 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.151.252.254
In Reply to: Re: SACD is the High Resolution Audio format, DualDisc is a VIDEO format, Mr. DVD-A Cheerleader re-read Sony's quote: posted by Neil Wilkes on August 25, 2004 at 08:26:11:
Why's that? SACD gives you everything but the video (which audiophiles don't care about anyway), and better sound (IMPHO) to boot. Joe Sixpack may not buy the SACD if it's not single inventory, but he's not gonna care about a DVD-A/CD flipper either, for the same reason. He won't buy them unless he has no choice.
Follow Ups:
Because in my equally honest opinion, there has been more propaganda from the SACD companies than came out of any other source.
It just does not deliver what it says it does.
DSD64 is a single bit system, right?
This can not even come close to the quality of 24 bit (or even 16 bit) PCM without heroic noise shaping techniques. So much so that the bandwidth of SACD is actually the same as CD - an upper limit of 22KHz, because everything above that is swamped with noise.
If you consider information theory for a minute, you will understand that properly dithered & shaped CD specifies 65,536 levels, whereas DSD can only specify 2 as it is a single bit system. Therefore to have the same information capacity as a CD, SACD needs to have a sampling rate 32,000 times higher than CD. Which it does not.
SACD sounds better played through Linear Phase 20KHz LPF, as it gets rid of more noise that way. Strange how Sony don't mention that. As it is, the upper limit is by design 22KHz anyway. Because all that is present above that figure is noise, and lots of it.With SACD, you are only hearing the equivalent of a well mastered, properly produced CD. The only reason CD sounds so bad to so many people is the current trend for "louder" pressings, at the expense of the dynamics and causing enormous listener fatigue. Which is why most people think it sounds bad.
DVD-A on the other hand offers genuine 24 bit 96KHz multichannel audio, and the fidelity is far far superior to SACD. The only possible reason that the differences are not so audible can probably be attributed to the fact that there is simply nothing above 22KHz that carries any musically significant information.
Also, being a single bit system, you cannot actually do anything to DSD without it turning into multibit again, thus defeating the supposed point.
Quite simply, DSD is the least efficient method possible for recording, PCM is the most efficient.
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
SACDs frequency response extends to 100kHz, 24 Bit 96kHz extends to 44kHz. SACD samples the signal 2,822,400 times per second 24 96kHz 96,000 times per second!Christine Tham has measured the high frequency noise between 20kHz - 50kHz to be 5%, that is 10 times less that LP in that range. In the supersonics I really don't think 5% of the signal being "noise" will even be audible.
Also the resolution of a PURE DSD recorded SACD is much higher than even 196kHz 24 Bit, all you have do is listen to one, it's really that simple.
And DVD-Audio even at 192kHz still has a PCM sound signature that CHANGES the sound. Anyone who is an engineer will clarify this for me but DSD was designed to be "transparent" with no sound of it own. Hundreds of tests have been done and DSD sound exactly like the live microphone feed, even Dolby S Analog sounds closer to microphone feed than even 192kHz 24 Bit PCM. The problem with DVD-Audio is it is still PCM, it is a better PCM but still PCM!!!!!
Where as SACD offers a sonic realism that was before only available with Analog tape at 30ips or LPs on the very best turntables. PCM cannot and will never be able to offer this degree of sonic realism, it is impossible. And it is unfair to ask PCM to perform in this matter.
Neil once you get to actually hear a PURE DSD recording SACD you will be singing a different tune.
And to compare SACD to CD PROVES You have NEVER heard a good SACD!
Anyone who has ever heard a correctly recorded and played SACD will accept nothing less
Pure simple logic,
Teresa
lots of credibility .OTOH , Teresa , you have none .
LOL
ZS KEKL
P.S. Be sure to read the link .
- http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=hirez&n=171493&highlight=Elliot+Mazer&r= (Open in New Window)
I hope so, or you won't get most audiophiles.
The details are left to the content provider. With the exception of Silverline the vast majority of titles are being released with dedicated stereo tracks.There is little point in upsampling lower rate digital sources to 192K, which is simply an exercise in specsmanship.
Regards,
John Kotches
Read it. He never says one sounds better. But you are just stirring the shit pot, so your accuracy goes out the window for a chance to snipe.
that I provided , you will realise that you have made a mistake .Even if you don't read the link , you are still wrong .
LOL
ZS KEKL
Engineer Elliot Mazer must be deaf, working with all that LOUD, DISTORTED ROCK, no wonder he cannot hear the superiority of SACD.I trust my own golden ears and they agree with Michael Bishop, Robert Woods, Joe Harley, Tom Jung, Tim de Paravicini and others who actually make excellent sounding realistic recordings when they say DSD is the most realistic format they have ever worked with.
Sometimes I wonder if you have a brain? as I know you don't have ears or you would be listening to SACD not DVD-Audio. Have you ever just stopped to think why 95% of the world's Audiophile labels release SACD and not DVD-Audio? When they are selling SOUND QUALITY? Really are you that stupid?
Sometimes I do not know why I waste my time with you, maybe you will fall in love with a girl who have a great SACD player and then you will know how WRONG you have been for the last 4 years!
Oh Well,
Teresa
of SACD .It was about the taste of Sony's money .
LOL
Teresa , it's time for you to wake up . There's a reason why it's called the record BUSINESS .
LOL
ZS KEKL
P.S. Once again , be sure to read the link .
- http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=hirez&n=178681&highlight=Eargle&r=&session= (Open in New Window)
ago. And being a small company Delos does not have the funds to release recordings in any high resolution format. All of his recordings are DSD to CD.Why?
Because it sounds more REALISTIC
And someday Delos hopes to re-enter the SACD market. So now you know why no new SACDs for Delos even though all of their sessions are DSD. Because companies no longer get help from Sony.
So how do you explain Telarc with over 120 SACDs and 2 DVD-Audio's? Or any of the other 100 or so Audiophile labels still releasing SACD with no help from Sony BECAUSE THEY SOUND BETTER AND AUDIOPHILE LABELS LIVE AND DIE BASED THEIR ON SOUND QUALITY. You KNOW NOTHING about the dedication of audiophile labels and why they exist.
There are now 2,355 SACDs, how many DVD-Audio's? DVD-Audio is really in a sorry state.
What format is getting RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence in High Resolution? SACD!
It's time for you to look at reality. DVD-Audio is dead and sonically inferior to SACD.
Those are just the plain facts, period.
Teresa
after all, once you have the equipment and know how to do it, why bother changing to PCM? Especially if there's "no difference when properly done" (as he told me he felt about DSD vs 96/24).I still say the skill of the people making the recording is WAY more important than differences between formats.
Acually, many indie studios use DVD-A, they just dont get the distribution of the big boys. So far, I have 14 DVD-A recordings, one facility. In my town, 18 studios now use DVD-A but for indie projects that get limited to no distribution, the point is moot. One facility in New Orleans actually claims more than 50 recordings to date. They will play on any DVD player and have video content as well...but I think their is room for both formats. I just wonder what Blu-Ray will do to DVD? Blu-ray is not going to be audio only at all.
.
That's very interesting, I am wondering about a way to connect all the studios that do limited runs or independents that publish their own DVD-A titles.If you want, you can send me an eMail directly
Best
Eric
..
.
Urrrh.. I hope, you got it, I sent 2
.
As I said, I need to read it carefully and will get back to you tomorrowI haven't read it all yet, but I can tell you that it's really exciting
Cheers
Eric
Eric, I will be getting an email out to you shortly. Have you made some recordings that are either going to be on the market or willing to be on the market? I am trying to form a consortium of independants and I have willing parties. It is a detailed situation. Lot of people interested so far.
.
