|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
88.104.253.244
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.
Follow Ups:
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
"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.
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
"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.
"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
"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.
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.
"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.
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
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: