|
|
|
raffells said:
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)
"With loudspeakers still a technology of the dark ages (circa 1930)All playback systems have limitations ,even your mysterious un named system." - Agreed although some have far greater limitations than others.
"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." - or some might call it trying to build a logical argument. I might have failed, in which case mea culpa but I am sure there would be others who would be equally willing (and justifiably so IMO) to argue if I merely made assertions.
"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." - As I said to Julien, unless we have ever met, that is a remarkable assertion to make!
"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)" - I'm not sure how to respond to this as you appear to contradict yourself; either sacd systems can become nearer to pure analogue sound or they cannot. My fervent hope is that SACD's will not exhibit the inherent degradation of the recorded sound that any analogue system must.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Whats the point of a wide dynamic range if you are only playing a simple solo guitar etc stupid argument." - Agreed but as you well know, the musical canon consists of far more music than just that written for solo guitar (beautiful though it can be). A great deal of this music calls for dynamics from ppppp to ffff and for music like that, one would surely desire as wide a dynamic range as possible. Every SACD player on the market that I have auditioned has a wider dynamic range than the very best turntable - so I think that SACD is a more realistic (?better?) medium than vinyl.
"The fact that you were never satisfied with Vinyl tells a lot." - Yes, it tells you that I don't like machines that have measurable and audible speed variations, wow and flutter, dust, scratches, ...
"It may be difficult for you to understand but sacd requires many many many more parts in a system that simple vinyl." - No I fully understand this - better technologies often do.
"Even Sony admitted that Cd and digital was never going to beat vinyl due to a number of reasons." - could you provide a link/source for this please?
"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." - which are far less audible to me than the artificial errors of vinyl which many mistake for "warmth".
|
|
|
Post by dbmay75 May 12, 2008 (53 of 57)
|
|
Goodwood said:
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.
I created this thread and I'm also surprised it came back up...I think it should be put to bed, or at least restarted by someone else.
My reason for posting at the time is that while I can't afford to embrace my SACD collection on a 14K gold system like some here can and do ... my ears, as sensitive as I consider them to be, could not pick out enough nuances from the few stereo SACD's I purchased to keep them around. This was especially true after hearing Herbie Hancock's "HeadHunters" of which I later found the MCH edition for less than half of what I paid for the ST edition and was much more satisfied with.
While I still frequent this site to gain knowledge of hardware and releases, I don't post here as much because every thread seems to end up as one big cat fight nowadays and of all the issues in the world to bicker about, music and digital formatting is not one I care to take part in. I now post more often at stevehoffman.tv which is VERY busy and anything and everything is game.
As for the 'other white format', if you will, I don't bring it up here anymore because I was nailed to the cross one too many times by members whose names I won't mention. I still think both are great formats, and I continue to collect titles when my desire is hot enough to do so.
Long live hi-res!
Cheers,
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
"One day someone may invent an ECONOMICAL and practical way of storing analogue" - they have, it's called DSD!
"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." - unlikely; it's the best solution currently commercially viable and progress is full of stepping stones from one medium to the next. Even the RBCD was, in some (admittedly limited) senses a step up from analogue though I am very happy to be leaving behind the low-resolution PCM digital sound...
"Jealousy about what other people want to spend on miniscule or dubious improvements is petty." - I couldn't agree more but I'm not sure how this relates to earlier points you or I were trying to make.
"Its not up to you to decide what they should be spending their money on even if these snake oils work or dont." - And nor did I claim it to be or want it to be.
"Nothing you post on this forum is going to make the slightest difference." - perhaps not with you but I will share with you that it has and does with other readers, artists and companies who have contacted me.
|
|
|
Post by raffells May 13, 2008 (55 of 57)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
"One day someone may invent an ECONOMICAL and practical way of storing analogue" - they have, it's called DSD!
"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." - unlikely; it's the best solution currently commercially viable and progress is full of stepping stones from one medium to the next. Even the RBCD was, in some (admittedly limited) senses a step up from analogue though I am very happy to be leaving behind the low-resolution PCM digital sound...
"Jealousy about what other people want to spend on miniscule or dubious improvements is petty." - I couldn't agree more but I'm not sure how this relates to earlier points you or I were trying to make.
"Its not up to you to decide what they should be spending their money on even if these snake oils work or dont." - And nor did I claim it to be or want it to be.
"Nothing you post on this forum is going to make the slightest difference." - perhaps not with you but I will share with you that it has and does with other readers, artists and companies who have contacted me.
"One day someone may invent an ECONOMICAL and practical way of storing analogue" - they have, it's called DSD!
As I said about your technical knowledge .Its Zilch.
DSD is a digital sytem.It menans you have already converted analogue to a digital system with all its problems.
Ask someone else to explain it.
It is not the best solution for a few technical reasons.Also PCM is the industry standard and easier to edit.Even now DSD is converted back to PCM for editing and hashed back to DSD later/The sample rate on the upper fqs is lower at present than PCM.Even the 16 bit Cd level.
The fact that you can talk of PCM being a step up from analogue adds to your lack of credibility.In case you hadnt realized the D to A convertor means converting th digits back to an analogue waveform akin to natural sound.
Historically Digital is a relatively new interloper into the "sound" empire and brought with it as many problems as it solved (storage and transportation).
YOUR post about how other people spend money clearly states your attitude to other people and your own unwillingness to spend.
I pressume these other contacts are trying to sell you a decent system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffells said:
"One day someone may invent an ECONOMICAL and practical way of storing analogue" - they have, it's called DSD!
As I said about your technical knowledge .Its Zilch.
DSD is a digital sytem.It menans you have already converted analogue to a digital system with all its problems.
Ask someone else to explain it.
It is not the best solution for a few technical reasons.Also PCM is the industry standard and easier to edit.Even now DSD is converted back to PCM for editing and hashed back to DSD later/The sample rate on the upper fqs is lower at present than PCM.Even the 16 bit Cd level.
The fact that you can talk of PCM being a step up from analogue adds to your lack of credibility.In case you hadnt realized the D to A convertor means converting th digits back to an analogue waveform akin to natural sound.
Historically Digital is a relatively new interloper into the "sound" empire and brought with it as many problems as it solved (storage and transportation).
YOUR post about how other people spend money clearly states your attitude to other people and your own unwillingness to spend.
I pressume these other contacts are trying to sell you a decent system.
With respect, please read: http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/consumer/dsd/dsd.pdf
Sony and their army of technical boffins clearly believe that it is an economical and practical way of storing analogue recordings. I am not arguing that it is perfect - nor are they - it is the "best" in certain senses that currently exists. There are always, with any technique, problems with DSD (as there are with PCM, analogue). The order of the problem is smaller than previously extant digital technologies and of a different nature to those of analogue.
As for whether DSD has to be converted to PCM to manipulate - it is quite in contrast to what companies like Telarc, Exton, Pentatone (amongst others) are willing to publically claim on their websites and the technical information that accompanies their releases. Are they wrong in their technical knowledge?
It would be helpful if you read my posts with a little more care and a calmer head; at no point have I claimed PCM to be better than analogue. I do assert though, that as with every digital technology, once the conversion errors have happened no more degradation need occur that unfortunately is inherent in an analogue processes. Clearly any digital sound medium needs to be converted back to an analogue signal to drive the necessarily analogue speakers. This could happen in the speakers themselves had the development of hi-fi been different but it usually takes place in the player or the amplifier/receiver these days (separate digital conversion boxes excepted).
My contacts do not try to sell me anything - I wouldn't say there was anything indecent about my system anyhow!
|
|
|
Post by raffells May 13, 2008 (57 of 57)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
With respect, please read: http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/consumer/dsd/dsd.pdf
Sony and their army of technical boffins clearly believe that it is an economical and practical way of storing analogue recordings. I am not arguing that it is perfect - nor are they - it is the "best" in certain senses that currently exists. There are always, with any technique, problems with DSD (as there are with PCM, analogue). The order of the problem is smaller than previously extant digital technologies and of a different nature to those of analogue.
As for whether DSD has to be converted to PCM to manipulate - it is quite in contrast to what companies like Telarc, Exton, Pentatone (amongst others) are willing to publically claim on their websites and the technical information that accompanies their releases. Are they wrong in their technical knowledge?
It would be helpful if you read my posts with a little more care and a calmer head; at no point have I claimed PCM to be better than analogue. I do assert though, that as with every digital technology, once the conversion errors have happened no more degradation need occur that unfortunately is inherent in an analogue processes. Clearly any digital sound medium needs to be converted back to an analogue signal to drive the necessarily analogue speakers. This could happen in the speakers themselves had the development of hi-fi been different but it usually takes place in the player or the amplifier/receiver these days (separate digital conversion boxes excepted).
My contacts do not try to sell me anything - I wouldn't say there was anything indecent about my system anyhow!
Sony and there technical army of boffins and advertising writers once spent millions on stating that CD was the perfect sound.I believe there was move toe take them to court in th UK and that got away with it on a technicality.(There is no such thing as a perfect sound?)
If they nowadays believe in it why are they currently NOT BACKING IT They have gone over to Hirez PCM on Blue Ray.
I suggest you go to another website relating to sacd and look up Micheal Bishops name in the postings.He will confirm that Telarcs use PCM conversion in their editing / mastering.
If its good enough for him and Bissie who has posted a similair comment on this forum then I would suggest thats proof enough .
I also suggest you actually read what you have written.
Totally agree that one day a miracle may occur and a better than loudspeaker replacement will occur.Hope its not digital though.
As I said Most is still 1930s technology with minor changes.
Has nobody tried to sell you this snake oil then?.
You must have know that line was coming.
.Ive got loads spare..
|
|