B.T.W I do know the purchasing manager at DVDEmpire.com. I could put you in touch with him.(For example, last year I managed to get all the Arts Music classical DVD-As distributed through DVDEmpire.)
Very cool Martin! May I send you an email? The artists need all the help they can get. Many folks that have heard some of this are delighted.
.
.
Please do, your idea sounds great, and I'll be glad to help if I can. This board is a good hub for getting something started.Best
Eric
somehow they can't hear it.....
Saying one format is better than the other on the basis of theory is kind of dumb when you can listen to the results. I also felt that PCM processing sounded more reasonable than DSD - because of the increased noise with DSD - but the only important thing is how they sound. My current favorite sounding disks are DVD-Audio - Big Phat Bands, Grover Washington's Winelight, and the Steely Dans. Maybe that's partially because DVD-Audio seems to handle surround mix better, in general. But I have to say that the most amazingly lifelike reproduction I've heard of voice and instrument are the vocals of James Taylor in JT and the horns in the Bob Minzer Big Band's Gently - both on SACD. The one disk I have in both formats is the David Sanborn album - and it sounds marginally better in SACD. I know that the difference is greatly affected by how the original was recorded and which players are used for each format, so I don't really draw many conclusions from that. What should be disregarded is someone who has only DVD-A telling us how much better DVD-A is, or someone with only SACD capability telling us how much better SACD is. That is useless information. Both formats are capable of amazing sound.Craig
Several recording engineers feel the same way. Look at Michael Bishop's tests at Telarc where they chose DSD after listening to microphone feeds from both over several events.
in short, IMO, SACD is not hiresolution, is not practical either from a user's (think DSP for ex.) or "producer" (only reason it is being produced is because Sony subsidizes it) point of view, hinders the progress we were expecting in quality reproduction. It's all documented."SACD" can be good (great!) in limited parts of the spectrum, some notes here and there, some instruments and percussions and is capable of displaying spatial cues effectively. but taken in general, it can sound irritating when you expect a highly resolving source, and lacks the perceived dynamics of properly done DVD-A (and for that matter CDs'!). In this, "theory" and actual listening are in line in pointing to a less than ideal format in DSD/SACD in its current form. I agree with you that its (SACD's) euphonics can be pleasing at times and theres nothing wrong in liking just that...*but it is not a hires format!* nor should it be competing and hindering the only viable (well not really it seems) truly hires format in DVD-A. its a shame and its costing us in the long run.
Sorry for the (ad nauseum) rant.
"lacks the perceived dynamics of properly done DVD-A"NonA,
I'm sorry but this honestly contradicts my experience. You seem to me to state rather matter of factly but the fact is that a large number of prominent engineers prefer DSD to PCM. In fact, the world is quite divided on this.
Furthermore to claim DSD is not high resolution is completely ridiculous. It is clearly capturing more data and revealing more musical information across the spectrum than Red Book CD and IMHO 24/96khz.
Even several prominent DVDA supporters will agree with me on this point.
Well, i stated it as a matter of fact because it is my experience. As you note the "world is quite divided on this". My claim that SACD is not high resolution is in relation to what i consider the current reference of 24/192 in terms of "capturing more data". However, it's not just about the absolute # of data and bit transfer rate as you seem to suggest, it is about the compromises current DSD/SACD has to go thru to be feasible (and others will argue that these compromises are irrelevant, yet many hear them, and manufacturers introduce 50 kHz filters in their player to reduce any deleterious effect from playing a typical "noise shaped" SACD, for ex.). It could be many gigs of data, but if they are plagued with uncorrelated noise it can still underperform w/r to other more limited data sources (yes including from CD).Finally the DSD camp of recording engineer are in it because of the gravy train they got into from Sony sponsorship, and im not naive enough to believe that they would giveup on 20+ yrs of PCM infrastructure, skills, software, tools, etc. because they did some "studio comparisons", if you believe that, you are deluding yourself.
