Post by Arnaldo July 10, 2012 (51 of 84)
|
|
jeff3948 said:
... A forum is a discussion and hopefully we learn something like I have and maybe some other people. I think this discussion is very interesting, I hope other do as well.
Yadda, yadda, yadda... Sorry pal, but no one here cares about your personal tests, that is, except for yourself and a few starving trolls. As a forum, there are more intelligent and interesting topics to discuss. Actually, anything is better than this recycled crap claiming that everything sounds the same. What's next on your obviously not very busy agenda? A M&M's vs. Kit-Kat pig-out? In the meantime, could you please stop spamming this site?
|
|
|
Post by jeff3948 July 10, 2012 (52 of 84)
|
|
canonical said:
This sounds like a mistake. SACD playback is designed to shift the unwanted noise above 50kHz (well, actually a bit lower than that), and then for your machine to filter out that noise. That is what is meant to happen. Not sure how much of it would get through anyway ... you will probably just fry something ... but if that is how it is designed to work, I wouldn't try tampering with it.
Also, does your Denon universal player actually do native DSD to analog? Directly? Or does it do some sort of 24 bit 192kHz conversion?
Sorry, I don't know the Gatti Tchaikovsky or Chailly Mahler. But I do have the Argerich Cinderella disc ... very fine it is too ... and an easy one to tell SACD layer (stereo) from CD layer ... just listen to the bass notes on the opening passage. Bland on the CD layer and alive and natural on the SACD layer.
Hi canonical,
According to the Denon player's manual, it does not convert to 192kHz/24 bit PCM unless certain options are selected and then it says it converts it to PCM. For instance I bypass bass management because if I turned bass managment on it says it converts it to PCM first. Also, "Pure Direct Analog" with no bass managment was selected on the receiver as well, so no conversion should have been made. I made sure none of those options were selected as I have for the past several years.
The final movement of the Cinderella suite (Track 10), which is what I used for the test, has tremendous bass in the last 2 minutes and both SACD stereo and CD layer sounded similar, in fact I thought the bass was a little better on the CD layer then the SACD stereo layer. But, I'll listen to the first track of Cinderella on the Argerich SACD and see if I can see the difference in the bass that you mentioned. I'll report back tonight.
Look everyone, I'd LOVE to hear a difference between the two and I was expecting to hear a difference, but I didn't. That's my ears and my system. I urge you to try truely blind testing the CD and SACD 2 channel layers yourselves. Blind testing is important, because I discovered that knowing what you're listening to can effect and prejudge what you are hearing especially when you want the SACD stereo layer to sound better like I did.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arnaldo said:
As a forum, there are more intelligent and interesting topics to discuss.
Like, how rare Ethiopian long-hair sheep skin improves sound quality in headphones when combined with precious metals and exotic woods?
Or how equally exotic and expensive power cords clearly improve resolution in SACDs?
Yeah, right.
This is audio. That is silliness (at best). So speak for yourself only, please, or, better still, why not just keep it to yourself. Not a lot of people around here seem to care that much about your personal "tests," either.
And be respectful (check those forum rules again, will ya).
Most importantly, though, don't drink-and-post.
|
|
|
Post by Arnaldo July 10, 2012 (54 of 84)
|
|
Polarius T said:
Like, how rare Ethiopian long-hair sheep skin improves sound quality in headphones when combined with precious metals and exotic woods?
Or how equally exotic and expensive power cords clearly improve resolution in SACDs?
Yeah, right...
Isn't it funny how easy it's to predict when dimwitted trolls such as yourself are gonna come out to feed?
Anyway, how about doing a site search for terms like "Ethiopian," "sheepskin," "zebrano" or just "leather?" Guess who's compulsively posting about this? To no one's surprise, you and your Sancho Panza. Even funnier is that I wasn't even aware of this stuff before you started obsessing over it. My concern was sound quality, which as you've explained, is irrelevant in your proctological view of the world.
Still, shouldn't you be dealing with your perversions and fetishes in private? And is your obsession with exotic materials your one argument in any discussion, that is, excluding what you plagiarize from the internet? No need to answer, although we know you will. You just can't help it...
|
|
|
Post by jeff3948 July 10, 2012 (55 of 84)
|
|
Polarius T said:
Like, how rare Ethiopian long-hair sheep skin improves sound quality in headphones when combined with precious metals and exotic woods?
Or how equally exotic and expensive power cords clearly improve resolution in SACDs?
Yeah, right.
This is audio. That is silliness (at best). So speak for yourself only, please, or, better still, why not just keep it to yourself. Not a lot of people around here seem to care that much about your personal "tests," either.
And be respectful (check those forum rules again, will ya).
Hi Polarius T,
Thanks. I realize that my results would be controversial, but I did not realize that it would spur so much anger. This is a very touchy subject for some, especially those DSD and HD Audio advocates like I am (I mean was), especially when I got the results that I did which goes against what DSD and HD audio is suppose to be. My heart dropped to my knees when I looked at the results and showed that I really can't tell the difference between DSD (SACD), HD audio, and RBCD 2 channel stereo. But I realize that everyone is different and I urge everyone to do a truly blind test like I did and see for themselves if they can honestly tell the difference between the CD and SACD stereo layer of true DSD and HD PCM recordings on their own systems. I have to say I'm still absolutely shocked and disheartened by my results! I really wanted to believe!! Maybe if I just click my heals three times everything will be better again and I really will hear the difference.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff3948 said:
Thanks. I realize that my results would be controversial, but I did not realize that it would spur so much anger. ... I have to say I'm still absolutely shocked and disheartened by my results!
They certainly aren't controversial. I can't tell the difference between a Canadian accent and an American accent ... though I realise lots of people can. No skin off my nose. I wouldn't worry about it. Not everyone is sensitive to the same things. Just enjoy the multi-channel layer and stop worrying about it.
|
|
|
Post by jeff3948 July 10, 2012 (57 of 84)
|
|
canonical said:
They certainly aren't controversial. I can't tell the difference between a Canadian accent and an American accent ... though I realise lots of people can. No skin off my nose. I wouldn't worry about it. Not everyone is sensitive to the same things. Just enjoy the multi-channel layer and stop worrying about it.
Hi Canonical,
Excellent advice! I will!
Thanks Again,
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff3948 said:
Hi Polarius T,
Thanks. I realize that my results would be controversial, but I did not realize that it would spur so much anger. This is a very touchy subject for some...
Hi back,
I think you've just walked into a place of worship of a congregation, thinking it's a seminar room. And there's always those who think it's their job to protect to purity of the credo and be the Enforcers of what they think should be the rules.
You've just met the most prominent one of these, the site's loudest- and foulest-barking Police Dog. (Self-appointed, though, I would hope.)
Nice to see some honest intelligence and an open, inquiring attitude for a change.
Cheers,
PT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arnaldo said:
"Ethiopian," "sheepskin," "zebrano" or just "leather?" Guess who's compulsively posting about this stuff?
But you're wearing all that, Arnie dear.... And I presume voluntarily... To enhance the capabilities of your personal system.... So I'm just laughing out loud, as the expression goes. Can you blame me?!?
:P
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa July 11, 2012 (60 of 84)
|
|
Jeff, do not worry if you can no hear the difference between CD and SACD stereo layer, you are not alone. I have never been able to notice any superiority in SACD stereo layer compared to CD layer. My CD system is so good that I actually have heard details in CD layers which SACD believers here claim are not on the disk at all.
And: in a recent test all 150 participants failed to differentiate between CD and SACD also: http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf.
|
|
