|
|
|
RWetmore said:
Yes, but a 1 bit system is fundamentally flawed and can never be perfected as documented by Lipshitz, Vanderkooy, etc.
You have been sadly misled. It is NOT fundamentally flawed. It is noisy that's all, and with proper noise shaping and properly applied dither, it is neigh unto perfect.
Lipshitz wrote another paper about two years after the one you seem to hold in such high regard as one might the holy bible. In that second paper he said some quite different things, among them being that the processors (then in use) did not apply correct dither, but that when correct dither is applied, DSD is perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RWetmore said:
It sounds good yes - better than CD when done well, but it's not clear this "better" sound is achieved through improved transparency to the source.
Actually it is very clear that in this case the "better" is achieved through reduced jitter. Jitter is reduced to almost nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RWetmore said
Is the perceived better sound primarily do to us liking how the 1 bit distortion sounds or because of the superior impulse response and frequency response? From what I understand, the majority of the scientific community believes it is the former.
Where do you come up with this garbage? Majority of the scientific community? You are basically talking about some self interested (meaning with $ in their eyes) individuals who want to put down DSD and sell you something they market without regard to truth telling - like some political faces now talking on TV adds in the US these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RWetmore said:
Even so, it's not a good permanent solution if for no other reason than its noise shaping characteristics, which are gimmicky and unnatural.
This is so much blather.
Someone said if you throw enough mud some of it is sure to stick. (That means it will be believed, not that it will find a legitimate target) Stop throwing mud.
We have a nearly perfect medium, if you aren't realizing this you need to invest a little more heavily in good equipment and spend time on your set-up so that you can. We need much less of this kind of pointless poisoning based on theorizing that was in so many words, essentially rescinded a couple years after it made its first appearance.
IT is not possible to exceed the quality of DSD for the reasons Tailspn has enumerated above. For god's sake, put it to bed and start enjoying and sharing with us your enjoyment of what is really the finest reproduction of acoustic sound imaginable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe Mr. Wetmore, you need to spend more time in a concert hall to realize just how well DSD/SACD is realizing the goal of life like reproduction of concert hall sound in the home.
|
|
|
Post by RWetmore August 11, 2008 (36 of 43)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
Lipshitz wrote another paper about two years after the one you seem to hold in such high regard as one might the holy bible. In that second paper he said some quite different things, among them being that the processors (then in use) did not apply correct dither, but that when correct dither is applied, DSD is perfect.
What is your source for this? I'd like to read that second paper of his.
|
|
|
Post by RWetmore August 11, 2008 (37 of 43)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by tailspn August 11, 2008 (38 of 43)
|
|
RWetmore said:
What is your source for this? I'd like to read that second paper of his.
The paper in question is VANDERKOOY AND LIPSHITZ AES paper 5620, Towards a Better Understanding of 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Modulators —
Part 3.
One of the areas they investigate is the behavior of undithered 1-bit modulators. A snippet from the summary states:
"While the internal “noise” of a 1-bit modulator might be regarded by some as a form of internal dither linearizing the device, we prefer to view it as the effect of recursive error feedback, which is capable of reducing, but not eliminating, the distortion. In contrast, proper dither removes all vestiges of distortion."
I trust I have not taken this out of the context the authors intended. The point remains that these issues were debated eight years ago, and have proven to be irrelevant in the overall success of an efficient, robust, transparent delivery system, exclusively for audio. I do not believe it is perfect, and I do believe it can be improved upon, but it is hardly "fundamentally flawed" or "gimmicky and unnatural".
DSD, and the resultant SA-CD have a combination of coding efficiently, wide bandwidth, dynamic range and linearity, all documented and proven in practice, that currently has no peer. Can it be improved upon? Certainly it can be technically, but I do not believe anyone would hear any sonic improvement. It has been demonstrated, and I have personally witnessed it with electorstatic headphones, no detectable sonic difference in an A/B comparison of a live analog microphone(s) feed and a 64fs DSD A/D-D/A loop. I don't know what more I could ask for.
So Wetmore, I do hope you find a format that pleases you. For the rest of us who take enjoyment from SA-CD's, I'm convinced that after 55 years of my interest in recreating an acoustical event in my listening space, at least the delivery system part of it has been solved. Now as to recording and mastering technology, that's another story.
Thanks
Tom
|
|
|
Post by hamblis August 11, 2008 (39 of 43)
|
|
I have a a dCS transport and a Meridian 559 transport, both connected to a dCS DAC. I keep the Meridian now purely for DVD and DVD-Audio. The dCS upsamples CD to 2.82Mhz and, played this way, the gap btween CD and SACD is small. SACD is always preferable but I wonder if that is due, at least in part, to production decisions. As an example, I have two copies of Beethoven's Violin Concerto performed by Heifetz with the Boston Symphony Orchestra in 1955. One is a JVC XRCD and the other is RCA Living Stereo SACD. I prefer the SACD but is it entirely the format that makes the difference or does the mixing contribute?
My impression is that the industry continues to improve the sound of CD and I'm hugely relieved it can and does because I doubt we'll ever see a comparable investment in historic content on another medium. The question at the beginning was "what music types benefit most from SACD?" I think the answer is that SACD is a superior format for any kind of music but that all music benefits because, through upsampling and other advances, CD gets better and better. From Schubert Lieder to Led Zeppelin, that is my experience.
|
|
|
Post by RWetmore August 11, 2008 (40 of 43)
|
|
tailspn said:
The paper in question is VANDERKOOY AND LIPSHITZ AES paper 5620, Towards a Better Understanding of 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Modulators —
Part 3.
One of the areas they investigate is the behavior of undithered 1-bit modulators. A snippet from the summary states:
"While the internal “noise” of a 1-bit modulator might be regarded by some as a form of internal dither linearizing the device, we prefer to view it as the effect of recursive error feedback, which is capable of reducing, but not eliminating, the distortion. In contrast, proper dither removes all vestiges of distortion."
I trust I have not taken this out of the context the authors intended. The point remains that these issues were debated eight years ago, and have proven to be irrelevant in the overall success of an efficient, robust, transparent delivery system, exclusively for audio. I do not believe it is perfect, and I do believe it can be improved upon, but it is hardly "fundamentally flawed" or "gimmicky and unnatural".
Thanks - sounds good. Do you have a link to the entire paper?
You should respond to the claims made in the referenced thread at AVS and set the record straight. If this is all true, the claims being made there are out of date and incorrect.
|
|
