 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: still Chris if DVD-Audio actually released the entire Beatles catalog with NO SACD releases of the posted by Teresa on April 06, 2003 at 13:20:02:
**But just because SACD is better does not mean it will win.**SACD is not better than DVD Audio.
Follow Ups:
nt
being better is not enough.
Teresa, pity, thought you made sense until I saw this. Now its obvious its just an ego thing with you.
Major Labels than Sound Quality?
I guess you mean better sounding? Show me a scientific study that says overwhelmingly that people prefer SACD to DVD-A.If you don't mean better sounding, and mean a better reproduction of the source material, then you are off your rocker. Go read some technical journals and get yourself brought up to speed.
C'mon, enough is enough. You're starting to sound like a broken record. You've made this post a zillion times. If you want to talk facts than do so, just be sure that you know the difference between a fact and your personal opinion. Are you married to Rich by any chance?
2 channel stereo with eyes closed. There is no mistaking SACD is WAY more musical than DVD-Audio. In the Chesky tests I did in A-B comparisons the DVD-Audio was sonically superior to SACD. But the SACD version even from a 24/96 PCM sounded like music and the DVD-Audio sounded like a recording, agreed a great sounding recording but a recording. I listen to music not sonics, I don't know about you.You said "If you don't mean better sounding, and mean a better reproduction of the source material, then you are off your rocker. Go read some technical journals and get yourself brought up to speed."
Technical journals will tell you NOTHING about musical qualities, as this something the suits cannot measure. If I read these journals I wouldn't be enjoying my LPs or Tubes. Science cannot explain music, period!
Just ask any engineer or producer (except Dr. Aix) and they will tell you DSD is the closest to microphone feed. In one human test between 30 ips Analog, 24/96 Digital, 24/192 Digital, DSD and live mic feed. the DSD and live mic feed sounded exactly the same and the runners of the test were accused of having a broken switch, it was checked and it was not broke. DSD is the closest yet to live mic feed.
Happy listening,
Teresa
Some people just plain prefer the distortion introduced via DSD. Not all people. For example, take this quote from http://www.iar-80.com/page39.html (J. Peter Moncrieff site)."In sum, the DSD/SACD midranges provided a very comfortable, relaxing sonic portrait of a violin, easy on the ears, and fine for background cocktail or elevator music."
Now now, don't start posting untrue things about DSD. I'm trying to follow the "if you can't say anything nice don't say it" addage, but putting bait down on the floor .....
must not flame DVD-A is... arggggg!!!
Snaggs, one time response. You took the bait. I was going to include the distortion argument for all components in my original post. It is nice to see that you don’t consider DSD to have any problems.
by PCM deleting this they are destroying part of the music performance and the feeling of liveness. What you can "distortion" some of use call sonic realism, as in the feeling you are in the presence of the actual performers.
Unless you try to compare LPs ripped into high resolution LPCM and transferred to a DVD (DAD or DVD-A, doesn't matter as long as you're at 24/96*, but a DAD will play on most SACD players :), you have simply no way to assert that LPs sound better than PCM. Whatever you like in your favourite LPs and on your favourite vinyl gear, you will obtain on LPCM if the capture is done correctly.There are now several inmates doing this (eg Akimball / anevsky has posted about this), and I received several mails of vinyl inmates looking into this. I believe soon we may be able to obtain testimonials of real comparisons.
In fact, given the appropriate equipment and know-how, many people will realize that DVD-A is the most natural evolution path for legacy vinyl.
Be prepared for this unexpected turn of events...Again, Teresa, your main concern is with the transfer and mastering, not with PCM. Unless you do a serious test, you should refrain from making these statements.
Best
Eric
* Of course, if you want to upsample your analogue at 24/192, you will need to test through a DVD-A...
Reproduction of music is exactly that - a reproduction. Distortion has always been part of the reality of this hobby. Vinyl, tube, SS, CD, DSD, PCM.... All of these introduce distortion of one kind or another. To take ‘Martin says’ photo analogy further, even a photograph will have distortion depending on the quality and type of the lens (fisheye anyone?). It has even been demonstrated that, for a sample of people who prefer DSD, you can record PCM into DSD, record the analogue output from this SACD in PCM, and on playback those people will prefer the SACD/PCM over the original PCM source. You could even say that a painting of the photo is preferred over the photo.Your comment was that anyone can hear. Well, that apparently is true. But what you have failed to notice is that everyone does not share your opinion that DSD is superior. There are actually people who have made up their own mind as to the format they prefer, if they prefer one – shocking really that they didn’t consult with you or any of the other SACD bashers.
