Post by tailspn September 7, 2008 (31 of 45)
|
|
RWetmore said:
I meant that is can't be edited in its 1 bit form (at least to my knowledge). Those tools don't say how it's edited...whether it's converted to multibit or PCM. Do they?
Both the Sonoma and SADIe editing stations (DAW) use the Sony developed E-Chip that processes DSD data (known as a .dff file) at 2.8224MHZ sampling rate without any conversions. There are over 200 of these work stations in use worldwide today. Pyramix is another widely used DAW, and it does do DSD to PCM conversions during the edit interval. For pop music, that interval can be 100% of the recording. But for clasical and jazz, it is minnor, primarially durring editing cuts.
|
|
|
Post by tommwi September 7, 2008 (32 of 45)
|
|
Many years ago I once heard of something called DSD and I have to say that I did not understand much of what it was. Despite having a considerable amount of theoretical university studies behind me (long time ago) within areas such as signal processing and digital technique, also as a teacher. So when SACD “using DSD” appeared, it was incomprehensible for me - even bothering me a bit. After all I believed I should know what this was all about. I.e. until the day I understood that DSD was nothing (!) but a brand marking of an already very well known signal modulation process called PDM (Pulse Density Modulation) in combination with Delta Sigma modulation (a digital calculator to handle the negative feedback of the huge quantization errors that occur in most PDM samples).
So the last question should be – can the PDM signal be manipulated, that is alter the amplitude among other things? Well – the definition of PDM is that it uses fixed upper and lower reference levels for encoding the modulated signal. So for each and every sample the PDM signal is discrete and can only take on one of two values, although the signal will be kind of amplitude continuous (analogue) over a time period. By definition! This will make it impossible to shape anything than what was once recorded. By definition! So the answer to this question will have to be – no! By definition!
What about these work stations that is said to be doing it all in the digital DSD domain then? Well it is supposed to use the E-chip… What is that? Hmmm.., - I think I know. The E-chip handles the same information (music) in two parallel streams: The 1-bit stream and a PCM signal. At all stages. The shaping of the DSD signal or 1-bit stream is being carried out by adding the difference between the PCM signal and DSD signal to the bit stream by using coefficients derived from the PCM signal. I bet it is called Delta sigma modulation… :-) So yes – the whole procedure will take place in the digital DSD-domain, but will be impossible to carry out without the reference of a PCM signal. Jesus Christ – this is funny! Thanks for the laugh of this day (although this has not been my most funny day for sure).
I think that anyone who is interested in good sounding recordings should leave this level of discussion. This has nothing whatsoever to do with what we can experience or hear. I’m 100% sure that the quality of the power supply unit will have more impact on the sound quality than the choice of methods for digital processing in the mixing consoles. My general conclusion is that DSD does not have much potential for improvements. It is a special case of a special case (PDM is a special case of PWM, which once was used in laser discs btw). While PCM will for sure improve many times in the future. Just check the ongoing improvements with red book CD's...
What really counts is the end product. Many recordings from the likes of Channel Classics (DSD) and BIS (PCM) in the SACD format are among the best sounding recordings I have ever heard! Many thanks to those people BEHIND / IN FRONT OF their consoles! They make a difference!
|
|
|
|
|
|
tommwi said:
Many years ago I once heard of something called DSD and I have to say that I did not understand much of what it was. Despite having a considerable amount of theoretical university studies behind me (long time ago) within areas such as signal processing and digital technique, also as a teacher. So when SACD “using DSD” appeared, it was incomprehensible for me - even bothering me a bit. After all I believed I should know what this was all about. I.e. until the day I understood that DSD was nothing (!) but a brand marking of an already very well known signal modulation process called PDM (Pulse Density Modulation) in combination with Delta Sigma modulation (a digital calculator to handle the negative feedback of the huge quantization errors that occur in most PDM samples).
So the last question should be – can the PDM signal be manipulated, that is alter the amplitude among other things? Well – the definition of PDM is that it uses fixed upper and lower reference levels for encoding the modulated signal. So for each and every sample the PDM signal is discrete and can only take on one of two values, although the signal will be kind of amplitude continuous (analogue) over a time period. By definition! This will make it impossible to shape anything than what was once recorded. By definition! So the answer to this question will have to be – no! By definition!
What about these work stations that is said to be doing it all in the digital DSD domain then? Well it is supposed to use the E-chip… What is that? Hmmm.., - I think I know. The E-chip handles the same information (music) in two parallel streams: The 1-bit stream and a PCM signal. At all stages. The shaping of the DSD signal or 1-bit stream is being carried out by adding the difference between the PCM signal and DSD signal to the bit stream by using coefficients derived from the PCM signal. I bet it is called Delta sigma modulation… :-) So yes – the whole procedure will take place in the digital DSD-domain, but will be impossible to carry out without the reference of a PCM signal. Jesus Christ – this is funny! Thanks for the laugh of this day (although this has not been my most funny day for sure).
