|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Why SACD isn't good for commercial recordings... posted by ducati on April 26, 2003 at 07:00:49:
*sigh*The reason DSD has more noise at 80khz is that it uses noise shaping to shift noise out into the ultra high frequencies. This is the point, there is no point wasting bits on the utlra high frequencies, they are only needed such that a gentle filter is possible, and a side effect of the samlping rate needed within the audible range.
This is why SACD quality is greater than 192/24, and possible on all 8 channels stored on the disc (i.e full rez on the 2 stereo channels and full rez on the 6 MultiCh Channels). You can't achieve 192/24 on all channels on DVD-A, because it wastes its bit allocation keeping the same ultra-low noise floor all the way up to its frequency limit.
Fact is, the ultimate noise floor has never been the issue with digital. Vinyl has an attrocious noise floor compared to CD, but still creams it. SACD's noise floor within the audible range is way more than needed, and ultimately not the limiting factor in any complete system.
Finally, comments relating to a particular player can't be taken as gospel for entire format. Of course Sony are interested in making money, theyre a commercial enterprise. Are they interested in Audiophiles ? This is clearly evidencesd by their marketing approach, and the fact that SACD does not have watermarking and has mandated stereo as requested by audiophile circles.
Follow Ups:
So let's back a format with less fidelity, and then tell people it's BETTER, because "it's all you need."That's basically what your argument is at this point. Initially you responded to me that DVD-A is good for amatuer recordists, and DSD/SACD is better for commercial industry. I countered with fact that DVD-A / 24/192 has *better* resolution at all frequencies. Your current argument is, because I'm an amatuer I should have more bits and bytes to play with, and commercial music houses shouldn't because of *storage issues*, and the fact they "there is no point in wasting bits at higher frequencies"? PLEASE... As audiophiles, aren't we searching for the BEST format available? Isn't that what we seek? ESPECIALLY in the recording chain, so 30 years down the road when the next higher-rez format is available, we have good recordings for our reissues to be made from? ;)
Storage is NOT a problem anymore with growing harddrives, archival backup systems, etc. Storage is cheap. Sony is pushing DSD as an "archival" and "recording" format. So why not record and archive in the higher resolution format (24/192 LPCM)? Why should music houses have to buy equipment with high licensing fees to record in a LOWER RESOLUTION FORMAT? To save space? Because it's good enough (i.e., you don't need those bits)?
Multichannel: If consumers want multichannel, give them multichannel, I agree. They are where the money is. And you're right on the money here, because showing off 5.1/6.1/7.1 rigs is a probably a priority for the average consumer. My feeling is, though, that the VAST majority (99.5%?) of 5.1 rigs cannot even reproduce the full fidelity available on a *CD* let alone a DVD, so maintaining 24/192 on all channels isn't a priority for me. I don't feel the main stereo track should be compromised with a lower fidelity archiving system (DSD) so consumers can have the same quality 5.1 on their home-theatre-in-a-box rigs.
This has turned into a DVD-A vs. SACD spitting match, when really it shouldn't be. I have MANY beefs with DVD-A, too, among them *watermarking*, no digital out spec, no hybrid discs! At this juncture, DVD-A is dying as a viable commercial format, the DVD-A camp had best get their heads out of their asses or it'll go the way of Sony beta..
What we're really arguing about is 24/192 LPCM vs. DSD. Don't delude yourself into thinking DSD is the better format, because it isn't. Remember, if we all played something that had "enough bits" according to the engineers, we would all think MP3 sounded pretty damn good.
And recall the early days of CD, and Sony's marketing giant that spread the now-fateful words (perfect sound forever). "You don't need any frequencies above 22.05khz" they told us. Hmmn, that turned out to be wrong. Now the Sony marketing giant spreads "DSD has all the bits you need" and (my favorite one I hear audiophiles spouting all the time) "DSD sounds more analog!"
If you ever get the chance to listen to untouched 24/96 or 24/192 material, Snaggs, you'll understand what I'm driving at. The marketing geniuses are ruling this format war, not the quality gurus.
And it's all not rah rah chearleading. Let's call it like it is.
Here are some excepts from a paper presented to AES.--------------------------
At 750kHz the signal is only 10 dB down. Hence, it is clear that DSD as a carrier provides a signal bandwidth which exceeds 100kHz by far. Obviously, the SNR decreases for high frequencies.