I would like to remind you that this is the DVD-A forum that you are within. This is where you are claiming that SACD is more musical. I did post on the SACD forum once for which I apologize. It was a result of reading one too many DVD-A bashes. I will not post on the SACD forum again unless I have some thing to contribute that would be of benefit and interest to the SACD community. I do not consider statements such as ‘my format is better then your format’ to fit that description. He**, I may even have to purchase an SACD player if the format war ends up won by SACD. Until that time, I will enjoy my system with CD, DAD and DVD-A.
.
.
.
Music cannot currently measure the soul, emotions and beauty of music, maybe sometime in the future, but not now.
Technical journals will tell you NOTHING about musical qualities, as this something the suits cannot measure.> > The suits don't do any measurements, Teresa. Hard working scientists do the measurements. While tests may not tell you everything, there certainly are correlations between perceived musical quality as heard by a panel of listeners and the various battery of measurements which follow. The entire field of psychoacoustics is based on this. There are subjective tests as well, where a MOS (mean opinion score) is produced by a panel of pre-qualified expert listeners (see ITU BS1116). The MPEG committee, Fraunhofer labs, etc. all perform these tests and publish them in technical journals.
If I read these journals I wouldn't be enjoying my LPs or Tubes.
> > Sure you would. Since you claim that the journals don't tell you anything about music why would they influence your decision? See your previous statement. Anyway, you think scientists knock LPs and tubes and simply dismiss them altogether? Wake up! Why then do organizations like AES and ASA still publish research about their properties, sound quality, etc.?
Science cannot explain music, period!
> > You provide no qualification to your claim. Why should the reader of your post believe this?
And the enjoyement is what counts to me. I do not read charts and graphs, never have never will. It does not tell me what something sounds like, my ears do that.Do you not trust your own ears?
In comparisons using Ray Brown's "Soular Energy" DVD-A and SACD, one experienced listener suggested the SACD was like listening to the live event while the DVD-A was like listening to playback of the master tape. The SACD was more relaxing to his ears. OTOH, he thinks vinyl is even more relaxing yet than SACD...Both 24/192 PCM and SACD were very good to my ears and any difference might have been due to differences in source hardware.
Have you played with SACD ? Curious you would want scientific evidence that SACD is "better" ? You've probably already decided LP and tubes are very good despite sometimes atrocious "scientific" "measurements". Your ears are probably telling you something is "right" about LP and tubes, why not SACD ?
> > You've probably already decided LP and tubes are very good despite sometimes atrocious "scientific" "measurements". Your ears are probably telling you something is "right" about LP and tubes, why not SACD ? < <Scientific measurements of LPs confirm to me what I already knew I didn’t like about them, including: noise, compression and horrendously uneven frequency response. Not to mention resonance artefacts.
Dalton eloquently wrote a while back:-
"The idea that vinyl sounds "better" is ludicrous. At best we could agree that, for some people (I call them "kooks"), vinyl colors the music in a more pleasing or soothing way (although a less natural way). If a photographer and an Impressionist painter portrayed the very same subject and you had to choose which work you liked best, you might prefer the painting. But the photograph is more accurate. Notice I wrote "photograph", not "phonograph". Vinyl lovers usually refer to the unnatural coloration inherent in vinyl playback as "ease" and "liquidity". They might as well be referring to a painter's brush stroke."
People who like LPs only prefer the distortions of a flawed medium. This is the hoariest of cliches. It is only repeated by those who have virtually no experience with halfway decent analog sections.
It doesn't make any difference how expensive a vinyl system is. One will still suffer the compression (etched into the LP’s grooves), surface noise, resonance contamination (OK this can be reduced — but not eliminated), uneven frequency response etc. But I suppose that some people won't hear some of those imperfections, especially those with tubes & electrostatics which can do an effective ‘cover-up’ job. I see that with your own admission of "no low bass" in your system, then this will inherently hide much of the low-freq groove rumble too!
it's all terrible, tubes, vinyl, elctrostatics. Also wasted my money on expensive cables. Then again, I actually listen to these things on a daily basis, and I actually know how they sound, versus you, who probably never heard a halfway decent turntable in your life. That's really the point - true crediblity comes from experience.Someday you will know what you have been missing. When your ivory tower theories finally clash with reality, it is the theories that will fall.
and then listen to any PCM recording and see which has the Feeling of live music you experienced at that live acoustic concert, you will see PCM is miles away, but Vinyl is very, very close.
Listen to the same album on CD, and the room enveloping sound collapses in a heap. Sorry, I can not resist debunking this kind of comment.Daniel.
From my experience a well recorded CD can sound good and have a great soundstage. The most impact on a good sounding recording are the speakers. On some of my CDs I get a 180 degree soundstage with height.
Yes speakers are indeed very important. My 3.5ft high TDL RTL-3’s vertically-stacked drivers for deep-bass, midrange and high-frequency, do a fantastic job with CD of keeping the stereo soundstage as defined as possible.And regarding my CD source, by keeping my existing multibit offboard DAC (Audio-Alchemy) for my CD listening, I now use my Denon DVD-3800 as the transport input via SP/DIF, and the imaging & soundstaging improvement I get (compared with an old Marantz CD transport) is very noticeable indeed.
I suspect the Denon’s SP/DIF output feed is much more accurate than the Marantz’s was, partly because everything now goes through the Denon’s error-correction RAM buffer prior to output, and the subsequent timing of serial data release, ‘bit-by-bit’ can be extremely tightly controlled, resulting in hardly any jitter.
nt
Here is a pic of my diy speakers at this site.http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13015
Here is another pic with my speakers and my Tempest diy sub.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13152
nt
SnaggS, you have merely introduced a side issue, in that CD has its own set of problems exacerbated by its lower-than-optimum sample rate. (At low sample rates, any timing inconsistencies between sample points of the L&R channels, have a much greater impact on spatial information, of which the high-frequencies play a crucial part.)However, a good low-jitter CD transport & DAC can redress this to a significant degree. Now with an optimum DVD-A 24-bit/96kHz+ hirez PCM system, timing tolerances are inherently much finer and more accurate in relation to bandwidth, thus soundstaging is opened-up tremendously.
nt
.
by posting this on the DVD-A board? You have an opinion about something. Perhaps you view that as fact for everyone else in the world. If that is the case I feel very sorry for you and your world view. It should be pretty clear to you that music tastes and preferences are a subjective to say the least. I find it quite tasteless that you continue to troll here under the pretext(that only you seem to believe, once again)that SACD is attacked on this board. That is why the formats were separated, so we could say what we wanted without attack by supporters of "the other" format. Not sure why you have such a difficult time with that concept. I am trying to be nice. Once again, this is the DVD-A forum. We don't need drivel about SACD here. We are all very capable of surfing over to the highway if we need to find out about SACD. I try to keep my posts there positive about SACD as it serves no purpose to do otherwise. I support both formats, I have and SACD player, I do not have a DVD-A player. I like the DVD-A sensibilty better, it is less dogmatic, versus the SACD board which is far more dogmatic and less tolerant.
they secure the Beatles catalog with no SACD release. And you think I am attacking DVD-Audio? Weird? I don't believe DVD-Audio will ever match the musical qualities of SACD but am keeping an open mind vis a vis the battery powered 24/192 releases from Classic Records. I never said DVD-Audio was bad, re-read my post, I only stated the obvious that as of now it does not draw you into the music the way SACD does, vinyl and live music does. I DO NOT CALL THAT AN ATTACK, JUST THE WAY THINGS CURRENTLY ARE!Happy Listening,
Teresa
personal opinion with an opinion for everyone. "It draws one in", "it draws me in". When you say it draws "you in" you are making an assumption. Just not sure why you bother posting here, if DVD-A doesn't do it for you then surely there is no point. You add little to the discussion of things here other than to try and tell us all that DVD-A is not your format of choice and you can't understand why we bother. As for me, I will not waste my time anymore with you. You are not a reliable source of information of anything to do with DVD-A and are really just an irritating bore.
DVD-Audio God to make you happy. It is not going to happen. Even though SACD is better I can enjoy 24/96 2 channel PCM, if it bothers you that I know how much better SACD is I am sorry. But not everything is available on SACD, I can play Vinyl and High Rez PCM for recordings not on SACD, why that bothers you I don't know?
If everyone who has listened to both agreed with you, I would tend to believe it. I get the impression the majority on the SACD board will agree with you but this may be based on personal bias; which format they elected to adopt for reasons other than sonic merits, lack of quality DVD-A players at the time they did the comparison, etc..)I reserve judgement on the sonic merits of DVD-A and SACD until I have done a "fair" comparison of both formats. With only one decent sample to compare (on dissimilar hardware), I am not prepared to make a judgement one way or the other.
OTOH, none of the meager collection of 24/96 DADs I own nor the few DVD-As I've sampled (on the Meridian 598) have gotten me emotionally involved with the music like some of the SACDs I've listened to.
Also, the software selection available on SACD seems far more attractive than that available on DVD-A. YMMV.
The coup de grace: I already have a decent SACD player and the available DVD-A software does not currently justify a decent DVD-A player. I suspect I won't buy into DVD-A until I get serious about a HT video upgrade, including the source DVD-V player.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
