In Reply to: Re: What you believe ... posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 18, 2007 at 10:00:30:
--I didn’t see this until today, so of course, I must respond, lol.
"Your comments about the conversion processes as fatally flawing DSD are nonsense. Every recording medium is "converted" between types of information and if you want to see some jagged nasties, take a look at equalization curves necessary to make analog work. Do you understand the principles of a cutting head?"
OK - add patronising into the accusations I've levied at you.
If you don't recognise the fundamental difference between analogue and digital I won't add any further comment.
--Duh, of course I do, I am simply ticking off the types of transduction problems in both domains, with analog presenting the most optimised, perhaps (after 100 years of experience) but certainly the most limited.
"The real question is which process of transcription best preserves the original event and that is DSD, at least in our current technology."
Again, in your opinion. This is where you let yourself down, because you don't recognise that there can be any other opinion than your own. Of course there will others who believe as you do, but there are equally as many who don't and who have at the very least as much experience as yourself in recording studios where it appears you have very little experience in fact.
I helped to build Reborn Studios in Whalley, Lancashire for my then boss John Ashworth and his business partner Dennie Laine, formerly of Wings and the Moody Blues.
I sat through the recording of various albums and was able to compere the live sound with the recorded medium, both during and after production.
--Well, you assume again, my recording experience goes back to tubed Ampex, and even direct-to-disc, both studio and live, over nearly forty years. And, on both sides of the glass. As to name dropping ... please.
Unfortunately there was no DSD (tragic!) but the PCM masters sounded identical to the live feed before entering the Pro-tools mincer, but that wouldn't lead me to declare myself 'holder of the truth' and attempt to ridicule anyone who didn't believe PCM was the very finest recording/archiving medium available today.
--Well, here we are in agreement, Pro-tools … urgggh! And I simply crossed swords with you when you gleefully pronoused DSD dead, and good riddance … which is neither true (dead part) or accurate (it diserves to die). If high resolution PCM is your reference, of course it sounds best, because you have not experienced anything better.
I'd respect anyone who argued that Analogue or DSD was 'better', unless of course they were patronising, condescending individuals with a superiority complex.
--LOL, and I feel the same way about self-righteous, shallow thinking people, who do the same thing (albiet with less self-awareness). You are absolutely correct … I can be condescending, but only when it is warranted.
"I know this because the specs support it, the experts support it, and in direct experience with all three recording media, my personal experience supports it."
You know it? No, you BELIEVE it!
The experts support it? No, some experts believe it! Some experts believe analogue is 'best', some believe high bitrate PCM is 'best', but of course they're misguided right?
--Search the literature for DSD as a recording and archiving medium and look at the writing there, NOT SACD. You are getting people’s treatment of SACD as a distribution medium, and frankly, it is almost impossible to tell if an SACD has taken a trip down PCM land somewhere in the process, because many have.
"I have done listening sessions with groups as diverse as the leadership of Concord Records (who migrated to DSD, at least when they were actually interested in making real recordings), the Basie Band, and one particularly interesting sessions with the Manhattan Transfer."
Wow! I'll get you a T-shirt printed shall I?
--Oh, now which of us is being snotty? Lol
Concorde migrated to DSD because they gambled that SACD would be a success and were wrong.
--And you know this, because like I was, you were in the room when they were first exposed to DSD?
"And referring to, and appreciating the "finer things" does not make me a snob; that is what this hobby is supposed to be about."
Appreciating the finer things in life doesn't make somebody a snob - what makes somebody a snob is when they look down on anyone who they believe doesn't appreciate or can't recognise what they do.
--The fact that you annoyed me, does not mean I look down on you, nor does the challenge I have made to your position. My references to gourmet pursuits are analogous to audio, at least for most of us. I hardly think that most audiophiles consider themselves to be “just one of the guys.â€
"Would you sniff at an oenophile who rightfully opines that a properly preserved pre war Latour makes the best of California just grape juice?"
Of course not, but equally I wouldn't sniff at the guy who enjoys eating the grapes and condemn him for eating 'crap' (the adjective you used I believe?)
--If I remember right, the “crap†description was for Velveeta, and I will stick with it … it’s not even “cheese†it is a “cheese product.†I can’t get mice to eat it on traps.
"Ok, admittedly I have been batting you around a bit, but when you blithely choose to trample upon some very hard fought ground,without any direct experience to cite you make yourself a target."
You've been trying to bat me around but you keep swinging at fresh air. As explained, I probably have far, far more experience than yourself when it comes to comparing a live performance with the subsequent recording, but in all honesty that means diddly squat as I haven't experienced DSD in the recording studio have I?
Then again, why should I when an SACD disc is EXACTLY the same resolution as the studio master is it not?
In that case I have a vast experience with DSD masters and am not impressed; perhaps this is why......
--Well, from my martial arts days, there are those who insist they aren’t being touched, even though their legs wobble, but I do understand that.
You do not have more experience than I do, it is just comforting to you to believe so.
And NO, the SACD disc may bear little resemblance to the master, just as with records and CD’s. There is no protection from ham-handed engineers and silly mistakes made in moving from the master to distribution.
Ing. Öhman: DSD (the coding technique used in SACD) is much better than CD in the low frequency range. The problems occur at higher frequencies. The noise level in the ultrasound register is more than 100 dB higher (-40dB under maximum output level, using narrow band analysis) when compared to DVD-A (-144dB under maximum output level, full spectrum noise).
--Notice he conveniently does not mention WHERE the noise is … and if you want to see noise, take a look at biasing for open reel decks.
Another way to describe the difference: The noise [power] from SACD is more than 20,000 million times higher than from DVD-A!
--Ok, he is asserting that there is 20 million to the tenth more noise in the signal? Please, you really don’t believe this, do you?
But maybe it is more relevant to know that this ultrasound noise from SACD is enough to warm up the tweeters voice coil with some detectable influence on reproduced sound. Besides, the ultrasonic may also affect the audible sound by down mixing in the air, at least at higher sound pressures.
--It is true that some electronics are not pleased with ultrasonics, and they might oscillate, because they were designed for 20-20,000 world. However, most high quality electronics do fine, and after using SACD since it was first made commercially available, I have yet to have any issues arise from the broad frequency response.
Do this, check DSD specs for WHERE the noise shaping takes place, then look at the frequency response of your electronics. I think you will be comforted, and corrected.
Well, this has been fun, but I think we have flogged this horse sufficiently,
The Good Doctor
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: What you believe ... - Dr. S 14:53:01 05/20/07 (1)
- Yes - horse flogged but it's been fun :0) [nt] - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 15:40:59 05/20/07 (0)