Post by raffells November 7, 2007 (41 of 57)
|
|
Dan Popp said:
Livy,
possibly even deceased and therefore unavailable for comment.
Dann
Thats never stopped someone "who was aound at the time?" saying,"Thats exactly how I wanted it to sound" LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Bobpaule May 11, 2008 (42 of 57)
|
|
"Is SACD stereo a waste?"
Imagine that my father still cherishes his LP played on a cheap 1970ies Czech Tesla stereo system, while my affluent neighbor Stateside has tube monoblock amps, a suspended tonearm with a cartridge that costs double than my processor, not to mention the shock absorber containing isolation and decoupling platform and Vienna Acoustics the price of a new midsize sedan.
Now imagine achieving similar results with a fraction of the price, and not having to worry about worn out records, and vinyl breakup. The same problem with celluloid spurred the enginners at Sony/Philips to race against time and create DSD's 2,8 million samples/second 120dB to transfer and preserve forever those master tracks aging in archives worldwide. RCA's Living Stereo collection is testimony to it.
Then there are DACs like the PCM1796 allowing wide dynamic range one step D/A conversion of the DSD signal from Oppo980 in the Integra 9.8 and Onkyo PR-SC885P processors with balanced outputs (though no true balanced topology).
Now we have jazz vocalists, trios and quartets that are just not meant to be remastered in surround. Take Patricia Barber's Modern Times for instance, i can't even imagine it in surround. The depth and warmth of Pat's voice would just be lost IMHO.
SACD stereo is the reason i am getting a dedicated Class A/B stereo amplifier, the Marsh A400, to take over the front from my Sherbourn monoblock 5 channel.
Also, now you can play over and over without any degradation in quality.
As for the 44.1 kHz 16 bit CDs i just avoid them in favor of MP3s in my car. $5000 CD player with the name of a salt lake crustacean? No thank you, not while
i am still fecally continent :)
So, the answer is categorically NO, on the contrary, SACD makes CD look like a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobpaule said:
"Is SACD stereo a waste?"
So, the answer is categorically NO, on the contrary, SACD makes CD look like a waste of time.
And, I might add, vinyl and pretty much any other medium on the market at the present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
And, I might add, vinyl and pretty much any other medium on the market at the present.
I agree. In fact, I feel that the audio CD should now be redundant for most music. It's high time it died out in favour of SACD.
The only thing I would add is, DVD-A in my experience is just as impressive as SACD. Both formats deserve to survive and succeed.
|
|
|
Post by Julien May 12, 2008 (45 of 57)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
And, I might add, vinyl and pretty much any other medium on the market at the present.
It's a pity that you've never heard good vinyl reproduction. When it's good it's nearly as good as an analogue master tape, and in spite of the analogue hiss (many times you hardly hear it), the life in it as a stereo medium is greater than SACD (hall sound doesn't disappear like on a CD). If stereo is dead, then you are right and vinyl is dead. But if stereo is still alive, then vinyl still rules (although there is better). If so many of the most demanding ears in the world, people after absolute transparency and perfection in audio reproduction, still embrace vinyl as the best sounding "practical" media available in stereo they obviously are right in some way. If you haven't listened to at least a few of the best turntables out there with the best vinyl I don't think it's right for you to stay on the impression of bad equipment playing commercial 70s vinyl on amplifiers that let out some awful line stage noise. Those people I'm talking about are light years ahead of you and me in terms of experience and judgement in sound reproduction.
|
|
|
Post by Goodwood May 12, 2008 (46 of 57)
|
|
If this thread can come back to life after 6 months then anything is possible :)
Re DVD-Audio there is no point in a forum for such a small community and, more to the point, I don't see why some people have complained in the past about our audio refugee brethren posting new DVD-A threads here. Life is tough enough for digital hi-res.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julien said:
It's a pity that you've never heard good vinyl reproduction. When it's good it's nearly as good as an analogue master tape, and in spite of the analogue hiss (many times you hardly hear it), the life in it as a stereo medium is greater than SACD (hall sound doesn't disappear like on a CD). If stereo is dead, then you are right and vinyl is dead. But if stereo is still alive, then vinyl still rules (although there is better). If so many of the most demanding ears in the world, people after absolute transparency and perfection in audio reproduction, still embrace vinyl as the best sounding "practical" media available in stereo they obviously are right in some way. If you haven't listened to at least a few of the best turntables out there with the best vinyl I don't think it's right for you to stay on the impression of bad equipment playing commercial 70s vinyl on amplifiers that let out some awful line stage noise. Those people I'm talking about are light years ahead of you and me in terms of experience and judgement in sound reproduction.
You're making an awfully big assumption in your opening sentence when to the best of my knowledge you and I have never met! I think that the second sentence sums it up for me - if it is only as good as another degrading medium (ignoring stereo/MCH momentarily) then I am simply not interested when there is an even higher resolution (think about the dynamic range possible on either analogue format cf SACD), non-degrading and error free medium available. The conclusion in the third sentence is therefore wrong-headed as surely an audiophile would seek the widest dynamic range (SACD), no wow & flutter or other errors (SACD) and no degradation from repeated use (SACD).
Also, most in the acoustic recording world (note: NOT those who are stuck-in-the-past equipment magazine editors and/or snake-oil salespeople of ludicrously over-priced wax cutting machines) would vehemently disagree that vinyl is anywhere near transparent let alone perfect - this is precisely why analogue formats are no longer used to archive recordings by any well respected company and precisely why Sony et al invented DSD for this very purpose. Now I know even MCH SACD is not perfect - at present we do not have a uniformly accepted system to encode height information but this is about the only feature lacking in encompassing all that is needed to truly represent an acoustic recording as accurately as possible in any persons home. Others may have more experience than me (not that I'm completely convinced such a thing can be measured with units coined for interstellar distances) but if they exhibit such blind allegiances to inherently lossy media then I conclude they quite possibly exercise their critical faculties less then myself.
|
|
|
Post by raffells May 12, 2008 (48 of 57)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
You're making an awfully big assumption in your opening sentence when to the best of my knowledge you and I have never met! I think that the second sentence sums it up for me - if it is only as good as another degrading medium (ignoring stereo/MCH momentarily) then I am simply not interested when there is an even higher resolution (think about the dynamic range possible on either analogue format cf SACD), non-degrading and error free medium available. The conclusion in the third sentence is therefore wrong-headed as surely an audiophile would seek the widest dynamic range (SACD), no wow & flutter or other errors (SACD) and no degradation from repeated use (SACD).
Also, most in the acoustic recording world (note: NOT those who are stuck-in-the-past equipment magazine editors and/or snake-oil salespeople of ludicrously over-priced wax cutting machines) would vehemently disagree that vinyl is anywhere near transparent let alone perfect - this is precisely why analogue formats are no longer used to archive recordings by any well respected company and precisely why Sony et al invented DSD for this very purpose. Now I know even MCH SACD is not perfect - at present we do not have a uniformly accepted system to encode height information but this is about the only feature lacking in encompassing all that is needed to truly represent an acoustic recording as accurately as possible in any persons home. Others may have more experience than me (not that I'm completely convinced such a thing can be measured with units coined for interstellar distances) but if they exhibit such blind allegiances to inherently lossy media then I conclude they quite possibly exercise their critical faculties less then myself.
Wot a load of rubbish.Height?
Why do we need to encode heigh information.Absolute crap.
Oh yes the violinist in the second movement of the quartet actualy raised his violin/ Just give up.
Dan Popp actually posted something which may help you understand sound listening but I doubt it.
As someone who is extremly vague about their system and who makes outlandish statements continuosly about higher resolution on surround your personal credibility on anything technical iz ZERO. Your statement about Sony in laughable if you knew what went on at the time.