As far as experimental evidence shows [17] the human auditory system is sensitive to ultra sound only if it is correlated with the signal in the 0-20 kHz band, hence, the increase in noise at high frequencies is not important. The excess in bandwidth can subsequently be used to allow for very slow low-pass filtering, which keeps the time response very accurate.
This effect is clearly illustrated in Fig.9. The impulse responses of 4 different systems in a multichannel configuration is depicted : a 48 kHz system, with a bandwidth of 20 kHz (that is, 8 kHz transition bandwidth is allowed for anti-aliasing filtering), a 96 kHz system with 35 kHz bandwidth (26 kHz transition bandwidth), a 192 kHz system with 75 kHz bandwidth (42 kHz transition bandwidth) and an SACD system with 96 kHz bandwidth. Though none of the systems reproduces the input exactly, the DSD system shows the least artifacts.
Clearly, the 48 kHz system has great difficulty in reproducing the click; due to the steep filtering it starts ringing at a -30 dB level approximately 1ms before the click, which is very audible. Also at the higher sampling frequencies, the rining phenomenon cannot be remove, though it is reduce significantly. Only the DSD system is very effective in suppressing the ringing effect, due to very slow filtering above 95 kHz.
....
read stuff about bit rates
....
Moreover, it is argued that the DSD format complies with the minimal requirements set by the human hearing system in order to avoid audible artifacts caused by digitizing the analog signal. For example, the minimal sampling rate needed is about 350 kHz, which is not covered by a 192kHz PCM recording. Moreover from 20 kHz and onwards the neccessary signal-to-noise ratio becomes increasingly less important, which is in concodrance which the natural behavious of a SDM. Due to the latter feature of DSD, the signal becomes very bit-efficient compared to existing PCM formats closest to the afore mentioned minimal requirements. These statements include lossless coding for both kinds of signals. For example, on SACD a 6-channel DSD recording of 95 minutes can be stores where for 20bit 192Khz PCM only 55 minutes can be stored.
http://www.sacd.philips.com/b2b/downloads/dsd_2.pdf
"This effect is clearly illustrated in Fig.9. The impulse responses of 4 different systems in a multichannel configuration is depicted : a 48 kHz system, with a bandwidth of 20 kHz (that is, 8 kHz transition bandwidth is allowed for anti-aliasing filtering), a 96 kHz system with 35 kHz bandwidth (26 kHz transition bandwidth), a 192 kHz system with 75 kHz bandwidth (42 kHz transition bandwidth) and an SACD system with 96 kHz bandwidth. Though none of the systems reproduces the input exactly, the DSD system shows the least artifacts.
Clearly, the 48 kHz system has great difficulty in reproducing the click; due to the steep filtering it starts ringing at a -30 dB level approximately 1ms before the click, which is very audible. Also at the higher sampling frequencies, the rining phenomenon cannot be remove, though it is reduce significantly. Only the DSD system is very effective in suppressing the ringing effect, due to very slow filtering above 95 kHz."This is highly misleading rubbish from the Philips AES paper.
Highly misleading and false assumptions.DSD isn't reproducing the click correctly either! The click is at -6dB from full scale input and in the presented graph you see .25 on the vertical scale. (-6dB is .5)
It's a mere 'coincidense' that he puls mimics the input pulse and not by dsd virtues.
It would be interresting to see how dsd copes with such a pulse at lets say -60dB from full scale.
Also the 3us pulse is outside the bandwith of the pcm sample rates.
(Sample duration for 192kHz is 5us) This alone make this 'comparison' invalid. Any idiot knows that the signal must be below 1/2*fs.
(The wine tasting habit must be gotten out of hand the evening before the day he cooked this one up!)This test is a fraud designed to made pcm 'look bad' by intention.
It proofs only that dsd is a blatand marketing lie.Another lie exposed:
"Clearly, the 48 kHz system has great difficulty in reproducing the click; due to the steep filtering it starts ringing at a -30 dB level approximately 1ms before the click, which is very audible."
Ringing at 24kHz is NOT very audible.
Frank
Why don't you submit a paper for peer review to the AES ? This might give what you say some credibility. I content that your comments are biased to cover up good research and proof that DSD is better than PCM 192/24.What about Meridian ? Their paper supports most of what is reported in the Philips white paper. Didn't they have something to do with DVD-A ? Or are they biased for SACD too ? How come they debunk your comments to ?
Maybe the truth is, you don't know what your talking about ;)
I'm not either. But that doesn't prevent me in spotting these blatand flaws in the AES paper.There is no proof in this document that dsd is better than 24/192 or even 24/96.
You are only fooling yourself.My only beef with dsd is that low 64*fs sample frequency. It should have been at least 128*fs.
You obviously missed the part about the pcm processing in the Sonoma and the Pyramix systems...
Frank
This is the DVD-A forum, and I've been a bit naughty argueing for so long here. So I'll leave you with the last word on that.Just out of interest, if we limited bandwidth to 8kHz, which would you prefer then ?
24 bits is more than sufficient resolution.The biggest advantage for pcm is still that digital processing is much simpler to implement.
Great link, thanks!I just don't agree with their self-imposed limitations. Ringing is audible, absolutely. And as you point out, each format has it's issues. Ringing is tremendously low at the 96khz and 192khz sampling rates, and I'm willing to live with that to have better fidelity in the audible band, with very little ringing at 192, than pay Sony licensing fees to use something quite obviously designed for multichannel..
And there you go. Absolute proof Sony doesn't care about the audiophile, but rather the home theatre crowd.
:)
Good discussion the past few days, good food for thought :)
I want to make clear that I think SACD is a good sounding format. I doubt, given equal equipment, whether I would ever hear enough of a difference between the two to choose one or the other. And ironically enough, though I don't agree with DSD and Sony's push for it, and truly believe it's yet another way for Sony to shake $$ out of our pockets (as the music companies and production houses will certainly pass on licensing costs to the consumer)... And hate the fact I can't use it personally... I most certainly will have SACD in my house. Since I own a dCS, and dCS isn't on board with the standardized IEE1394, and DVD-A doesn't have their act together with it... My only choice for hirez audio is SACD!
I agree, DSD is not a home format and I wouldn't suggest for a minute that your 192/24 recordings are shit, I'm sure theyre brilliant.However, I take note with one, remember SACD mandates stereo, the disks for the first two years were all stereo. You can buy MONO SACD's.
My worry about DVD-A is not whether it can support stereo, we all know it can, and many (most?) disks do at the moment. However, we know Joe Bloe Sixpack doesn't give a shit and tends to like stuff which comes out of all speakers, since his speakers are never in the right space, so he doens't even know what "soundstage" is.
So, lets look into the future, DVD-A becomes the standard, CD is a distant memory.. they're filling the disks with the multi-media clips and photo albums... 24/96 Hirez 6-channel, DTS 96 6-channel, Dolby Digital ES 7.1 mix.... umm, theres not enough space for stereo on the disk, "WHO CARES" says MR. Beancounter, they can use the mixdown feature of their DVD-A. Its not that far away.
Yes, you can say Sony want $$$ for SACD, but
1) Theyre a commercial operation, theyre supposed to earn $$
2) Did you know that SACD fee's are less than half DVD-A fees ?But, No, you can't say they don't care about the audiophile, there is no watermarking, we have mandated stereo, because, even if SACD becomes popular, it will suffer from the same tendancy for "ping-pong surroud" on mainstream releases. At least I know I will get a regular stereo mix to go alongside it, as it is compulsary. Don't you agree ?
Finally, you say "I just don't agree with their self-imposed limitations." Which are these ? How is any other format not limit by the technology of the day ?
mandating a 2CH mix and doing a good job of it are two different things. I agree that having 2CH mandated is a good idea - more so for the current situation then the long term. 2CH stereo was a limitation imposed on 3CH stereo due to the introduction of the LP (try a google search on W.B Snow for Bell Laboratories in 1933) so MCH is actually a good thing if done properly. Now if the mass market dictates MCH and the effort is spent making that the best mix, what is to stop them from taking short cuts in creating the 2CH mix? Unfortunately the market will drive how music is presented on both high-rez formats and if the majority of the market doesn't care about higher quality 2CH the effort to create a great 2CH mix will suffer. Small labels will remain in the game creating 'audiophile' recordings of both 2CH and MCH.
DVD-A or SACD: SACD by a slight margin. Long term tie.Then the watermarking issue. From what I see http://www.mpg.org.uk/watermarkingreport.htm SACD *does* have a provision for watermarking too. It could be that they have been clever enough not to implement the third type of watermarking for the time being to allow the format to become entrenched. Why ruffle any feathers if you can ignore it for the time being? Protection of the material is likely to happen but this will be at the option of the label.
DVD-A or SACD: SACD by a slight margin. Long term tie.
Since watermarking can be present on any audible signal, that means you can say LP supports audible watermarking. However, we know that realistically its not the case. Same with SACD.Thing is, with SACD Sony specifically designed it to be resilient without watermarking, its not part of the recommended specification, never was. It is the absoloute opposite for DVD-A, where until the last minute watermarking was compulsory and every player had to detect it, every disk had to include it. We know that every SACD doesn't had watermarking and that nearly every DVD-A title does (except for audiophile labels). So their is no need to debate this, the proof is in the pudding.
Finally, with regards to mandated stereo, if its compulsory, at least they'll have to include it. Given the fact that nearly every recording engineer understands the value of music and quality, chances are they will always include a quality mix. The Beancounters can't stop it being included. With DVD-A, Mr Beancounter can just say "We use MixDown, a valid part of the DVD-A specification for legacy 2-channel systems". For all historical recordings, there will always be a 2-channel mix in some format for them to include. For new recordings, well Stereo becomes less important, since they can be recorded well in 5.1 if that is what is intended. Still, if they are forced with a decision to appeal to mass market, they can always ensure the stereo mix is sorted for audiophiles. Mandated stereo always encourages them to do the right thing.
Daniel.
The watermarking is added as an option to the spec on request by the record labels representatives.Eventually they will use it for sacd as well.
They havn't so far.... rememeber, SACD can't be recorded at home and is a protected media. Now your grasping at straws.
It's a logical assumption.Philips demonstrated watermarking technology so it's there.
There are additional 'features' possible with watermarking.
-Tracking pre-release copy's leaking out of studio's.
-Royalty gathering from airplay.
-Control over (future) digital recording devices that read the
watermark.
You may be right in the future, it is a valid path for things to take. However, its not the case at the moment, which is the important thing.
Yes, absolutely; it angers me that DVD-A doesn't require 2-channel mixes. You are right to be afraid, I completely agree. I do love 5.1 for movies, but it has no place in music, IMO. ESPECIALLY with high bitrate material; 24/96 + and DSD 2-channel creates an enveloping, surround-like environment anyway (on a good rig). A few people at my home have even thought I had all 6 channels running, when in fact it was just the front two...The limitations I speak of is that I believe Sony developed DSD for multichannel; they always point out that 6 full DSD channels can be slapped on a disc. I don't care, Sony! I want 2 channels of absolute highest fidelity. THAT's the limitation I want to live by :)
I did hear SACD's fees are lower, but you forgot the DSD fees. Sony's licensing is SO DAMN EXPENSIVE for DSD, it makes the mastering chain incredibly expensive. That will get passed down, too. And 24/192 is FREE!! (if you buy the gear, LOL)!!
Remember, DSD is just a marketing term for PDM or SDM. Sony only own patents over a specific implementation.I agree, Sony developed DSD for Stereo + Multichannel on a single disk, with maximum compatability with CD. Unfortunately, it is what it takes for a medium to have a chance in this day and age.
One thing, remember even before SACD existed, DSD was originally developed as an archiving format for their masters..... given these are 100% 2-channel, this would indicate that DSD's specific design for multi-channel may not be supported by evidence.
As for prices being passed down, its so insignificant for record companies if its sells, SACD or DVD-A. In Australia, many of the hybrid SACD's have been priced even cheaper than full price CD!!! Some are a bit more, some at full price, and a few less. So the price arn't that bad. To be honest, I'm happy to pay if I get the quality.
With regards to Multi-channel, and this applies to DVD-A and SACD. If its done correctly, it does actually sound good. Tubular Bells for example, which was originally conceived for Quadrophonic sounds awesome on SACD (a 4.0 mix). I've also heard some excellent classical Piano solo SACD's which just used the rears for ambience and sound brilliant. I'm sure the quality DVD-A releases can be just as effective. So 5.1 doesn't have to be all bad, though you'll never be able to count on it always being used sensibly.