Sony used DSD/SACD, finally, as a delivery format for reasons we all know too well: 1) licensing revenue, 2) copyright protection. They packaged it as "high resolution" for the "masses" and went straight for the "audiophiles" that are desperate for better engineered records. That any of these recording engineers would make us believe that SACD stands on its own technical or sonic merits, is insulting to our intelligence. These guys should just admit that they found a profitable niche market, made more enticing because of sony's subsidies (and partially successfull marketing), its a new gravy train period, and theres nothing wrong with that, but please dont tell us its a superior format in any way, shape, or form.
its clumsy to produce (its straight forward only on the surface and ignores the more subtle technical aspects, for ex. why people had to go from single to multibit signa-delta modulators), its underspec'ed, and the end user is greatly restricted since most of the hardware is done based on PCM signals or analog, NOT DSD...unless converted to PCM (as in bass management for ex.)...if you want to do any amount of reasonable DSP (ex. in room auto-eq.) especially those newer self-dialed subs or speakers, there's close to zero manufacturer working with DSD thru and thru not even on the recording side (or digital amplifiesr manufaturers or xover or etc.). So ask you, why SACD??
you know it more than i do, so please spare us the BS.
Best regards
"Finally the DSD camp of recording engineer are in it because of the gravy train they got into from Sony sponsorship, and im not naive enough to believe that they would giveup on 20+ yrs of PCM infrastructure, skills, software, tools, etc. because they did some "studio comparisons", if you believe that, you are deluding yourself."I am personally aware of two situations where Sony spiffs did not play ANY role in the sonic decision which is the right course of action. By the way, do you know that Warner has been doing the same thing on the DVDA side? It's common industry practice.
"They packaged it as "high resolution" for the "masses" and went straight for the "audiophiles" that are desperate for better engineered records. "
This is not correct. It was originally an archiving format which Sony expanded to audiophiles. I don't think Sony ever marketed to the "masses" except to show their innovation.
"These guys should just admit that they found a profitable niche market, made more enticing because of sony's subsidies (and partially successfull marketing), its a new gravy train period, and theres nothing wrong with that, but please dont tell us its a superior format in any way, shape, or form."
There are some 2,200 or so SACDs. Sony has only supported a few of these by offering money. The rest is due to healthy audiophile demand. Ultimately the market rules, and audiophiles are clearly speaking with their wallet. David Chesky has admitted that they sell more SACDs than DVDAs by far, even though he like the DVDA format better.
"its clumsy to produce (its straight forward only on the surface and ignores the more subtle technical aspects, for ex. why people had to go from single to multibit signa-delta modulators), its underspec'ed, and the end user is greatly restricted since most of the hardware is done based on PCM signals or analog, NOT DSD...unless converted to PCM (as in bass management for ex.)..."
Again, more misinformation. All the new generation editing workstations avoid the intermediate PCM stage. New software tools make producing a DSD as easy as a PCM based product. And what you gain is a simpler, cleaner sounding recording chain.
"you know it more than i do, so please spare us the BS."
There's no reason for personal attacks here. As I stated I like both formats. But it is hard for me to sit by as false statements are being made.
im well aware of the points you bring up. And you only address my points partially on the cover that they cover them all or even accurately. they dont. Its not a personal attack, apologies if you took this way, it's just a bit exacerbating, the spin that is put on these issues. Best.
No problem.I just get frustrated that some DVDA supporters are making claims here that are either patently false like Neil's claim that an SACD holds less data than a CD OR they are stating for fact something that is a preference.
There are pluses and minuses to both formats. There's any easy compromised here: buy a universal or have two machines and enjoy both formats. Or decide for youself on one format, buy into it, and enjoy the music! That's what it is all about, no?
I know.
Sad, isn't it!I wonder why it is they will not listen?
And also I suspect the vast majority of folks who have bought SACD fall into one of 2 camps.
