Other than the fact that no one wants 1-bit anymore, there are now completely transparent resampling algorithms available that can run in real-time on a good workstation.
Just about every new CD release is recorded at something like 24/96 and downsampled anyway.
I have nothing against SACD, but it's pretty clear that it serves very little purpose and not even Sony chose DSD for Blu-Ray's audio tracks. It's already on life support as is. That Meitner interview is full of marketing BS, what do you expect from someone who wants to sell you super expensive DSD equipment?
Last edited:
Reading through that linked interview with Ed Meitner its clear he's drunk deep at the well of DSD koolaid yet his background is analog design. His knowledge of digital appears scant to say the least - here's a snippet:
Just look at one problem with PCM. Imagine what happens at your zero crossing. You have all those bits flipping. You have, you know, noise shock in the system coming off the power supply if all of a sudden 23 bits change from all zeros to all ones. You have that at every zero crossing. And you need really good error correction, because if a sign bit gets screwed up in the process, all of a sudden instead of your signal being positive, it thinks it’s negative.
Can he really be unaware that 'really good error correction' is obviated in digital logic because the noise margins are such that bits simply don't flip? Or if he was talking about achiving to disk that it always comes as standard because computers need it for code way more than audio ever will?
Indeed, many new releases.There's quite a bit of contemporary vinyl out there, courtesy of the
DJ demand. Sixty minutes on as many as 6 sides, no bass limiting, and
grooves you can see the land area in between.
Another article on DSD, DXD and high rate PCM:
http://www.merging.com/uploads/assets/Merging_pdfs/dxd_Resolution_v3.5.pdf
http://www.merging.com/uploads/assets/Merging_pdfs/dxd_Resolution_v3.5.pdf
The sad thing is that less and less club DJs continue to spin "real" vinyl. They have either CD machines or laptop + MIDI these days. Yuck!
DAD's Vest appears far clearer than Ed Meitner on the rationale behind SACD :
The major value-added difference between SACD
and DVDA is in the copy protection scheme,
making SACD a more secure media, but on the other
hand more complex to handle in the recording and
authoring phase
Thereby customers and producers are to bear the costs of Sony's 'added value'.
The major value-added difference between SACD
and DVDA is in the copy protection scheme,
making SACD a more secure media, but on the other
hand more complex to handle in the recording and
authoring phase
Thereby customers and producers are to bear the costs of Sony's 'added value'.
But the cats know how to scratch (my Facebook image, stolen from a company who actually sell cat scratching fixtures that look like turntables)
Attachments
So what? It was always that way.
For customers - want that higher resolution / better quality material? Get out your wallet. Examples: direct to disc LPs, limited edition runs, gold CDs, now digital hi-rez downloads and copies of master tapes.
For producers - want to stay afloat, competitive, earn some money and reach wider customer base? Buy the latest tools.
Nobody is forced by anyone to record in DSD or to release the final material on SACD.
Last edited:
Oh I see you missed the point. SACD was not being introduced because its better quality for the customer, rather its better protection for the content. But you appear to have bought the spin (even though Meitner and Vest spin their yarn in different directions) so by all means enjoy your 'higher resolution' product
It's rather saddening to me. I've spoken with some younger music listeners lately, and they tell me they like the "dense" compressed sound and the artificial (OK, synthesized) tones of modern recordings. They even go on about how "life-like" it is; true hi-fi is boring.
Oh, but they did compliment my system.
Oh, but they did compliment my system.
with portability comes compressed sound -
because the world wants to be more and more interconnected by mobile products- portability and thus digital- are the new normal. And, if you are listening to your hand held device or are in a car -- ambient noise is an issue --> So, we have compressed recordings.
Listening to music only at home in a quiet setting is not the norm (any more). Simple as that. CD's et al are mixed for portable/mobile products and their invironments. Doesnt look like that is going to change for a long time. So where does that leave one who wants clean, clear, dynamic sound? For me, the answere is in high-def digital downloads of uncompressed masters.
-RNM
because the world wants to be more and more interconnected by mobile products- portability and thus digital- are the new normal. And, if you are listening to your hand held device or are in a car -- ambient noise is an issue --> So, we have compressed recordings.
Listening to music only at home in a quiet setting is not the norm (any more). Simple as that. CD's et al are mixed for portable/mobile products and their invironments. Doesnt look like that is going to change for a long time. So where does that leave one who wants clean, clear, dynamic sound? For me, the answere is in high-def digital downloads of uncompressed masters.
-RNM
Last edited:
Well, I have heard the 'cynicisms' of SACD, by the people who are perfectly happy with CD, but I have hope that what I hear is what is real, and that a GOOD SACD is better than any CD that I have presently. I do have some good CD's but I think the recorded material is the fundamental reason it passes so well within the CD format. However, the vinyl version sounded even better, at least with one good example. I'll stick with SACD or anything BETTER that comes down the road.
In my long history, I have heard the same complaints about 30 ips. You know, too expensive, lousy low frequency response, etc. BUT, listening AND FIXING the potential problems, like I did with the bass response at 30 ips, is called PROGRESS. I hope the same for advanced digital reproduction.
In my long history, I have heard the same complaints about 30 ips. You know, too expensive, lousy low frequency response, etc. BUT, listening AND FIXING the potential problems, like I did with the bass response at 30 ips, is called PROGRESS. I hope the same for advanced digital reproduction.
Mostly. Some are 45. Take a look at the vinyl section on Amazon,
particularly Dance and DJ, and of course there's lots of other.
For the afficionados of DBT, going through the exercise of SACD(1) -> CD -> SACD(2) via resampling, and testing SACD(1) against SACD(2) will be ear opening for many: I, for one, wouldn't bet on significant ability to differentiate!
As far as I'm concerned "advanced digital reproduction" will only occur when people in general, in the industry bite the bullet, and realise you can't be sloppy with digital and get away with it. Unlike analogue. And, do it at the cheaper end of the pricing scale. Again: digital playback is a hard taskmaster, it takes no prisoners ...
Frank
In parts of the outside world, highest quality audio is still sought with gusto! Somewhat of a departure from many opinions that audio quality, beyond a certain point, is illusory.
In my life experience, it is still real, and relatively subtle modifications still make a difference.
Given that, we still have the problem of good sources. They REALLY are few and far between, but there is hope. As digital processing becomes better and less 'compromised' we are going to have a certain percentage of better source material, almost by 'accident' as well as made deliberately by specialist sources, such as Chesky, and others.
One weak link is the analog portion of the digital playback sources. They are marginal, yet probably measure fairly well.
This is not a new 'fact'. There is at least one thread here that addresses this problem and seeks to improve on existing Blue Ray players. What a challenge. It would be so easy, if the original manufacturer would put in the 'improvements' initially, but until they are 'convinced' by the number of after release 'modifiers' and constructive criticism by audiophiles that they have not completely done their audio circuitry to the same quality as their video, they will always be 'nagged' that they are not doing their job to the best possible. This is my position at the moment, from listening and looking at the actual audio circuits. Let the 'fur' fly! '-)
In my life experience, it is still real, and relatively subtle modifications still make a difference.
Given that, we still have the problem of good sources. They REALLY are few and far between, but there is hope. As digital processing becomes better and less 'compromised' we are going to have a certain percentage of better source material, almost by 'accident' as well as made deliberately by specialist sources, such as Chesky, and others.
One weak link is the analog portion of the digital playback sources. They are marginal, yet probably measure fairly well.
This is not a new 'fact'. There is at least one thread here that addresses this problem and seeks to improve on existing Blue Ray players. What a challenge. It would be so easy, if the original manufacturer would put in the 'improvements' initially, but until they are 'convinced' by the number of after release 'modifiers' and constructive criticism by audiophiles that they have not completely done their audio circuitry to the same quality as their video, they will always be 'nagged' that they are not doing their job to the best possible. This is my position at the moment, from listening and looking at the actual audio circuits. Let the 'fur' fly! '-)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.