|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Not true.... posted by Frank.. on May 28, 2004 at 16:39:46:
I remember, you jacked up the gain by 40 or 50 dB and you heard noise. Of course this is completely inaudible under normal use conditions.You never made any attempt to find out the source of the noise. There are dozens of places low level microvolt noise can come from.
So of course you blame it on DSD. This is not science. It is a witch hunt. And you found the witch, as usual.
Follow Ups:
will in most cased keep that noise inaudible.However playback at concert levels with peaks at 120dB and the noise can become audible during very quite parts.
Not a big problem. You're the one blowing it out of proportion by you're reaction.
I'm not on a witch hunt. You have a problem accepting this simple fact about dsd.
...this is the noise you are hearing. All of them tend to be around -70 to -80dB/floor.
Audio AsylumŽ Signature line: Hearing is believing.
No there is a strange grungy noise in the opening when the strings start to play. It 'envelopes' the sound from the violins. It doesn't sound like noise from the analog equipment or hall ambiance.It isn't present in the fade out.
I'm preparing a samples.
if it were proven. But you made no attempt to find out the source of whatever noise you heard. This would be a big job. It is a lot easier to blame DSD.A long time ago you made up your mind, and I think this is your exact wording, "DSD is intrinsically flawed." You have made a crusade out of searching for "facts" to support this semi-religious belief. It doesn't bother me, your bias is well established. But it is very certainly a witch hunt. Every test result you present will find flaws in DSD. Thus it has always been, thus it will ever be.
Frank's had a bit of history doing this. He might impress a few newbies, but most of us recognise his comments for what they are.As I recall, the last time he made a similar statement, I questioned him on it. It turned out he was basing his comments on a 96/24 PCM recording from an SACD player playing SFF/MTT Mahler 1. This is a live recording, so it is quite likely the "noise" he is hearing is simply hall ambience.
Upon further questioning, he then clarified that he recorded the "quiet" bit just before the music started, amplified it 40-50dB, and deemed the results "noisy" and "grainy".
When I repeated what he did on my system, it sounded exactly like hall ambience amplified by 40-50dB.
That noise doesn't sound anything like hall ambiance.
That's an absurd claim.You misunderstood.
I didn't record the quite bit before the music started.
I recorded during the quite opening part.
i've been to recording studios, attended live recordings, even made a few of my own. What I've heard (the beginning of the track, as well as during the opening bars) sounded no different than what's coming out of the console from a typical live session in a real hall (as opposed to a studio).Frank, please put your experience on the table before accusing anyone of being deaf or making absurd claims.
Remember that hall ambience will sound different depending on the hall.
I was just surprized that you confuse the, very distinct, noise for hall ambiance.The difference in this case is ***very*** obvious.
***What I've heard (the beginning of the track, as well as during the opening bars) sounded no different than what's coming out of the console from a typical live session in a real hall ***So they allowed you to turn up the gain to hear low level noises?
Don't think so.
why don't you post an MP3 of the noise you are hearing, because i am obviously not hearing it. it may be due to your equipment.of course i have turned up the gain on many occasions. why wouldn't we not be allowed to??? it's standard practice to check for microphone hum.
I can tell you both from experience that "hall" noise, be it HVAC, road intrusion, organ blowers, etc, do not mask the kind of low level detail that I was referring to. I have not ruled out the mic pre's, the mic's themselves (this has a HUGE impact on the captured sound), the mixing desk, and/or A/D converters. The effect I'm describing is not a white noise masking; that would be audible. The recordings were dead quiet. It just seemed like the hall and the orchestra became very indistinct below a certain dB level. In the future I will attempt to measure this and post the recordings used so others can decide for themselves.
I don't know what levels you refer to (as per my questions below), but I personally noticed a lot of details in some live SACDs when they are played at high volumes or on headphones.For example Waltz for Debby, is mastered higher than Sunday Night at the Village Vanguard, and on that album you can distinctly hear some background noises, without getting painful high frequencies in the foreground. This is very obvious in the first tracks, and in the alternate takes there's some long parts that are pure ambience.
f you pay attention and increase the volume, on the CD version, the sounds are also there, but the instruments sound very harsh, unpleasant. For my un-technical mind, the SACD has a similar effect to some tube amplification I have heard.
Then, you are right, at low volumes most of the details in the background disappear (on my system at least).
So, to turn the argument around: I think SACD sounds better at high levels :)
Best
can you post a list of the discs and the equipment you are using?i must admit i have not heard the effect you have described (and i have listened on a variety of systems), but you may have better ears than me.
are you sure you are not redigitising the outputs? the dsd ultrasonic noise may impair the accuracy of the a/d converters.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: