputs to the feed. It doesn't matter wether this is a bright Pop-mix or a classical one point recording. It's only about how close the output is to the feed.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp November 26, 2005 (20 of 22)
|
|
Scott said:
I thought it was interesting that someone in the recording industry would use such a non-technical term or description for a DSD vs. PCM comparison. I suppose there are always things that cannot be accurately described, but to my mind using such a description for sound would be akin a doctor trying to describe a faulty heart rhythm by "sounding it out" rather than being able to identify and state that the patient is in "A-Fib" (atrial fibrulation) or something similar.
Scott,
as someone in the recording industry, I am very leery of folks using technical terms to bolster their subjective evaluations. Technical phenomena may not relate to the effects that you hear in any direct way. The first example that comes to mind is jitter. We can measure jitter, but can we predict what the listener will hear, given the measurement? Variations in the music itself, not to mention the converters and later components, up to and including the listener's ears (by which I always mean the ear/brain hearing apparatus) may create sonic artifact "A," or sonic artifact "B," or no artifact, as the listener perceives it.
So to talk about jitter, or one of many measurable nasties, as if it were a certain "sound" would be to take this giant leap off the intellectual cliff.
If the doctor (to use your example) hears a sound but that sound may be common to several diagnoses, he is out of line to say "A-Fib" on that basis alone. Both he and the patient are better off if he just says, "thu-THUMP" until further information is available.
Note to mdt about hearing: I totally agree. Most engineers have some degree of hearing loss by the time they figure out what they're doing. Their brains compensate. I mean, of course, up to a point.
|
|