A/. Those who actually think they bought a regular CD and do not even know the SACD layer is there, and
B/. Those who are determined that they will believe it is better, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
You forgot two:C. They are professional engineers who have heard things in DSD they don't find in PCM.
D. They are audiophiles that have heard good examples of both and prefer DSD.
is that those fellows like the euphonic qualities of the SACD signature sound, which is right in line with their general preference for Vinyl. So they associate their "preference" with "better" and no amount of rationalization will make them see failures of SACD/DSD as a high rez format. Its an insidious form of egocentrism that confuses them and that is all too human, i dont blame them.
No kidding. To not recognize the limitations of PCM which I started out some 20 years ago is to say one has limited experience in recording.There are some real benefits from having a simpler recording chain like the one in DSD and the benefits are especially noticeable on jazz ensembles.
if one was simply remasteering an old analog recording for SACD, then yes there is a benefit, but the reality is:
- sigma delta DACs seldom work at 1/64s, they can be 5/256fs for example which means information is lost when it is downconverted to DSD
- DSD is not editable and needs to be converted to DSD-wide (4 bits) or a PCM-like signal for processing
- the bulk of digital recordings made till quite recently were done in low-res PCM (48/16 or 44.1/16)having said that though, i do agree that the "pure-DSD" recordings can sound breathtakingly good! there is something about the clarity of a pure DSD recording that PCM somehow doesn't quite capture :-(
> > having said that though, i do agree that the "pure-DSD" recordings can sound breathtakingly good! there is something about the clarity of a pure DSD recording that PCM somehow doesn't quite capture :-(
< <Hi Christine, you should hook-up a medium-to-high-end DVD-A player (e.g. at LEAST the -5900, but maybe a Linn or Esoteric or Meridian etc.) and then compare the sound with your better-than-average SACD machine.
And then to hear "clarity" you should properly audition the following "pure PCM" titles (all stunning 96/24 5.1 original recordings) which I understand you may have in your collection:-
Bach, St. Matthaus Passion (Teldec);
Shostakovich, Symph 5&6 (Arts) -- esp the very last track: "Presto";
Vivaldi, L'Estro Armonico (Arts);
Handel, Messiah (Arts);
Chopin, Four-Ballades (AIX);
Latin Jazz Trio (AIX);
Marcello, Handel & Vivaldi (AIX).Cheers
here is a list of "medium to high end" players i have listened to on my system:- Denon DVD-A1
- Denon DVD-3800
- Linn Unidisk 2.1
- EAD 8000 Pro
- Toshiba SD-9200I think you will agree these are pretty good players, with prices ranging from A$4000 (same price i paid for my SACD player) to A$14000.
And have you audditioned the above titles I listed in any of those machines? (I.M.O. the -3800 and the Tosh 9200 are not great machines, by today's standard, while the -A1 has inferior bass management to the -5900.).p.s. I defy any SACD title to improve on the sound quality and overall clarity of the ones I listed. I mean, just check-out the strings on the L'Estro Armonico title, the HF percussion and "tinkle" sounds on Latin Jazz Trio, or the Steinway Piano in the Chopin. :)
well, i do have st matthew's passion as per your recommendation, and i have listened to that on some of the players - not all, though.even though i haven't listened to the dvd-a11 yet, i've been told the dvd-a1 has a superior sound by denon themselves. bass management is not an issue because i always turn it off for maximum transparency.
i would buy the denon dvd-a1 tomorrow for the sound, except it is now obsolete and besides the video quality is too soft for me. the BB 1704 are still the *best* PCM dac around, imho. the 1792 or whatever may have better specs, but it is a hybrid dac whereas the BB1704 is a *pure* PCM DAC - no sigma delta.
as for you "defying" sacd titles to improve on your favourite titles, perhaps you should actually widen your experience of listening to sacd beyond the 1 title that you own, or have you bought more titles recently?
PS - the toshiba has a very nice, tight, and crystal clear sound. i don't think it loses ground compared to any of the new players, except in the video department. the 3800 i never really liked, so it definitely doesn't stand quite as tall as the others.
> > perhaps you should actually widen your experience of listening to sacd beyond the 1 title that you own, or have you bought more titles recently? < <Hi Christine, Believe me, if there was a compelling reason for me to buy SACDs I would. However, presently I’m pretty-much maxed-out on music purchases recently (budget-wise, and also time-available-to-listen-wise). Honestly, I’ve got a backlog to actually listen to now! And not enough time at present. :-)
For example, I’ve bought most of the latest Naxos classical DVD-As. Moreover, why should I buy the SACD versions of these, when the DVD-A gives me the original pristine 24-bit LPCM recording?
The same goes for my recently bought DVD-As of: Abbado — Beethoven Symphonies nos. 1&3 and 5&6 (Deutsche Grammophon), and Bjork’s "Medulla". All hirez PCM recordings. The Medulla DVD-A gives me a half-hour video documentary too.
I also recently bought (or pre-ordered): Santana "Supernatural" Jarre’s "Aero"; Polyphonic Spree; Porcupine Tree; Emerson Lake Palmer "Brain Salad Surgery"; etc. etc. — none of which are available on SACD, and if they were, they’d just be conversions of the PCM masters. (And much of the stuff on SACD is originally PCM anyway).
But I don’t want PCM conversions to SACD. I’d rather have the original recording on DVD-A. Plus, I also use my Denon A-11’s internal 32-bit bass management and time-alignment which works transparently on LPCM sources and gives a fantastic wrap-around soundfield.
So for me there is no need for SACD, or DSD. Moreover, to me, a "DSD" title cannot be "pure" unless the recording was done as a raw ‘back-to-back’ ADC-to-DAC, with no intermediate processing steps, and no mixing or even level changes! But there are very few of those around (if any). And if there are, there are certainly none that interest me.
So to wrap-up, SACD (DSD in particular) — in audio terms — is a "solution" to a "problem" that never existed. Indeed, the real purpose was to ensure an exclusive revenue-stream for its creators. And that I will not buy.
*** Moreover, to me, a "DSD" title cannot be "pure" unless the recording was done as a raw ‘back-to-back’ ADC-to-DAC, with no intermediate processing steps, and no mixing or even level changes! But there are very few of those around (if any). ***There are more than quite a few. if you send me email, i'll be happy to suggest some.
In fact, DSD's lack of processing "encourages" minimalist approaches to recording, which suits me just fine. even for pcm, i prefer minimalist recordings - i've noticed that cool edit, even when processing in 32 bit floating point, introduces subtle degradations in the sound with each processing step. perhaps i'm imagining it, but if you look very closely at the waveforms, you can see that multiple processing steps do alter the samples slightly over time. i am a great believer in "point the mike, set the right level, press record, and that's it." no processing except perhaps to trim the edges.
my point was - if you have never heard a pure DSD recording, then you really have no idea how good (or bad) it can be.
nt
That's where I do my DVD-A listening, at my friend's place or the dealer.
nt
No stereo section, but breathtaking recording (for me at least, maybe too lush for some), superb music, spiritually moving.Harnoncourt is the conductor
Best
Eric
Martin played it to me when i visited him in London, and i had to immediately buy a copy on my return to Australia!
in Amazon, Tower, Sendmemovies, DVDempire, nothing...theres a plethora of versions, could you please indicate which and where.mcuh appreciated.
http://www.play.com/play247.asp?page=title&r=DVDA&title=104872and:-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000059ZHH/ref=br_lf_m_h__12/202-3046923-5659007
nt
I'm always interested in people's reaction about this title.Best
Eric
One suggested to me by "Dr. AIX" and this one now. best.
"Therefore to have the same information capacity as a CD, SACD needs to have a sampling rate 32,000 times higher than CD. Which it does not."This would be true if SACD did not store information in ordered patterns. But it does. The order makes a difference. So there is more information being stored than just bit by bit.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
