Home / FAQ / News
Classifieds / Events

Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

General Asylum

Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty

88.104.138.236

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ General Asylum ]

chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com

(R)

In Reply to: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty posted by Dr. S on May 16, 2007 at 20:49:50:

"It doesn't matter all that much what happens in the distribution end, IF the original recording preserves the event."
I'd argue not so as that's like saying it doesn't matter if we can't see every pixel or the full colour range in a photograph copied onto the best paper available, so long as the guy who took the picture assures us that the photo is in fact perfect.

"The SACD of Dave Brubeck's TIME OUT, started life as a remarkable analog tape, in the days of thermionic electronics."
The best recordings I've heard are sourced from analogue tapes, one of the finest being 'Blues in Orbit' which I actually have on SACD, but I'm sure there are plenty of open reel tapes and vinyl pressings floating around which are quite capable of ensuring this recording doesn't sink into obscurity without DSD having to come riding to the rescue.

"I sleep well, knowing that it has been preserved in the best recording medium we have currently".
In your opinion.
"Is it possible to do better on the recording end than analog? Absolutely. This is where DSD excells. And this is my point. I am concerned that if we lose SACD as a distribution medium, we may also lose DSD as a recording and archiving medium."
Again, that is your opinion. Many would argue that the ADC and DAC processes in the recording and playback of DSD mean it can never better analogue even given the disadvantages of friction and the mechanical hurdles.
Digital is and always will provide recordings which have been basically cut up, processed and reassembled, no matter how effective and seamless the processing might be.
That being said, I'm very happy with CD and believe that high-rez PCM is superior to DSD. :0)

"I am indifferent to people's choices in distribution media. If you want to listen to a distributed form in some sort of F'd up, heavily downsampled whatever ... be my guest. Who cares? As you proudly pronounce, you are the consumer. It is your choice."
I thought you said you weren't going to be snotty?
Seems like you F'd up!
"But if the original recording is forever trapped in a technically inferior medium".
Again, your opinion so it's a big IF, but I'm surprised you are able to enjoy 'Time Out' at all when it was captured on inferior analogue tapes.

"And on a personal note, why is it that the few voices crying for the best we have at the recording end are on our "high horses?"
Because you're condescending and pompous, and because you believe DSD is 'the best' then you must be right and anyone who disagrees is less enlightened or discerning than yourself.
You carry on crying out for 'the best' in the unshakable certainty that you're defending the very soul of musical recording/reproduction, while the masses listen to their inferior analogue recordings on their inferior turntables and inferior open reel tape decks.
"If I want Velveeta, I should have it ... but, it would be nihilistic to deny another, with perhaps a more refined palate, the Stilton he is nibbling with the just perfectly ripe pear and walnuts."
Congratulations! You've actually succeeded in fitting stilts to your high horse!
"This is SUPPOSED to be about audio as art ... we should want the best, not celebrate a woeful compromise."
I DO want the best - the best replay in my home, but in my ignorance I don't believe DSD is the best and what is worse, I like Velveeta. :0(

Best Regards,
Chris redmond.

Follow Ups:

Chris "High-rez PCM is superior to DSD"? Not in my system! - Teresa 23:55:26 05/19/07 (3)
Although I admit 192kHz 24 Bit PCM can capture much of the resolution of DSD, it cannot capture it's beauty and soul. Pure DSD recordings such as those from Telarc have an almost "analog-like" realism and feeling of being there that PCM at any resolution cannot capture.

And even though I now have CD playback with out PAIN, it still doesn't have the resolution, imaging, dynamic impact, realistic deep bass and warm acoustic of analog Cassette and Reel to Reel tapes! And LPs and Reel to Reel tapes have a high frequency ease and extension that even SACD and DVD-Audio cannot reach. Even though CD bass is often deeper than LP (due to the nature of bass response versus playing time) it is colder. Bass on SACD has most of the warmth of analog, and high resolution PCM to a lesser degree.
If you get decent machines that play all formats you would have a totally different perspective on the virtues of each and see just how low on the totem poll redbook CD is.

I own and listen to recordings on:
LP
Cassette
Reel to Reel
CD
24/96 DAD DVD
DVD-Audio
SACD

How about you?

And to say the Redbook CD is better than either SACD or DVD-Audio is not only a cruel joke but also a bald faced lie.

"Music is love"
Teresa
- RE: Chris "High-rez PCM is superior to DSD"? Not in my system! - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 03:33:55 05/20/07 (2)
  "And to say the Redbook CD is better than either SACD or DVD-Audio is not only a cruel joke but also a bald faced lie."
  
  Please direct me to the sentence/paragraph where I said that Theresa.
  
  As far as the rest of your opinion, over the years your stance has shifted more than the sands of the Sahara depending on the players you've owned, so I can't take them seriously anymore.
  
  Best Regards,
  Chris redmond.
  - Teresa says DVD-A better than Vinyl and reel to reel. (Open in New Window)
  - Here you go Chris in your own words in this very thread: - Teresa 17:23:35 05/20/07 (1)
    Chris said "CD is and always has been capable of the very finest audio replay available"
    
    "Music is love"
    Teresa
    - Your own words (Open in New Window)
    - RE: Here you go Chris in your own words in this very thread: - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 10:10:37 05/21/07 (0)
      CD does provide us with the finest replay available, because the finest recordings are available on CD in my opinion and apart from possibly the Meitner and APL Esoteric based player, the best digital source components are CD players.
      
      As a format, High rez PCM must by definition be 'better' than CD but the replay is poorer because there aren't any high-end DVD-A players out there and the DVD-A titles are spartan.
      
      However, if the titles were available and the likes of Audio Note, Marantz, Zenden, Meitner etc manufactured DVD-A players I'm certain that DVD-A would provide the finest replay available.
      
      I notice that in an earlier post you described the Toshiba SD-9200 as high-end but I owned that player for a few years and it was mid-fi compared to a decent CD front end.
      
      The only DVD-A player I've heard which alluded to the real high-end was a Meridian but even that fell short, and the Denon DVD-A1XV (5910) I own now is again not in the same ball park as a decent CD player.
      
      Best Regards,
      Chris redmond.
Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty - Dr. S 15:37:55 05/18/07 (10)
AH! Gloves off, toe to toe, I respect that. Let the games begin!
"It doesn't matter all that much what happens in the distribution end, IF the original recording preserves the event."

My point, lost again, is that in this moment in time any one of a number of distribution media may be selected. It is irrelevant in terms of what is preserved on the original recording. If it is worthy music, and a worthy recording, I promise you … someone will dig it up, clean it up and re-release it. Sheesh, if they re-release Duran Duran they will do anything.

"The SACD of Dave Brubeck's TIME OUT, started life as a remarkable analog tape, in the days of thermionic electronics."
<
And my point is that their masters are falling apart. And sadly there is no whole sale funded project for preserving them, such as there is with films. Even many classic recordings of the sixties are in very rough shape, and may only have a couple of plays left in them. That being the case, wouldn’t you rather the transfer go to the highest fidelity medium, regardless of politics?

"I sleep well, knowing that it has been preserved in the best recording medium we have currently".
< >

Dismissive, and pompous, as you would say, but compare DSD to high rez PCM - 194K, 20-20,000 frequency response, 70+ dB dynamic range, to 2.88 Megahertz, 0-100,000 frequency response and 110 USABLE dB of dynamic range. For the little bit of objective data that can be stipulated to, seems fairly clear, without us continuing to throw subjective lobs at each other.

"Is it possible to do better on the recording end than analog? Absolutely. This is where DSD excells. And this is my point. I am concerned that if we lose SACD as a distribution medium, we may also lose DSD as a recording and archiving medium."
<
Friction and mechanical hurdles? Do you mean dragging a mineral tipped needle through the softness of vinyl, the absolutely labyrinthian path from tape head or cutting head, to record, to … and on and on. Do you mean brick wall filters at 20 and 20 K for PCM, and decimating the entire signal, with limited word lengths? Why do you think there are brick wall filters in PCM?
Just the geometry of analog is bewildering to most, and I say this as someone with a killer analog set up and lots of records.

< That being said, I'm very happy with CD and believe that high-rez PCM is superior to DSD. :0) < <

Recording is, per force, a process of transduction … turning one kind of energy into other kinds of energy in a series of steps, each of which adds and subtracts. The process is mostly anything but seamless.
However, having had direct experience with short path (no more than fifty feet of microphone cord) through ONLY a microphone preamplier to a DSD recorder, with NO intervening steps, I will stick with my pronouncement. There simply is no contest.
I have thousands of CD’s and many are very enjoyable, but they are pale lights of what is possible with pure, native DSD, as is 196k (when rarely found) PCM, simply because most of the issues with PCM remain, regardless of resolution.
I buy CD’s because they quit putting the music I liked on LP’s, not because I thought they were an improvement.

