Post by tailspn July 30, 2008 (21 of 32)
|
|
Lee Scoggins said:
I agree that 384 would probably be close.
I think some PCM intermediary stages on transfers use sampling around this rate.
That is correct for the Pyramix editing station, but not the Sonoma nor Sadie, which use the Sony E-chip to edit directly in the DSD 1-bit format.
But that is not the accepted advantage of DSD. It's in the analog to digital, and didital to analog stages of the recording and playback processes, not digital to digital format changes. It is believed that this is due to shallower filter slopes, and the elimination of the decimation processes. Pure DSD will always have a more ideal impluse response, and for us purists the preferred format. But it is a dimishing return as sampling rates of any format increase. It's really a question of practicality in the recording biz. A well known clasical music recording company of my acquaintaince purchases SATA 500GB hard drives by the 100 lot case every month. Double the sampling rate and you more than double the required hard drives with the attendent editing overhead. 384kHz is four times..........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwood said:
For me the future of disc based audio lies on the whole product - just like any product marketing exercise.
Part of the marketing needs to concentrate on multi-channel issues, a very confusing aspect of SACD to anyone coming new to the medium. Then, there is the added expense of the extra speakers, which in a high-end system can be prohibitive. (Do you spend as much on the 2 rear speakers as the front ones, can you get away with slightly lower quality speakers all around, are there amplifiers around that can multi-channel and still be affordable, etc ... ?)
What is interesting is the relatively rare mention of the SACD medium in Classical music review magazines. We all know that a large number of music critics have the most rudimentary (i.e. 4th rate) listening equipment, some being happy with a boom box (true!), even though many Classical music review magazines ask them to comment on the sound quality. However, there are a number who have true Hi Fi systems and are interested in hearing the best sound quality and their ranks still do not seem to have been penetrated in any significant way by the promoters of the SACD format.
It is the Classical music industry that seems to be propping up SACD at the moment, at least in terms of quantity of new releases. Marketing needs to focus on this area before it starts being picked up by other music genres.
|
|
|
Post by RWetmore August 5, 2008 (23 of 32)
|
|
What about 352.8khz/24bit? Is that the DXD format? That really should be better than DSD.
|
|
|
Post by soundboy August 5, 2008 (24 of 32)
|
|
|
SACD is still relevant. For the 4th straight year, there will be a free SACD demo sampler (with paid admission) to the upcoming 2008 Hong Kong High-End Audio Visual Show (August 8th - 10th). As with last year's demo SACD, the SACD will be pressed in Austria by Sony.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RWetmore said:
What about 352.8khz/24bit? Is that the DXD format? That really should be better than DSD.
(From Wikipedia)
Digital eXtreme Definition (DXD) is an audio encoding scheme for professional use that was developed for editing high-resolution recordings because DSD, the audio standard used on Super Audio CD is not ideally suited for editing. DXD is a PCM-like signal with 24-bit resolution sampled at 352.8 kHz – eight times 44.1 kHz, the sampling frequency of Red Book CD. The data rate is 11.2896 Mbit/s – four times that of DSD.
DXD was initially developed for Merging’s Pyramix DSD workstation.
DSD is at it's best when little or no editing is done. Any digital format suffers some degradation during editing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SACD is like a bad wife. Gave you great sex before you got married, then when you fully commited, it went frigid with hardly a highlight of pleasure but still demands commitment and you cling on in the vane hope that the glory days will re-appear.
Ho hum.
|
|
|
Post by RWetmore August 5, 2008 (27 of 32)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
SACD is like a bad wife. Gave you great sex before you got married, then when you fully commited, it went frigid with hardly a highlight of pleasure but still demands commitment and you cling on in the vane hope that the glory days will re-appear.
Ho hum.
lol
|
|
|
Post by soundboy August 5, 2008 (28 of 32)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
SACD is like a bad wife. Gave you great sex before you got married, then when you fully commited, it went frigid with hardly a highlight of pleasure but still demands commitment and you cling on in the vane hope that the glory days will re-appear.
Ho hum.
Well, if you put it that way....LOL
|
|
|
Post by Peter August 6, 2008 (29 of 32)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
SACD is like a bad wife. Gave you great sex before you got married, then when you fully commited, it went frigid with hardly a highlight of pleasure but still demands commitment and you cling on in the vane hope that the glory days will re-appear.
Ho hum.
Ho hum, indeed. Poor old Ting Tong Macadangdang.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, amongst all the discussion of sampling frequencies, resolutions, filters, etc, I find it interesting that the lossless codecs (as found on the new breed of "high-def" receivers to accommadate Blu Ray films, have a sampling frequency of 48kHz 'only', albeit with a bit-depth of 24. Of course, that is across 7 channels (plus a LFE channel).
|
|