With loudspeakers still a technology of the dark ages (circa 1930)All playback systems have limitations ,even your mysterious un named system.
Also Picking out any small sets of measurement paramaters which may or may not be relevant to prove your point is Rediculous and smacks of desperation.
This "quoting a few facts" would apply to anyone presenting any similair rediculous argument.Whats the point of a wide dynamic range if you are only playing a simple solo guitar etc stupid argument.
You seem to stress the potential technical improvements that DSD has but I bet you havent even come close to owning or hearing the true potential of such equipment.You certainly havent a clue on how easy it is to improve most sacd systems nearer to pure analogue sound.(something it will never do)
The fact that you were never satisfied with Vinyl tells a lot.It may be difficult for you to understand but sacd requires many many many more parts in a system that simple vinyl.Even Sony admitted that Cd and digital was never going to beat vinyl due to a number of reasons.
These didnt include the well know problems of distortion at low levels (inverse proportion)Jitter and UF noise shaping in DSD which dont exist in vinyl.I could name more.
One day someone may invent an ECONOMICAL and practical way of storing analogue/
when this happens the current digital systems will be history and looked back upon as a poor wrong road that the industry took for the wrong reasons.
Jealousy about what other people want to spend on miniscule or dubious improvements is petty.
Its not up to you to decide what they should be spending their money on even if these snake oils work or dont. Ive tested some and know if and why they work. Sometimes this involved discussions with highly technical people who were NOT IN THE TRADE thank heavens. Just scientists.
Meanwhile try keeping the reply to the posting. Albeit is a bit wide ranging.
It seems to me that there is an air of desperation coming from the few surround sound enthusiasts in a lot of the postings.WHY ?
Nothing you post on this forum is going to make the slightest difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffells said:
Wot a load of rubbish.Height?
Why do we need to encode heigh information.Absolute crap.
Oh yes the violinist in the second movement of the quartet actualy raised his violin/ Just give up.
Look, we disagree whether or not one should seek to replicate the venue experience as closely as possible; I say "yes", you don't. If you were to say "yes", you would hopefully recognise that some instruments (for example organs) are almost always heard from above due to the positioning of their pipes in the churches/cathedrals/halls wrt to a seated listener and one hears it as such. Other ensembles are commonly not so audibly higher than the seated listener. In the latter case, the standard MCH configuration is, in the main, a sufficiently good illusion to replicate the sound source and the reflections from the acoustic more closely than a stereo system can ever hope to achieve.
However, if one actually considers the experience of listening to an organ concerto (say), then the sound should be coming a separate location from the accompanying orchestra in the way most performing venues are constituted. The only commonly available recordings on the market that attempt to address this issue are those from MDG's 2+2+2 system. For historical reasons, this system of recording is not otherwise utilised by other labels and so we are restricted (other than by a few psycho-acoustic tricks) to "flat" recordings. I have been in many concerts where, for effect, the conductor has placed brass in boxes, in the choir seats or similar positions and the effect is quite different than simply leaving the instruments in the midst of the orchestra.
I will not give up in the search for better listening - for if that was the attitude that pervaded all listeners, we would both still be stuck with mono 78 cylinders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffells said:
As someone who is extremly vague about their system and who makes outlandish statements continuosly about higher resolution on surround your personal credibility on anything technical iz ZERO. Your statement about Sony in laughable if you knew what went on at the time.
Sony link here: http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/consumer/dsd/dsd.pdf (page 3).
Also: http://www.cdfreaks.com/reviews/The-SuperAudio-CD-SACD-explained/The-SACD-solution-DSD.html
Your opinion of my technical credibility may be zero; I would just note that many people (including those of the calibre of Erdo Groot) agree with my thinking in general terms.
I will never disclose my listening system - you know why (for those that don't, please search or e-mail me for an explanation). None of the many companies and artists that have sought and continue to seek my views have ever requested such information and nor do I expect them to either for the many reasons I have given (seemingly) ad nauseam.
|
|