I think that anyone who is interested in good sounding recordings should leave this level of discussion. This has nothing whatsoever to do with what we can experience or hear. I’m 100% sure that the quality of the power supply unit will have more impact on the sound quality than the choice of methods for digital processing in the mixing consoles. My general conclusion is that DSD does not have much potential for improvements. It is a special case of a special case (PDM is a special case of PWM, which once was used in laser discs btw). While PCM will for sure improve many times in the future. Just check the ongoing improvements with red book CD's...
What really counts is the end product. Many recordings from the likes of Channel Classics (DSD) and BIS (PCM) in the SACD format are among the best sounding recordings I have ever heard! Many thanks to those people BEHIND / IN FRONT OF their consoles! They make a difference!
Do you like SACD or not?
|
|
|
Post by DSD September 8, 2008 (34 of 45)
|
|
RWetmore said:
Interesting points. I actually think SACD would have done better without multichannel and with mandatory hybrid discs. The 1 bit thing was a big mistake too since it can't be edited in that form.
Had they gone with something like DXD (352.8khz/24bit) stereo only with mandatory hybrid discs, the improvement over regular CD would have been greater and everything would have been simpler. They could have left multichannel to DVD-Audio.
I would have liked SACDs to have all been single-layer or dual DSD layer as the presence of the CD layer in Hybrids seems to put extra strain on SACD players which often quit playing Hybrids. Transports are getting better at handling Hybrids, but a single layer SACD is less challenging for a transport thus it would last longer if no SACDs had a CD layer.
If SACD had stayed 2 channel Stereo only, the multi-channel area could be used to make very long playing SACDs like some of BIS's extended play Stereo SACD only discs.
But if I had gotten my way single-layer 2 channel SACDs only, SACD would likely be a dead format.
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSD said:
If SACD had stayed 2 channel Stereo only, the multi-channel area could be used to make very long playing SACDs like some of BIS's extended play Stereo SACD only discs.
But if I had gotten my way single-layer 2 channel SACDs only, SACD would likely be a dead format.
I am inclined to agree with your observations concerning hybrid vs single layer discs.
My musical preferences run from Vivaldi and Bach through Haydn and Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert, Mendelssohn and Berlioz, Bruckner, Brahms and Dvorak to Mahler, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Bartok and, well I think maybe you get the idea. I enjoy chamber music, symphonies and opera. I like acoustic folk music (somewhat -depending on the performers).
I found the difference between SACD and RBCD in stereo is very very much dependent on the quality of the associated equipment. The better the associated equipment the more profound the difference between SACD and RBCD.
I have a good sense of realism vs hi-fi in reproduced sound because I attend a good number of live concerts, both chamber and symphonic in several locations each year. That said, I have only a very few stereo/multi-channel SACDs, in a collection approaching 600 albums, that do not gain ENORMOUSLY in realism when played back in mch.
So your comments and others stating a preference for stereo really leave me bewildered. I wish you and others who hold with your position lived close-by so you could visit and listen with me to compare notes on what we hear.
|
|
|
Post by raffells September 8, 2008 (36 of 45)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
So your comments and others stating a preference for stereo really leave me bewildered. I wish you and others who hold with your position lived close-by so you could visit and listen with me to compare notes on what we hear.
Im not suprised you are bewildered and have difficult reading English.
The subject of the thread is the Title."Lack of video "etc.
Its was not meant for you to post your usual already well documented cheerleading neither was it meant for DSDs pronouncement on what is in (for her) this week.
We all know how many times this changes.
Similairly I have top quality surround as my spare system,still unanble to get a buyer as once they hear the main system in stereo the gimmick and problems associated to surround seem pbvious.ie How many discs did you say were available in pure DSD surround...ehm...Can I copy them...
The latter are the main causes of the so called Demise of sacd.Video is almost solely a pop oriented market.Just go in any bricks and mortar store to DVD music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffells said:
Im not suprised you are bewildered and have difficult reading English.
The subject of the thread is the Title."Lack of video "etc.
Its was not meant for you to post your usual already well documented cheerleading neither was it meant for DSDs pronouncement on what is in (for her) this week.
We all know how many times this changes.
Similairly I have top quality surround as my spare system,still unanble to get a buyer as once they hear the main system in stereo the gimmick and problems associated to surround seem pbvious.ie How many discs did you say were available in pure DSD surround...ehm...Can I copy them...
The latter are the main causes of the so called Demise of sacd.Video is almost solely a pop oriented market.Just go in any bricks and mortar store to DVD music.
I actually looked to see if Theresa had posted her email address because I really wanted to communicate with her - without awakening the ogre under the bridge. Shame that you don't know how to be civil, how to accept the fact that others have different opinions from yourself, and how to allow them to express those opinions without your resorting to personal attacks.
As to Theresa's response to Rwetmore being off-topic, (I infer that's what you are talking about when you say
"...neither was it meant for DSDs pronouncement on what is in...")
wasn't it really Rwetmore who ran (a very little bit) off topic there? and isn't it just a little bit of a stretch to condemn what he said as "off topic" - I mean how much does it matter that he made comments not pertinent to video ?
Good Grief man, pull in your horns!
|
|
|
Post by stvnharr September 8, 2008 (38 of 45)
|
|
tommwi said:
Many years ago I once heard of something called DSD and I have to say that I did not understand much of what it was. Despite having a considerable amount of theoretical university studies behind me (long time ago) within areas such as signal processing and digital technique, also as a teacher. So when SACD “using DSD” appeared, it was incomprehensible for me - even bothering me a bit. After all I believed I should know what this was all about. I.e. until the day I understood that DSD was nothing (!) but a brand marking of an already very well known signal modulation process called PDM (Pulse Density Modulation) in combination with Delta Sigma modulation (a digital calculator to handle the negative feedback of the huge quantization errors that occur in most PDM samples).
So the last question should be – can the PDM signal be manipulated, that is alter the amplitude among other things? Well – the definition of PDM is that it uses fixed upper and lower reference levels for encoding the modulated signal. So for each and every sample the PDM signal is discrete and can only take on one of two values, although the signal will be kind of amplitude continuous (analogue) over a time period. By definition! This will make it impossible to shape anything than what was once recorded. By definition! So the answer to this question will have to be – no! By definition!
What about these work stations that is said to be doing it all in the digital DSD domain then? Well it is supposed to use the E-chip… What is that? Hmmm.., - I think I know. The E-chip handles the same information (music) in two parallel streams: The 1-bit stream and a PCM signal. At all stages. The shaping of the DSD signal or 1-bit stream is being carried out by adding the difference between the PCM signal and DSD signal to the bit stream by using coefficients derived from the PCM signal. I bet it is called Delta sigma modulation… :-) So yes – the whole procedure will take place in the digital DSD-domain, but will be impossible to carry out without the reference of a PCM signal. Jesus Christ – this is funny! Thanks for the laugh of this day (although this has not been my most funny day for sure).
I think that anyone who is interested in good sounding recordings should leave this level of discussion. This has nothing whatsoever to do with what we can experience or hear. I’m 100% sure that the quality of the power supply unit will have more impact on the sound quality than the choice of methods for digital processing in the mixing consoles. My general conclusion is that DSD does not have much potential for improvements. It is a special case of a special case (PDM is a special case of PWM, which once was used in laser discs btw). While PCM will for sure improve many times in the future. Just check the ongoing improvements with red book CD's...
What really counts is the end product. Many recordings from the likes of Channel Classics (DSD) and BIS (PCM) in the SACD format are among the best sounding recordings I have ever heard! Many thanks to those people BEHIND / IN FRONT OF their consoles! They make a difference!
Tommy,
You could be in deep trouble here for introducing actual facts into a discussion here. Next we know you'll write another post about how this all came to be, i.e. a method to archive old master recording tapes that were falling rapidly falling apart. Then someone thought they could record with this, and so it's gone on and on.
And I totally agree, "What really counts is the end product." It's the skill of the recording engineers far more than the kind of recording machine.
And the title of this thread, HOW FUNNY. A music format didn't quite catch on because it wasn't a video format.
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffells said:
The subject of the thread is the Title."Lack of video "etc.
Its was not meant for you to post [...]
Dear Raffles,
As the original poster of this thread I honestly don't mind the subject of this thread drifting. I may not have expected to entertain a long-runnung discussion about the possible causes of SACDs niche reach, I primarily intended to express my wonder at the statements by one Sony spokesperson who for years was deeply involved in pushing SACD. He has even visited and posted here. I guess the things he said must somehow be indicative of the criticism he's experienced from naysayers.
|
|
|
Post by raffells September 9, 2008 (40 of 45)
|
|
The Seventh Taylor said:
Dear Raffles,
As the original poster of this thread I honestly don't mind the subject of this thread drifting. I may not have expected to entertain a long-runnung discussion about the possible causes of SACDs niche reach, I primarily intended to express my wonder at the statements by one Sony spokesperson who for years was deeply involved in pushing SACD. He has even visited and posted here. I guess the things he said must somehow be indicative of the criticism he's experienced from naysayers.
Whilsty you dont mind the subject drifting It is clearly in Zeus guidelines about staying on topic.
I assume the main reason for this is to stop the moronic repetition of those obsessed with one small part of the sacd discussion repeating the same old statements.I have pointed out this a number of times but someone seems to have difficulty reading it.This has a negative effect overall on the forumites who well know the views of the individual.We dont need it raing on Every topic.
To my knowledge it has already had an effect that several people stopped posting reviews and enetering discussions on a variety of topics on this forum.
Whilst obviously your original title and explanation leaves enough scope for wide discussion some of which has been very interesting , it seems that every topic for some people is open for their own agenda.
I have pointed this out before to one of the offenders who now seems to respond to anyone who has different opinions and/or higher technical level discussion ie wetmore with his well know un related responses.
In response to your original posting I am suprised that you find a Sony persons shifting attitude strange.Especially as I am aware you have had previous direct experience with them.I can give you many other cases of this going back to the introduction of CD.
Maybe in the near future we shall be seeing a thread about the demise of sa-cd.net.Im sure Raffles and myself will only care if it carries on without these boring repetition of postings.I may even start adding some constructive discussion and reviews.
|
|
