|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.1.96.234
In Reply to: Anyone heard this SACD recorded in DXD? posted by Mark Hoepfl on March 3, 2007 at 19:08:11:
I've have almost all of the catalogue and I like all of the productions. I bought them for the performances and the sonics as a bonus. No way to tell unless you had a comparison recording rolling at the time of the event. Other than that, pure speculation.
Follow Ups:
in Denmark. DXD as masterformat allows you to make good conversions to all formats.
On their page describing their converter - I'll take the DSD pulse response and trade that against DSD 128's slightly worse noise performance than accpet all the others weird pulse responses.Regards, Allen
Pure and simple. No real world A/D converter is useful much above 22 bits, so the 32 bits part is useful for minimizing the one bit to 22+ bit conversion quantization errors that a DSD A/D converter side steps all together. Ya pays ya money, ya takes ya choice. At least it's High Res, but to me, it's not what I hear from a Meitner A/D edited with a Sonoma. It still has that PCM edge and reduction of space when heard through quality electrostatic speakers. All IMHO.
The larger issue to me is that every performance recorded is a one time priceless event, which will be listened to for centuries to come. Shouldn't the most transparent format be used? Thankfully almost every acoustic event is now recorded in MC.
DXD is 352800 samples/sec and does not specifically refer to a word length. In practice, it can be anywhere from 16-24 bit integer or 32 bit floating point. The 32 bit float is only for internal calculations in the workstation itself.As for the rest of your post, I wouldn't generalize recordings based on the workstation used - there are too many other variables that matter more than that, e.g. mics, placement, preamps, aesthetic preferences (which would include choice of converters), etc.
Graemme
Thanks for the clarification Graemme. Actually, I was responding to the post above mine that referenced a particular A/D converter that some folks think is an improved form of DSD, but is actually PCM. To me the difference is important.Like you, I also wouldn't generalize recordings based on the workstation used either, and I wasn't. But I do think the converter employed, and its technology, is important. If SA-CD's acknowledged superiority is because of, or largely contributed to by DSD, why not use DSD for the entire process? All other hardware and aesthetic preferences of course recognized.
I use Pyramix and when I edit my DSD recordings I have to use the DXD function. There are several converters that can use the DXD sample rate. I can hear NO difference when I'm editing in DXD compared to the DSD recording. When I finish my editing, Pyramix will revert back to DSD mode.
Pyramix also uses DSD for straight recording and rendering of DSD Edited Master files. There are quite a few Pyramix-created SACDs that have never seen the likes of DXD. Read your manual... ;->
Sorry Graemme, I've never done a DSD recording that didn't need "some" editing. Otherwise, I'd keep it in the DSD domain and send it off to replication.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: