 
|
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 |
In Reply to: some more posted by Ric Schultz on October 01, 2003 at 12:28:58:
We now have the opinion of a ***professional*** tonmeister not some ego that's has 'cashing in on the hype' in his agenda.$5000 mods, SET tenor amps and 'super analog' tapes references has more to do with sucking up to the audiophile clientele who easily fell for the dsd hype.
The simple truth is that we are not able to hear the differences between dsd and 24/96..24/192 digital.
All differences we hear are caused by the different sounding hardware solutions or shabby signal treatment in the digital domain.
PS.
Telarc used digital Sennheiser microphones for recent 'dsd' recordings. With 24/96 pcm output...Frank
Follow Ups:
I could really care less about Sony or whomever is doing whatever. I only printed what these other people said....they obviously feel/hear things that you don't. I don't care what format is used as long as it is done to the max....that is what I care about. If you cannot hear any difference between 24/96, 24/192 or DSD or brands of converters than fine. Others can and have stated so. I just know that when you listen in a very pure way then more differences become obvious and many recording engineers are not very tweak. I have no idea of how you listen, so I am not judging your listening equipment/ability to listen.....I just know what I hear. Happy trails.
But we do agree,The differences we observe are differences in hardware execution.
These we can detect by listening.Even a dac can sound different with different sample rates.
Many dacs become ***less accurate*** at 24/192!When both dsd and pcm are executed to the utmost quality than there is no difference detectable.
Until you start manipulating the signal in the digital domain.
The beauty of dsd fades quickly.Frank
"When both dsd and pcm are executed to the utmost quality than there is no difference detectable."Not too many months ago, you said that DSD had high frequency problems that only took seconds to hear. What happened since then?
I can hear differences in sonics.Because dsd is borderlining in the high frequency range of our hearing limitations.
At the time the first generation dsd recordings still sounded digital.The recent crop of converters are doing a better job.
Now the artifacts are very hard to detect if at all.
But they are still there, and as pointed out, they don't belong on a recording.Now it's engaging bass management in the dsd domain that shows the difference. (Just like the pitch shift experiment)
Frank
"At the time the first generation dsd recordings still sounded digital.The recent crop of converters are doing a better job."
So you are claiming SACDs have gotten better so that now these horrible high frequency anomalies that you condemned in hundreds of posts "are very hard to detect if at all".
This is not the case. The high frequency anomalies were always imaginary, based on your very limited experience with SACD. Those of us who had more listening experience kept telling you that. Now that you yourself have more listening experience, you know the truth. But you cannot admit that you were wrong, so you condemn the old recordings. But most of the old recordings are fine. Listen to any of the earliest Opus 3 SACDs. They are fine.
What 24/96 converters sound exactly like what DSD converters? I would like to know what your reference for "executed in the utmost way" is.Are you saying you have reached a point where there is no room for improvement in your 24/96 ADCs and DACs/DSD ADCs and DACs and that these perfect recorders sound the same?
Heck, I cannot even get one piece of wire perfect!
"What 24/96 converters sound exactly like what DSD converters? I would like to know what your reference for "executed in the utmost way" is."At the moment that's a full blown Meridian system.
It is capable of he very high spl levels at very low distortion that are needed to reveal the hires advantage.
Throw in farao classics Walkure recording or the Canadian Brass disc and enjoy."Are you saying you have reached a point where there is no room for improvement in your 24/96 ADCs and DACs/DSD ADCs and DACs and that these perfect recorders sound the same?"
No,
As long there are 3 or 4 bits of improvement left with 24 bit pcm there always will be room for improvement.
Nobody has reached the full resolution that 24bit pcm is capable of.So far my experience is that improvements in analog circuitry still reveals more detail from 16 bit redbook.
To appreciate hires' improvements we do need even better analog equipment to reveal whats hires digital audio is truly capable of.However we will not experience this as a giant leap, simply because we are not able to.
We can't trust our own ears anymore to judge these matters.I do believe that pcm has a clear advantage because there is this room for improvement far beyond we humans are able to hear.
"Heck, I cannot even get one piece of wire perfect!"
Good enough will do.
Frank
"I do believe that pcm has a clear advantage because there is this room for improvement far beyond we humans are able to hear."Perhaps it will be more suitable for ants. That is a very large untapped market. Trillions and trillions.
If I may paraphrase your point, it seems to be that "everything matters". That includes recording studio, equipment & setup, mixing & mastering, playback hardware & setup, listening room, etc. To that I'll add personal preference. The dilemma is that the difference between hi-res formats doesn't seem to be great enough to transcend the effect of all the other variables. And there's no way to control all the variables required to make a truly isolated comparison of formats. So for the moment we're all stuck reaching different conclusions. It's not like comparing CD to vinyl, where anybody with a midrange system who isn't tone deaf can tell the two apart regardless of other variables.Don't get me wrong, I like hearing everybody's different views. I just don't think any conclusions are going to be reached in the DSD vs. PCM quality debate at least until a generational leap in hardware occurs.
Dave
That is why we need tweakers working on these converters and recorders. The Pro industry has and is usually behind the audiophiles in sound.....not always....but they generally lack the tweak element. Not so with tube/analog people....Look at a Walker Turntable and Walker phonostage, etc. These things are really tweak!!!! The Meitner and DCS stuff is full of op amps, too many filters, not great parts, not really tweaked!!!! So, that no matter what you feed these converters some of the real resolution is lost before it even gets into the ADC chip. For instance, Chesky got their first DCS ADC several years ago to start recording in 24/96. There was an article in a magazine that quoted them saying they were going to put a tubed input into it. I talked to Bob Katz about 6 months after the mag. article and asked him what Chesky had done to the DCS ADC. He told me that they did not put a tubed input in it, instead they had removed several op amps that it did not need for much better sound!!! This is just the beginning....we need the analog tweakers to get a hold of these converters and really tweak them out to see what is really possible.See, I really don't care which format is better....really...I just want them both taken to the absolute max...My sense is that when done this way, the difference will be minor and no one will care because either one of them will sound considerably better than what we are currently hearing. As David Robinson of Positive Feedback says...."I don't drive stock".....however, he is now using a "stock" Meitner converter because it sounds better than his modified Sony SCD-1.....Well David, time to modify the Meitner...and on it goes....into infinity.....
...or perhaps these experimental tapes will never see the light of day again? :-)
Frank
mt
as tubed Neumanns, maybe this is where you are confused they used TUBED ANALOG NEWMANNs not PCM. Telarc SACDs are pure DSD. They also use Sennheiser and AKG, none of which have PCM anywhere?Why do you make this stuff up??????????????????
the output of the new Neumann Solution D mic is pcm only.
Would either of you like some salt or pepper on that crow?From: http://www.prosoundnews.com/stories/2003/january/0107.5.shtml
Handled by Telarc recording engineer Robert Friedrich, the recording was one of the first to spotlight Neumann's new Solution-D digital microphones. Friedrich, who will be mixing all tracks in surround sound, had lots to say about the mics, and especially the level of musicianship on the date.
"The rhythmic balance within the trio is phenomenal," says Friedrich. "You don't miss a drummer because their time is so tight. John switches very easily between comping and soloing, and he was in excellent vocal form on the date." Telarc is committed to the digital pathway, having selected the Sony DSD format for all of its work, but Friedrich says he was reluctant to try the D, primarily because it uses PCM technology.
"When the D was presented, I really had to wonder how it would fit into the recording process that we've developed," Friedrich continues. "But once I heard the sound I was sold. The path is really very simple. No preamp is used. The microphone handles the A-to-D conversion, then going to a D-to-A converter and finally routing to the recording computer." Telarc used the Sony Sonoma (DSD) system for recording and editing the Birdland project. A second, laptop computer was also integrated into the loop. "This is new technology, so it might seem confusing at first, but everything is really very simple," Friedrich notes. "In addition to sending an analog signal to the Sonoma, the D uses the AES line to control the level and compression. The signal passes through a hardware device called the DMI2 on its way to this second computer."
From: http://www.proaudio.net/2003/08_aug/news/sutton_nuemann.htm
Bishop used a pair of Neumann Solution-D microphones on Sutton's last Telarc release, "Something Cool," and was determined to use them on this recording as well. "Something Cool" was the first commercially released recording to use the Solution-D mic system. We were knocked out by the vocal sound of that record, and it was praised everywhere. We wanted to build upon that success and improve the sound if possible. So this time, we used a Solution-D on the acoustic bass as well as Tierney and we'll use the Ds again when we track the string overdubs.
"The principle attraction of the Solution-D is its extreme transparency," he continues. "Tierney doesn't need any help on her voice. We don't want to cover up or enhance her sound at all, and the Solution-D doesn't impart any coloration. I use a very simple signal chain, in part because the Solution-D requires no external pre-amp. We go straight from the Solution-D to a Prism DA2 converter -- one of the best PCM D to As ever made, at 96kHz. Then we hit a GML 8900 dynamics controller, which handles some overall compression when it's needed. The D's internal high-frequency limiting is great to have when you're working extremely close to a vocalist and you have to worry about sibilants.
"I control everything from my laptop in the control room. The Solution-D software lets me send control data over the same AES cable that the signal is coming into the control room on using the system's AES 42 interface. I can change a pickup pattern, or alter the sensitivity and gain, and insert high-frequency and peak limiting without ever leaving the control room! All of these functions are controlled at the microphone itself. Add to that the openness and the clarity of the microphone and you've got a fabulous combination, which has become an invaluable tool for me. I couldn't imagine going into a session with a vocalist who has such a wide tonal range and using any other mic but the Solution-D. I've tried all sorts of classic microphones on Tierney," concludes Bishop, "but I haven't found anything that beats the D."
By the way I have no crow to eat as none of the Telarc SACDs I owned had Digital microphones (Telarc tells all in the Technical Data with each recording).AND I AM SHOCKED, TOTALLY SHOCKED THAT TELARC IS USING PCM MICROPHONES AND ONE OF THE ENGINEERS THINK THEY ARE THE BEST!
I no longer have any faith in Telarc, this is shocking truely shocking! Oh my gawd!
Anyway I buy only PURE ANALOG now, this just reinforses the correctness of my decision to listen to LPs and 4 Track 7 1/2 ips Reel to Reel tapes!
Teresa
I do note that they seem to be used mainly for certain specific applications, which they reportedly handle well. Too bad there is no corresponding sigma-delta microphone...yet. :-)
if I took your post to have a certain tone of incredulity to it. I don't know how I ever got that idea...
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 ]
