|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Why not take the same experiment? posted by Eric LeRouge on April 28, 2004 at 01:59:53:
do you mean: taking a well recorded SACD and recording onto 96/24 PCM (thus negating any benefit of DSD in the process), complain about the ambience and use it as evidence of DSD's "shortcomings", then compare it with a studio PCM recording as evidence of PCM superiority, then complain about the ambience being "noisy and grainy"?no thanks :-) it's already been done once, and that's enough.
Follow Ups:
Hold your horses, Milady...I think the experiment is interesting, especially if it's conducted with several digital recording devices. Of course the experiment is not scientific, but I have no pre-conception at all about DSD and will not draw any cheap conclusion from the experiment.
In fact, the experiment will tell very little about DSD, only about PCM. Since we don't know what happens with equivalent PCM data, the fact that it's DSD is irrelevant, and in fact, all the experiment says so far is that 24/96 PCM sounds "grainy" when amplified by 40dB on specific hardware :)
It could very well be that someone else, with different equipment and settings, would not find the result to be "grainy", or that the equivalent PCM material will also sound "grainy". Or it may be that with specific equipment and settings neither DSD nor PCM data captured at 24/96 sounds grainy.
What's the point? Well, from a practical point of view, since PCM is the only option available to me for recording analog data in high resolution, I find it interesting, because it may impact the way I record my SACDs at 24/96.
My first (very unscientific :) attempts at recording SACDs at 24/96 yielded similar results, I thought the sound was better at 24/48... but I also noticed that I had better results when recording a mono signal (less data to process) so the problem was on the processing side. So I upgraded my Motherboard to benefit from a faster bus, bought new hard disks, and changed the IRQ settings to avoid any conflict with my soundcard, and the results have greatly improved. But I didn't go as far as Frank, amplifying some sections by 40dB to check the sound...
I'll try that over the weekend, hopefully it will rain :)
Best
Eric
Frank has an ax to grind and can always be counted on to find problems with SACD. He is like some of our Supreme Court justices in the U.S., before the case is presented, everyone already knows what their ruling will be. It is always more interesting to hear tests from someone who is objective.
You are a bad judge of character.And already down to the point where you need to snipe at a person instead of contributing to a discussion.
There are no DSD benefits...If you do this with 24bit 192kHz the only thing you are listening for is the low level sound quality from each format. As long as you observe a difference in this comparison the results are valid.
Frank
isn't this a bit of circular logic?you don't believe there are any DSD benefits.
to prove your point, you record DSD onto PCM. so that even if there were any benefits, they would be lost.
then you hear what you think is a problem.
therefore, it proves your hypothesis that there is no benefit to DSD.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: