ouch! that hurts! from a German too! 
hey, i was only born here. i'm actually Asian.
i admit, you EU people have some very nice things (for instance, a musical heritage that produced virtually all the music i care about). just because you have nice things doesn't mean you have to rub it in all the time though! heh heh.
p.s. i never liked French music as much as German anyway... i'll take Brahms over Saint Saens anyday.
hey, i was only born here. i'm actually Asian.
i admit, you EU people have some very nice things (for instance, a musical heritage that produced virtually all the music i care about). just because you have nice things doesn't mean you have to rub it in all the time though! heh heh.
p.s. i never liked French music as much as German anyway... i'll take Brahms over Saint Saens anyday.
I was kidding.(...!!...)
Integrists are not a solution to people's needs.But who is not integrist at all?We all think we have something close to our heart,so we want to defend it and prove to others that it is right....
But really,MP3 doesn't sound better...musically I guess.
....and I was not kidding about vinyle sound....
Cheers
Integrists are not a solution to people's needs.But who is not integrist at all?We all think we have something close to our heart,so we want to defend it and prove to others that it is right....
But really,MP3 doesn't sound better...musically I guess.
....and I was not kidding about vinyle sound....
Cheers
yeah, politics sucks. i'd rather just build stuff.
however, i'd disagree that most people can't tell good from bad. i have plenty of friends (granted they tend to be more educated, open-minded types) who have no clue about decent audio equipment, having listened to boomboxes and cheap Sony rack systems all their life, but as soon as you let them listen to my system or go to a dealer and try different things, they begin to really appreciate what high-end audio is all about. the problem is they simply have no idea what good is, or they simply don't care. if they don't care then that's the end of that, but for the rest who just haven't experienced good sound before they can still be "enlightened" very easily.
however, i'd disagree that most people can't tell good from bad. i have plenty of friends (granted they tend to be more educated, open-minded types) who have no clue about decent audio equipment, having listened to boomboxes and cheap Sony rack systems all their life, but as soon as you let them listen to my system or go to a dealer and try different things, they begin to really appreciate what high-end audio is all about. the problem is they simply have no idea what good is, or they simply don't care. if they don't care then that's the end of that, but for the rest who just haven't experienced good sound before they can still be "enlightened" very easily.
That's what I thought,either you need to educate people's ear or they just don't care...
Anyway,gigantic audio industry "plastic age"and"plastic sound"would record high money loss if we could get people to that point
Personally I'm a musician,classical line and this makes my living so it is true that my ear is my tool for work!!!...
Anyway,gigantic audio industry "plastic age"and"plastic sound"would record high money loss if we could get people to that point
Personally I'm a musician,classical line and this makes my living so it is true that my ear is my tool for work!!!...
More on the topic...
the editor of the magazine i write for is currently reviewing a SACD player, i won't ruin the surprise by mentioning the player or his conclusions but i will say that he thinks 16/44, when properly upsampled, can give hi-rez formats a run for their money. he currently has a MSB Platinum DAC which has both 4x and 16x upsampling and he says the sound is superb, comparable in quality to hi-rez. i have not heard it myself though.
the editor of the magazine i write for is currently reviewing a SACD player, i won't ruin the surprise by mentioning the player or his conclusions but i will say that he thinks 16/44, when properly upsampled, can give hi-rez formats a run for their money. he currently has a MSB Platinum DAC which has both 4x and 16x upsampling and he says the sound is superb, comparable in quality to hi-rez. i have not heard it myself though.
I'm an atypic cello player,in the orchestra of Rouen Opera
I say atypic because:1)I use a modern cello with gut strings,because I don't like the sound of metal strings,mostly common albeit
2)I like not to do like others(my default!!Big one...)
3)My living room gets really crowded with horns,horndrivers,Boomers,Zen Line stage and Alephs currently on construction,and every friend seeing this gets really horrified and doesn't understand my aim!!!...but they do hear a difference,but only when they are back home...and they want me to build them some audio equipment,but...I only have one life and two arms!!!...
Yours
I say atypic because:1)I use a modern cello with gut strings,because I don't like the sound of metal strings,mostly common albeit
2)I like not to do like others(my default!!Big one...)
3)My living room gets really crowded with horns,horndrivers,Boomers,Zen Line stage and Alephs currently on construction,and every friend seeing this gets really horrified and doesn't understand my aim!!!...but they do hear a difference,but only when they are back home...and they want me to build them some audio equipment,but...I only have one life and two arms!!!...
Yours
promitheus,
Your comment that a DSD unit is easier to make may be true, but that doesn't necessarily equate to a better unit.
There are many people, such as Prof. Stanley Lipshitz, who think that there are many reasons to believe that DSD is inherently inferior to 24 bit PCM. (Refer to an article in Absolute Sound Issue 130, June/July 2001, p 25, which in turn references the Lipshitz/Vanderkooy AES paper.)
In brief, 1-bit systems require a noise shaping algorithm that essentially is in a feedback loop to reduce noise generated by the DSD system. (As an aside, how many people on this forum hate negative feedback in amplifiers, yet unwittingly embrace it in DSD?) Noise levels rise with increasing frequency which is why 50 kHz filters are almost routinely used to knock out most ultrasonics before 100 kHz. To work properly, over 110 dB of noise shaping must be applied, and thus, ideal dithering of noise cannot be done with DSD (this is a rough paraphrase of Lipshitz).
PCM at 96 kHz (24 bit) with dithering has > 140 dB S/N. This is reduced to about 134 dB at 192 kHz (24 bit). Human hearing estimates a 140 dB S/N. The implication here is that 24 bit or greater PCM may provide a better signal for our ears (that is, more complementary to our hearing; this S/N argument is only one parameter).
I only have a couple of DVD-A that are 192 kHz, and these sound absolutely incredible. I've heard no better from vinyl.
(Possibly a fluke, but I have one dmp SACD--DSD recorded--with an alto flute, where the alto flute sounds horrible; the guitar is great, but not the flute. My wife, who plays flute, found it awful in her words and asked me to turn it off. SACD/hi rez media obviously doesn't always mean better.)
Your comment that a DSD unit is easier to make may be true, but that doesn't necessarily equate to a better unit.
There are many people, such as Prof. Stanley Lipshitz, who think that there are many reasons to believe that DSD is inherently inferior to 24 bit PCM. (Refer to an article in Absolute Sound Issue 130, June/July 2001, p 25, which in turn references the Lipshitz/Vanderkooy AES paper.)
In brief, 1-bit systems require a noise shaping algorithm that essentially is in a feedback loop to reduce noise generated by the DSD system. (As an aside, how many people on this forum hate negative feedback in amplifiers, yet unwittingly embrace it in DSD?) Noise levels rise with increasing frequency which is why 50 kHz filters are almost routinely used to knock out most ultrasonics before 100 kHz. To work properly, over 110 dB of noise shaping must be applied, and thus, ideal dithering of noise cannot be done with DSD (this is a rough paraphrase of Lipshitz).
PCM at 96 kHz (24 bit) with dithering has > 140 dB S/N. This is reduced to about 134 dB at 192 kHz (24 bit). Human hearing estimates a 140 dB S/N. The implication here is that 24 bit or greater PCM may provide a better signal for our ears (that is, more complementary to our hearing; this S/N argument is only one parameter).
I only have a couple of DVD-A that are 192 kHz, and these sound absolutely incredible. I've heard no better from vinyl.
(Possibly a fluke, but I have one dmp SACD--DSD recorded--with an alto flute, where the alto flute sounds horrible; the guitar is great, but not the flute. My wife, who plays flute, found it awful in her words and asked me to turn it off. SACD/hi rez media obviously doesn't always mean better.)
i used gut strings too!!!
well, mostly i use the metal-wound guts (Pirastro Eudoxa/Olive), but i also did try a pure-gut string on my teacher's recommendation... it was a "modern" adaptation though, it had some sort of varnish or polymer coating on it to improve its durability. it was nice but not very good for playing non-Baroque music, cracked too easily, and it was a nightmare on humid/hot days when it would stretch terribly from the moisture.
i love European players! i recently started listening to cellist Pieter Wispelwey, discovered him through SACD actually, and he is fantastic. my teacher (concertmaster of Cleveland Orch. under George Szell) thinks Zehetmair is tops. too bad these wonderful musicians don't make it over to the states often, i hear they can't stand it here. i don't blame them.
well, mostly i use the metal-wound guts (Pirastro Eudoxa/Olive), but i also did try a pure-gut string on my teacher's recommendation... it was a "modern" adaptation though, it had some sort of varnish or polymer coating on it to improve its durability. it was nice but not very good for playing non-Baroque music, cracked too easily, and it was a nightmare on humid/hot days when it would stretch terribly from the moisture.
i love European players! i recently started listening to cellist Pieter Wispelwey, discovered him through SACD actually, and he is fantastic. my teacher (concertmaster of Cleveland Orch. under George Szell) thinks Zehetmair is tops. too bad these wonderful musicians don't make it over to the states often, i hear they can't stand it here. i don't blame them.
rljones,
i agree with you about the noise shaping problem. it is the big sticking point for DSD at the moment, and probably forever. there are definite technical advantages to PCM, i have seen some of the white papers in AES etc. however, bitstream converters for PCM have been around for years and they use noise shaping... not everyone likes how they sound but i think they can be very good. we will have to wait a few more years to see the true potential of DSD, and whether its shortcomings are preferrable to those of PCM.
at the same time, i think there are certain things that DSD does better than PCM, even at 24/192. i think instrumental textures and tonal shadings are more naturally reproduced on SACD. but that is just an opinion. macro dynamics are superior on PCM though.
as for the dmp SACD, i would not blame the medium, i think it was just a crummy flautist on that recording. or maybe poor micing on that instrument. my GF is an oboe player and she thinks all winds sound more realistic in general on SACD.
