Thread: Sorry Guys, but I think the 'party is well and truly over'....

Posts: 56
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 next

Post by Chris May 17, 2012 (41 of 56)
tailspn said:

Hi Chris,

That is not quite accurate. While I do have native DSD files of projects I worked on (choral works recorded with five ITU aligned mics that require no mixing), the vast majority of what I play are the .dff files retrieved from the SACDs I purchased. These are in fact identical (bit perfect) to the original edit master files. That's been verified numerous times. There's no degradation in the SACD delivery process. I just play them out of a hard drive through a Sonoma DAW. Except for the editing capability of the Sonoma, the identical capability can be obtained with any modern computer, a software player like Pure Music, JRiver, Foobar (with the new DSD native plug-in) and others, and a DSD/USB capable DAC.

I think your comments above are very valid about the perceived sonic differences between PCM and DSD. SACD's can sound "veiled" or soft by comparison, especially if you don't have access to the actual mic feed to instantly compare. Hi-rez PCM is punchier, kind of "Technicolor" by comparison, and can be very pleasing. It's IMO, really a matter of taste. 44.1/16 PCM on the other hand, gives me a headache.

Hello tailspn,
A couple of questions arise from your correction to my post. First your statement"There's no degradation in the SACD delivery process. I just play them out of a hard drive through a Sonoma DAW."
What if you play the actual SACD via your Meitner transport? Do you hear any differences between the sq from it compared to playing from daw and harddrive?

In my experience with pcm recorded material playing files straight from ram ie computer memory and Pure Music Player tends to sound better than playing the SACD to me almost everytime.

Are you playing from a spinning hardrive or from memory?

Finally I am in the process of getting a DSD capable DAC, but I am still a bit confused as to which one to buy.
I am not very technically minded and don't yet know if I should go for the Mytek and if so which of the models, or not. It would also be nice to be able to tap all my 200+ SACDs of their dsd content, and be able to play them from memory instead of spinning discs. The cheapest way to do that seems to be to buy the DAD 24 Morten uses and it also does DSD128 if I understand things right. I will have to ask Morten if he ever tried that option.

Anyway exciting new times ahead for us musiclovers.
All the best Chris.

Post by tailspn May 17, 2012 (42 of 56)
Hi Chris

1.What if you play the actual SACD via your Meitner transport? Do you hear any differences between the sq from it compared to playing from daw and harddrive?

No difference. Transports either work, or they don't work. They do not have a sonic signature unless of course, you place the transport on top of or in front of a speaker cabinet, and play loud bass music from it. Ed Meitner told me once what the resonant frequency of an unsupported CD/SACD/DVD was, but I've forgotten. It was lower than I expected, like 80 Hz or so.

But the analog circuits in the remaining player certainly do affect the sound! When my Meitner isn't handy, or is out on loan, I use a Denon 1620 that I've tapped the individual internal DSD channel paths to the DAC chip, and use those, through a Grimm SDIF2 to Sony Optical converter to drive the Sonoma DSD input. The transport part of players are all the same. Bit perfect.

2.Are you playing from a spinning hardrive or from memory?

A five channel 70 minute .dff file is approximately 4GB in size, and another 2GB for the Sonoma graphics file that displays the individual track analog signals. They play out of a hard drive, filling the Sonoma buffer memory every second or so. Or so the blinking LED on the drive seems to indicate.

3.Finally I am in the process of getting a DSD capable DAC, but I am still a bit confused as to which one to buy.

I'm familiar with the Mytek, and not at all familiar with the DAD. For my application, due to the Sonoma, any studio DSD DAC that accepts Sony Optical, or SDIF2 or SDIF3 works just fine (with the exception of their individual sonic signature) The Sonoma, and its software, take care of all the interfacing/formatting/timing considerations. There's a foot and a quarter of components on a PCI card necessary to accomplish that. For your application, unless you intend to also purchase a Sonoma or Pyramix Mykerinos/Horus, you're required to accept one of the emerging interface standards for computer audio DSD support. That includes an asynchronous USB, or Firewire for connection (the USB standard seems to be the growth choice, but is still fraught occasionally with driver problems), a compatible software player, and a DSD USB/Firewire compatible DAC. Also, if you're using a Mac computer, the DAC also has to support the new dop DSD bit packing scheme to allow transmission of the DSD file using OS. So far, the Mytek and Playback Designs have led the way, with several other manufactures about to enter. At its price point, the Mytek Stereo 192 with preamp is a low risk choice. I think the DAC landscape will be much broader within a year.

Post by Fitzcaraldo215 May 17, 2012 (43 of 56)
I might add that having heard Tom's - tailspn's - system and enjoyed his hospitality in the Boston area, his system is outrageously fine sounding.

Post by tailspn May 17, 2012 (44 of 56)
Thank you Carl! We did have a great time. I hope we can do it next year, tieing it in with a BSO rehearsal. I was sorry the dinner with Jared, yourself, and Andy couldn't be put together. I was really looking forward to visiting with you. Soon I hope.

Tom

Post by Chris May 18, 2012 (45 of 56)
Fitzcaraldo215 said:

I might add that having heard Tom's - tailspn's - system and enjoyed his hospitality in the Boston area, his system is outrageously fine sounding.

No wonder, it seems he has got a an absolute SOTA system.
Unlike some others here he has got two very valid references the BSO live and his SOTA system.
If he were to say that an SACD was lacking in resolution, deep bass or whatever I would basically take his word as a fact and not necessarily challenge his view like I sometimes do with people who own midfi equipment and have little reference to the real thing.
It would be interesting to hear tailspn's view on Channel Classics The Rite of Spring that seems to be getting quite differing opinions regarding sq both here and from reviewers.
I still haven't heard it.

Post by Tim-sacd May 20, 2012 (46 of 56)
Fleetwood Mac and Eagles are PCM to DSD transfer. So they don't fully benefit of sacd/dsd-technology.

Post by Fitzcaraldo215 May 21, 2012 (47 of 56)
Tim-sacd said:

Fleetwood Mac and Eagles are PCM to DSD transfer. So they don't fully benefit of sacd/dsd-technology.

There are countless examples on SACD of excellent sounding material recorded and mastered in hi Rez PCM. I do not think there is a clear "winner" vs. DSD. Life is too short, anyway. It is more music that we need in hi Rez regardless of the choice of PCM vs. DSD recordings.

Post by hooperthom May 21, 2012 (48 of 56)
Fitzcaraldo215 said:

There are countless examples on SACD of excellent sounding material recorded and mastered in hi Rez PCM. I do not think there is a clear "winner" vs. DSD. Life is too short, anyway. It is more music that we need in hi Rez regardless of the choice of PCM vs. DSD recordings.

Does it really matter, DSD or PCM as long as it sounds good.

Post by AmonRa May 21, 2012 (49 of 56)
Tim-sacd said:

Fleetwood Mac and Eagles are PCM to DSD transfer. So they don't fully benefit of sacd/dsd-technology.

Pop, like it is done now from multitrack mixes and with heavy manipulation and processing can not be done in DSD domain anyway, so there is no point complaining about it. That is one reason SACD is mostly classical. Besides, old stuff is even worse, analog tapes.

Post by tailspn May 21, 2012 (50 of 56)
Chris said:

It would be interesting to hear tailspn's view on Channel Classics The Rite of Spring that seems to be getting quite differing opinions regarding sq both here and from reviewers.
I still haven't heard it.

I'm biased, and I've only listened to it in MCH (many times). I would agree with Castor's review with an additional thought or two. It's an intimate sonic image perspective, just like the other BFO Palace of Arts SACD's, realistically lean (unlike bloated bass drum recordings), and accurately spacious.

I was interested in fausto K's finding that it lacks the "the mandatory ferociousness and clarity". I find the BFO Scare frightening, an attack on the senses. The two tympani are alive with ferocity. I've sat under 30' away from orchestras playing this numerous times, and didn't feel the punch in the chest with each hit as this recording delivers. Musically VERY satisfying! Highly recommended.

Tom

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 next

Closed