Its absurd to suggest otherwise. Both formats are limited by the disk capacity and maximum transfer rate of the mechanism.DSD achieves the maximum fidelity given the limitations. DVD-A can only achieve 24/96 on all channels. DSD achieves a 2/1 efficiency over PCM by the use of its noise-shaping. This achieves better than PCM 192/24 within the audible band, and less outside the audible band. Certainly much better than 24/96.
Since Sony made there "perfect sound forever" comments, our knowledge of digital has increased immenseley. Its always easy to criticise things in hindsite.
"DSD achieves the maximum fidelity given the limitations. DVD-A can only achieve 24/96 on all channels. DSD achieves a 2/1 efficiency over PCM by the use of its noise-shaping. This achieves better than PCM 192/24 within the audible band, and less outside the audible band. Certainly much better than 24/96."I do not agree with the "limitations" put forth by Sony.
DSD does NOT achieve better fidelity than PCM 24/192 within the audible band, it achieves LESS fidelity. That is my beef with it.
If the "limitations given" are having full 5.1/6.1/7.1 rigs with multichannel surround, I do think DSD wins this game. But I could give a crap about multichannel; it's expensive enough to get 2 killer channels, there are very few who can afford maximum fidelity across 6 channels.
That's why I like 24/192 LPCM. Maximum fidelity for 2 channel folk, 24/96 for everyone into multichannel. Believe me, 24/96 is PLENTY good for multichannel, I seriously doubt your or I will have a rig that could even take full advantage of 6 channels of 24/96 in the near future.
.
n/a
I crashed my CBR1000 a couple of years ago, and havn't been "allowed" to ride since. Family + Wife have chilled a bit since, so I think I can get away with being a weekend rider, so no point getting anything practical, though I don't want a Ducati which puts my wrists down near my feet!
As comfy as a Duc gets, at least ;)Seriously, I have ridden minde 4+ hours with no issues. Rode it to a wedding 2 hours away in a suit and wingtips once..
You should check 'em out, especially now that they're injected (mine is carb'd), and the motors have been upped in power... They are lots of fun, the perfect combination between sportbike (the old superbike frame, old desmodue torquey motor) and hooligan (more upright stance, naked).
My first question.1) How is DSD not better than 192/24 ? It has less ringing, wider bandwidth and a much higher sampling rate. We know that until PCM 384, the sampling rate isn't high enough, regardless of bitrate. Infact, it has been proven, that for most commercial pop music releases, no more than -45 dB S/N is neccesary, that equates to only 9-bit, even CD has well in excess of the dynamic range for most recordings.
2) Even if we for the sake of argument agree that 192/24 is at least as good as, if not better than DSD overall. What relevance is this when we havn't had a single commercial 192/24 release ? Theyre all 96/24 as the mainstream public want multi-channel, its the only way to sell a new format to Joe Blow, he can hear shit (doesn't matter what it is) coming out his rear speakers and he can say, CD doesn't do that. Yes you will get the occasional audiophile 192/24 release in the future (maybe not ?). Yes you can record on DVD-A at 192/24, which really is brilliant for live recordings. However, you don't loose this ability if SACD takes over DVD-A as the commercial release medium.
MiniDisc never really took off as a release medium outside Japan, but who cares ? I have a recorder and couldn't care two hoots, I can still record my radio shows. Recordable mediums don't have the same success criteria as a playback only. For this reason, DVD-A will never die. It will always be around for home enthusiasts and small backyard recording labels.
I just want it to die for the majors, as Stereo and Watermark Free recordings are not part of its future. IF there was a media release tommorow, that even just stereo 96/24 was mandated, and audible watermarking scrapped, I'd jump on board with both formats. Whilst I'd prefer my Neil Young on DSD, as you say, 24/96 is plenty good enough. Not perfect, but I could live with it, especially considering how CD has improved. However, given SACD exists, and provides the best quality overall, I want it to succeed. I can still have DVD-A as a recording medium (or DVD-A LPCM), but at least when I buy my disks I know that the worst case scenario is still ok, stereo for me even if the 5.1 is ping-pong and watermark free.
1) DSD does not have less ringing than PCM @ 24/192K, contrary to your assertions. Clearly DSD has substantial ringing:http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surround2002/technology/page_07.shtml
In terms of qty of ringing, even 24/96K has less ringing although response on transients is slower.