i agree with you about the noise shaping problem. it is the big sticking point for DSD at the moment, and probably forever. there are definite technical advantages to PCM, i have seen some of the white papers in AES etc. however, bitstream converters for PCM have been around for years and they use noise shaping... not everyone likes how they sound but i think they can be very good. we will have to wait a few more years to see the true potential of DSD, and whether its shortcomings are preferrable to those of PCM.
at the same time, i think there are certain things that DSD does better than PCM, even at 24/192. i think instrumental textures and tonal shadings are more naturally reproduced on SACD. but that is just an opinion. macro dynamics are superior on PCM though.
as for the dmp SACD, i would not blame the medium, i think it was just a crummy flautist on that recording.
or maybe poor micing on that instrument. my GF is an oboe player and she thinks all winds sound more realistic in general on SACD.dorkus,
What I didn't mention in my post about the dmp SACD was that when we listened to an older Redbook CD of the same performers on the same label, the alto flute sounded fine. The guitar sounded a little bit flatter, but the annoyance was gone, and the CD was very listenable.
Anyhow, after this post, for various odd reasons, I got led over to IAR ( http://www.iar-80.com/index.html ). If you click on the "Digital Wars" in the lower left of the web site, you can read some extensive notes by J. Peter Moncrieff. He's been in the business for some time (he's not the favorite darling of some, but many aren't). Aside from the comment in his voluminous essay (parts 1-3) where he digresses and discusses some sort of voodoo (my words) solution to be put on IC chips, he makes sense.
His basic tenet is that DVD-audio is better than SACD. He mainly notices a problem with the 8+ kHz portion of the spectrum. After reading these comments, it struck home that the problem we'd noticed with the alto flute, while feeling that the guitar was good, would fit his descriptions. (In one section, he discusses the frequency contribution of cymbals to an orchestra; the cymbals had their greatest energy contribution at 40 kHz; flutes are not far behind, albeit an alto in this case.)
I had not looked for specific frequency areas, but rather at the overall stage, depth, air, etc. The one instrument that stood out struck us as odd. Moncrieff suggests using cymbals as a reference for detecting problems with digital systems. He further elaborates on some of the technical issues in 1-bit vs 24-bit technologies that may be interesting to some on this forum. Food for thought.
Regards, Robert
What I didn't mention in my post about the dmp SACD was that when we listened to an older Redbook CD of the same performers on the same label, the alto flute sounded fine. The guitar sounded a little bit flatter, but the annoyance was gone, and the CD was very listenable.
Anyhow, after this post, for various odd reasons, I got led over to IAR ( http://www.iar-80.com/index.html ). If you click on the "Digital Wars" in the lower left of the web site, you can read some extensive notes by J. Peter Moncrieff. He's been in the business for some time (he's not the favorite darling of some, but many aren't). Aside from the comment in his voluminous essay (parts 1-3) where he digresses and discusses some sort of voodoo (my words) solution to be put on IC chips, he makes sense.
His basic tenet is that DVD-audio is better than SACD. He mainly notices a problem with the 8+ kHz portion of the spectrum. After reading these comments, it struck home that the problem we'd noticed with the alto flute, while feeling that the guitar was good, would fit his descriptions. (In one section, he discusses the frequency contribution of cymbals to an orchestra; the cymbals had their greatest energy contribution at 40 kHz; flutes are not far behind, albeit an alto in this case.)
I had not looked for specific frequency areas, but rather at the overall stage, depth, air, etc. The one instrument that stood out struck us as odd. Moncrieff suggests using cymbals as a reference for detecting problems with digital systems. He further elaborates on some of the technical issues in 1-bit vs 24-bit technologies that may be interesting to some on this forum. Food for thought.
Regards, Robert
Moncrieff has a lot of weird theories that i'd qualify as neither science nor subjectivism. i'm not sure what to call them, but i'm tempted to label them psedu-science. oh well, a lot of what we do here could be labelled pseudo-science too i suppose.
anyway, with regards to high frequencies, i actually much prefer SACD, especially with cymbals. to me they are very natural. my magazine editor, who initially did not like the highs of SACD, actually likes them very much now. i'm not sure if it was player break-in or an adjustment period for him but he thinks they are excellent. i'm not sure what the problem with this particular recording is, perhaps it is a poor transer.
it is possible that the extended frequency response of SACD, w/o brick wall filtering, can cause some systems to go into fits. i would not be surprised if they caused oscillation in some amps or resonant modes in tweeters. this is particularly true of metal domes. my system doesn't seem to have such problems though and i love the highs of my SACDs.
anyway, with regards to high frequencies, i actually much prefer SACD, especially with cymbals. to me they are very natural. my magazine editor, who initially did not like the highs of SACD, actually likes them very much now. i'm not sure if it was player break-in or an adjustment period for him but he thinks they are excellent. i'm not sure what the problem with this particular recording is, perhaps it is a poor transer.
it is possible that the extended frequency response of SACD, w/o brick wall filtering, can cause some systems to go into fits. i would not be surprised if they caused oscillation in some amps or resonant modes in tweeters. this is particularly true of metal domes. my system doesn't seem to have such problems though and i love the highs of my SACDs.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.