< <"I am indifferent to people's choices in distribution media. If you want to listen to a distributed form in some sort of F'd up, heavily downsampled whatever ... be my guest. Who cares? As you proudly pronounce, you are the consumer. It is your choice."
I thought you said you weren't going to be snotty?
Seems like you F'd up! < <

How is that snotty? Personally, I think the sound from an I-Pod is absolutely horrific. But I would never, ever intimate or interfer or criticize someone who chooses that distribution medium, unless they are doing it out of ignorance (like most people who buy Boze).

"But if the original recording is forever trapped in a technically inferior medium".
Again, your opinion so it's a big IF, but I'm surprised you are able to enjoy 'Time Out' at all when it was captured on inferior analogue tapes.

Where did you draw the conclusion I am down on analog. Hell man, I love the stuff … tubes too. My issue with classic analog tapes is that they are deteriorating. We are going to lose a lot of music forever.

"And on a personal note, why is it that the few voices crying for the best we have at the recording end are on our "high horses?"
<
Nay, nattering nabob, I originally took issue with you “celebrating” the presumed demise of SACD. Your point was that DSD diserves to die, and that is simply irrational. It is neither pompous or condescending to oppose that sort of gleefully shallow thinking. I am a big analog fan … to the point where I sport a custom deck (Jena Labs) built around a Technics SP-10 – SME-1O arm, Cardas Heart MC Cart, a BAT VK-P10-SE tubed phono. I would say that is pretty good evidence I am not anti-analog.

"If I want Velveeta, I should have it ... but, it would be nihilistic to deny another, with perhaps a more refined palate, the Stilton he is nibbling with the just perfectly ripe pear and walnuts."
<
Because I prefer Stilton to Velveeta, lol … OK, guys, let’s see a show of hands out there … cheese whiz or a french triple cream? lol.

"This is SUPPOSED to be about audio as art ... we should want the best, not celebrate a woeful compromise."
<
I celebrate your right to have the yellow box and munch away to your heart’s content. You on the other hand, celebrate something you think should go away … hum, which is the more insulting behavior?
The Good Doctor

Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty - Christopher Redmond 00:32:14 05/19/07 (9)

In Reply to: Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty posted by Dr. S on May 18, 2007 at 15:37:55:

This is more like it good Doctor - you've gone from someone I'd probably tip my pint over to someone I could actually have a drink with whilst engaging in a healthy though heated debate, although being essentially tea-total it would have been a mineral water so no real harm done.
Now I dare say we could carry on batting the DSD ball between us ad nauseum with rallies which could rival Nadal vs Federer on clay in their duration and intensity, but as with religion and politics we have our entrenched positions and we're not going to budge are we?

"My point, lost again, is that in this moment in time any one of a number of distribution media may be selected. It is irrelevant in terms of what is preserved on the original recording. If it is worthy music, and a worthy recording, I promise you … someone will dig it up, clean it up and re-release it. Sheesh, if they re-release Duran Duran they will do anything."

This is the crux of your argument and despite your suspicion it isn't lost on me at all. You believe that so long as a performance is recorded to the very best medium we have presently, that performance is saved for posterity and technological advances could enable better and better quality replay so long as the initial recording was of the highest quality.
Yes, I agree with the principle as any sane minded person would, but I don't agree with your assertion that DSD is the medium and the problems with DSD as an archiving medium are real.
Perhaps when the sampling frequency is doubled as I seem to remember Michael Bishop mentioning, the noise will be pushed further up the frequency range and become less of an issue (even a non-issue), but until then DSD is not suitable for archiving in my opinion.
I've included a link which many people will no doubt have already read, but there are many more critics of DSD out there who aren't merely critical because they have financial interests in DVD-A.
Obviously the equipment now exists so that the PCM conversion referred to during mastering doesn't need to take place.

CD v DVD-A v SACD (Open in New Window)

F.Y.I: There is NO audible noise with PURE DSD even though headphones. 192kHz PCM has more audible noise for example. - Teresa 00:00:44 05/20/07 (5)

In Reply to: Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty posted by Christopher Redmond on May 19, 2007 at 00:32:14

Get a good set of high-end headphones and listen for yourself.

Until a format is invented with less audible noise that DSD, DSD will remain the best format for archiving.

