Post by Fugue October 15, 2014 (11 of 25)
|
|
OK, "condemn" might be too strong of a word, but the lack of DSD seems to be causing some unease.
|
|
|
Post by fausto K October 15, 2014 (12 of 25)
|
|
Fugue said:
OK, "condemn" might be too strong of a word, but the lack of DSD seems to be causing some unease.
Admittedly, I still prefer DSD over PCM (wasn't SACD meant to be the carrier for DSD?), hence why I was excited to be able to have Shostakovich no. 15 in DSD, in contrast to the low-res of the Mandelring, which as noted sounds a little harsh ; but this might be due to different factors, e.g. close mic-ing, or the Mandelring's playing, which tends to emphasise the abrasive character of the music -- which I should note can be an advantage -- and so not necessarily have to do with lower-res PCM. I have many PCM SACD's that sound outstanding. So no unease on that issue. But my initial excitement of having a DSD recording of this composiiton was -- and this was my point in this thread -- a bit lessened by noting that Praga *might* have abandoned DSD. But again: I shall know whether it impacts the sound after having had time to actually listen!
|
|
|
Post by Iain October 15, 2014 (13 of 25)
|
|
|
|
|
Post by Iain October 15, 2014 (14 of 25)
|
|
fausto K said:
Admittedly, I still prefer DSD over PCM (wasn't SACD meant to be the carrier for DSD?), ... I have many PCM SACD's that sound outstanding. ...
Actually, DSD was originally designed as a professional archival medium in the early to mid 1990's. SA-CD came later.
Also conversely, I have several DSD SA-CD titles in which the sound quality is so bad, I never listen to them any longer.
|
|
|
Post by fausto K October 15, 2014 (15 of 25)
|
|
Iain said:
Actually, DSD was originally designed as a professional archival medium in the early to mid 1990's. SA-CD came later.
Also conversely, I have several DSD SA-CD titles in which the sound quality is so bad, I never listen to them any longer.
Yes, I know that DSD was earlier than SACD. I didn't say that DSD was designed for SACD. What I said is that SACD was the carrier meant for DSD, by which I mean that consumers like you and me, with CD-players and the like, could benefit from DSD.
|
|
|
Post by fausto K October 15, 2014 (16 of 25)
|
|
Iain said:
...
Also conversely, I have several DSD SA-CD titles in which the sound quality is so bad, I never listen to them any longer.
such as?
|
|
|
Post by Ubertrout October 15, 2014 (17 of 25)
|
|
Do we actually know that Praga was using DSD for recent recordings? Frankly the whole business with the misleadingly packaged out-of-copyright recordings doesn't inspire confidence in their honesty regarding recording methodology.
Of course, on the flip side if it sounds good it sounds good, regardless of methodology, and a SACD doesn't need to be DSD recorded to sound good.
|
|
|
Post by Iain October 15, 2014 (18 of 25)
|
|
|
|
|
Post by Domimag October 23, 2014 (19 of 25)
|
|
The quality of the recording (microphones, placement, room acoustics) = 99.95% of the final result.
The difference between DSD and PCM or DTS HD MA = 0.05%. Nobody is able to hear a difference. But shhh ... I'm politically incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by fausto K October 23, 2014 (20 of 25)
|
|
Domimag said:
The quality of the recording (microphones, placement, room acoustics) = 99.95% of the final result.
The difference between DSD and PCM or DTS HD MA = 0.05%. Nobody is able to hear a difference. But shhh ... I'm politically incorrect.
depends on your player and amplifier/receiver: if it converts DSD to PCM, then sure you can't hear the difference.
|
|