"Music is love"
Teresa

RE: F.Y.I: There is NO audible noise with PURE DSD even though headphones. 192kHz PCM has more audible noise for exampl - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 03:40:47 05/20/07 (4)

In Reply to: RE: F.Y.I: There is NO audible noise with PURE DSD even though headphones. 192kHz PCM has more audible noise for example. posted by Teresa on May 20, 2007 at 00:00:44

"Get a good set of high-end headphones and listen for yourself."

I'm currently selling a pair of Stax Lambda Signature headphones with the SRM-TIS valve energiser Teresa.

Why is it that people such as yourself and the good Dr can't acept opinions contrary to their own without assuming the contrary opinion is obviously uninformed?

It's arrogant and says more about you than it does of me.

Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
http://www.adverts.hififorsale.com/vardet.asp (Open in New Window)

All I am saying is just listen for yourself on your Stax Lambda - Teresa 16:56:58 05/20/07 (3)

In Reply to: RE: F.Y.I: There is NO audible noise with PURE DSD even though headphones. 192kHz PCM has more audible noise for exampl posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 20, 2007 at 03:40:47

and you will hear for yourself.

Here is an easy test:

A PURE DSD SACD such as one of the many Telarc SACD

versus

An Original 192kHz or 96kHz 24 Bit recording via DVD-Audio such as from AIX, Hodie or others.

And listen for low level noise, you have to wear headphones as none of these recordings have ANY audible noise through speakers.

And your will be able to hear for yourself in the audible range DSD is quieter than PCM.

I gave this as an example so you could hear it for yourself. But hey you thing low resolution Redbook CD is all we need. I refuse to limit myself the way you do that is why I have multiple formats to my beck and call!

It is your refusal to test these things for yourself that is arrogant!

"Music is love"
Teresa

RE: All I am saying is just listen for yourself on your Stax Lambda - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 09:57:28 05/21/07 (2)

In Reply to: RE: All I am saying is just listen for yourself on your Stax Lambda posted by Teresa on May 20, 2007 at 16:56:58

"And your will be able to hear for yourself in the audible range DSD is quieter than PCM."

So by that logic, DSD is better than analogue yes?

Best Regards,
Chris redmond.

RE: All I am saying is just listen for yourself on your Stax Lambda - Teresa 22:31:13 05/21/07 (1)

In Reply to: RE: All I am saying is just listen for yourself on your Stax Lambda posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 21, 2007 at 09:57:28

"So by that logic, DSD is better than analogue yes?"

DSD is quieter in the ultrasonics versus LP which between 20kHz - 50kHz is 50% noise. But that does not mean that DSD is sonically superior to analog.

By the way why are selling the Stax and what have you found that is better?

"Music is love"
Teresa

RE: All I am saying is just listen for yourself on your Stax Lambda - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 10:40:58 05/22/07 (0)

In Reply to: RE: All I am saying is just listen for yourself on your Stax Lambda posted by Teresa on May 21, 2007 at 22:31:13

"DSD is quieter in the ultrasonics versus LP which between 20kHz - 50kHz is 50% noise. But that does not mean that DSD is sonically superior to analog."

I rest my case. :0)

"By the way why are selling the Stax and what have you found that is better?"

I bought the Stax rig because my system is boxed up while I do work in the house, and the intention was to have the Marantz CD7 with Stax in the corner of the living room so I could at least have some quality listening to prevent withdrawal symptoms.

As it is I rarely get the living room to myself nowadays and I can't leave the Marantz alone as there are also a lot of kids running around with it being Summer.

After moving everything to the bedroom I ended up like a hermit, sat alone in the dark for hours. My girlfriend wasn't too impressed and too be honest headphones just don't 'do it' for me Teresa - better to sell them and put the money towards an upgrade to the main system.

Best Regards,
Chris redmond.

Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty - Dr. S 21:34:17 05/19/07 (2)

In Reply to: Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty posted by Christopher Redmond on May 19, 2007 at 00:32:14

Ok, I typed this really articulate and witty response, and it disappeared into never never land when I went to preview it ... grrrrrrr

The noise thing is nonsense, too high up in the band to be an issue, and with pcm there is always the frequency response limitation and decimation to contend with.

If I had the opportunity to sit you down in the control room and listen to a live to dsd surround recording of the Basie band, I am confident the experience would have turned you into a drooling convert, but c'est la vie

My concern is that these internecine battles in audio (DSD versus PCM, tubes versus SS, etc.) are nothing to celebrate ... the should be a source of embarrassment.

Take care,

Doctor S.

Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 06:39:51 05/20/07 (1)

In Reply to: Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty posted by Dr. S on May 19, 2007 at 21:34:17

"My concern is that these internecine battles in audio (DSD versus PCM, tubes versus SS, etc.) are nothing to celebrate ... the should be a source of embarrassment."

I disagree - it's very healthy so long as the participants don't take themselves too seriously and respect their opponent's point of view. :0)

The biggest source of embarrassment and what damages audio reproduction is corporate greed, and format wars created not because one company believes their format is best, but because they want to have a bigger share of the pie and in Sony/Philips case they wanted to offset the loss of the CD patent.

If the backers of DVD-A had backed SACD it would have succeeded and visa versa, but manufacturers of hardware, recorders of software and consumers wanted to know which format was going to be 'the winner' before committing and we know what has happened.

Best Regards,
Chris redmond.

Re: Corporate Greed - Dr. S 13:50:43 05/20/07 (0)

In Reply to: Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 20, 2007 at 06:39:51

Well, I am certainly not going to defend Sony on any grounds whatever. I think they are nefarious, and if SACD fails, it is largely because of their own internal insanity that has Sony Music actually opposing SACD in the market place, which is nuts, whatever their opinions.

Don't confuse the technology with who owns it. Trust me, you would pretty much have to stop eating, drinking, and consuming most everything if A: You knew where it came from and how it was produced, and B. You knew the politics and practices of the people who made it.

As to the internecine battles in audio, I will also remain in disagreement. To say, "I prefer the sound of tubes and planars" is very diffent from the typical, "If you listen to anything other than X, you are a malodorous bolus of hog phlegm" which is pretty much how it goes.

I actually had a manufacturer queer a positive review, when their marketing rep learned that I had, GASP, solid state equipment in my reference system!

With that in mind, you have not acually heard native DSD, so my original chastisement stands. If you want to assert a cogent disagreement, go forward and take the experience. What possible harm could it do to you to actually go listen to what you are chastising?

Until then, you are pretty much arguing from every standpoint (and in my opinion, unsuccessfully) but personal experience.

The Good Doctor
Re: What you believe ... - Dr. S 06:57:43 05/18/07 (3)

In Reply to: Re: Ok, so I will try this without being snotty posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on May 17, 2007 at 11:02:25:

is simply not accurate. And since you have no personal experience, you are simply repeating what you have read somewhere.
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?
The real question is which process of transcription best preserves the original event and that is DSD, at least in our current technology.
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. 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.
What is your source?
And referring to, and appreciating the "finer things" does not make me a snob; that is what this hobby is supposed to be about.
Would you sniff at an oenophile who rightfully opines that a properly preserved pre war Latour makes the best of California just grape juice? Or a car fan who insists that a McLaren F-1 is superior to the current generation Detroil muscle, is a snob?
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.
Tell me about your experiences with recording music in these three media we are discussing, and then perhaps you will earn a bit more respect.

Re: What you believe ... - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 10:00:30 05/18/07 (2)

In Reply to: Re: What you believe ... posted by Dr. S on May 18, 2007 at 06:57:43:

"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.

"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.
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.
I'd respect anyone who argued that Analogue or DSD was 'better', unless of course they were patronising, condescending individuals with a superiority complex.

"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?

"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?
Concorde migrated to DSD because they gambled that SACD would be a success and were wrong.

"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.

"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?)

"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......
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).
Another way to describe the difference: The noise [power] from SACD is more than 20,000 million times higher than from DVD-A!
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.

Best Regards,
Chris redmond.

Re: What you believe ... - Dr. S 14:53:01 05/20/07 (1)

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.”

"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

Yes - horse flogged but it's been fun :0) [nt] - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 15:40:59 05/20/07 (0)

In Reply to: Re: What you believe ... posted by Dr. S on May 20, 2007 at 14:53:01

nt
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.

Post a Followup:

Moniker (Username):

Password (Optional): Forgot Password?

Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me

E-Mail:

Subject:

Message: (Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:

Optional Link Title:

Optional Image URL:

E-mail Replies: Automagically notify you when someone responds.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ General Asylum ] [ Comment ] [ Delete ] [ Copyright Warning! Click for Details ]