2) The Eagles "Hotel California"
Neil Young "Harvest"
The Doobie Brothers "The Captain and Me"
Linda Ronstadt "What's New"
Stravinsky Firebird Suite / Ravel Bolero (AIX Records)Those are off the top of my head, others also exist.
So which of these would you like to discuss?
What is Harvest like on DVD-A ? Sorry for asking, but is it Watermarked ? Are the rest of his titles coming out 192/24 ?As for SACD having less ringing, the credibility difference between a web blog and a paper submitted by academics working for philips to the AES are on substantially different levels.
Perhaps you should do a little homework on who the principal producer of the study was.Also, could you tell me Craig fudged the oscilloscope tracings?
As far as Philips' papers go, it's hardly unbiased material.
Is Harvest watermarked? I don't know, but it is highly likely.
Do I care? Nope. The material has never sounded better.
and hear a difference? Please see Page 19 in this PDF:http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Coding2.PDF
When you say no commercial records at 192/24, do any of these meet the criteria?
http://www.dvd-a.dk/start.php?page=P2&format=1&Filter=Recommended2ch&Menu=Recommended stereo recordings
I didn't realise Harvest was 192/24. That really is good.As for the PDF very interesting, and funnily enough confirms that DSD's dynamic range of 120db is enough! They also talk about how sensible and beneficial noisehaping is to digital audio, also confirming DSD's strategy in this regard.
Just goes to show that the two camps arn't so far apart really. I bet Meridian could do a ripper SACD player. As for whether people can hear the difference between 96/24 and either 192/24, 384/24 or DSD, well theres few people who havn't been able to hear the difference.
I content that Merdian are correct within the scope of their research, except with regards to the sample rate. It has since been shown that higher sample rates are needed to represent the analog waveform in real implementations. On the whole, you will see that there is nothing in the Meridian paper is really at odds with the DSD paper. Both are good science.
I believe that DVD-A is technically better then SACD, however I suspect there is something in the psychoacoustic noise shaping on SACD that makes it pleasing to many people resulting their ‘more musical’ arguments. Doesn’t mean that the recording is truer to the original then a high-rez PCM recording but it sounds better if you are predisposed to the SACD noise shaping.The small number of people who I’ve talked to that have listened to both formats lean towards SACD. BUT, they usually relate hearing an exceptional DVD-A recording as well AND they usually comment that they didn’t like the gimmicky surround ‘tricks’ on DVD-A. This brings me to a second thought – Much of the differences perceived by people could be related to how the material was mastered. DSD recordings could be less processed then PCM recordings as PCM has more established tools to manipulate the recording and this could be affecting the final product.
Your observation that DVD-A appears to be behind seems to be true. The lead afforded by the hybrid CD/SACD for popular titles is likely part of the reason. IF DVD-A gets the flipper, then I believe we will see DVD-A start to gain ground. This coupled with the fact that many mainstream consumer DVD players will soon have DVD-A playback as a standard feature will allow the casual user to experience high-rez (depending on if the system is up to it) and maybe even pursue it.
...I have considered that, too. I think more likely, though, is most people prefer SACD for 3 reasons:
1. SACD players are better at this stage in the game, IMO. dCS' combo is FANTASTIC, there isn't anything in the DVD-A world up to that task yet.
2. Sony has planted the "SACD is more analog" idea, and people want to believe it. I *really* think this is marketing futz, as LPCM in my experience is *very* close (if not "there") to the best analog. I think BOTH DSD and LPCM 24/192 are very very good.
3. As you said, it's all about mastering. Who is doing a better job? I don't know, as I haven't listened to enough hirez commercial recordings to know. Sounds like SACD...
With response to1) The Meridian 800/861 combo is comparably priced to the dCS top of the line solution and has the advantage of multi-channel or stereo operation.
It is every bit as good as the dCS solution sonically IMO -- and I've heard them both. The substantially less expensive Meitner solution might sound a little better than the dCS, but I have yet to hear them side by side.
If you haven't heard top of the line solutions from BOTH sides, you are short changing the comparison.
2 and 3) No argument from me.
You're absolutely right. No Meridian around here, unfortunately. But I'll take your word for it, I know every Meridian digital piece I've heard in the past has been very good.I'm *really* hoping dCS implements standard IEE1394 in future upgrades. Now that I own a Delius, this is the only way I'm going to get killer DVD-A anytime soon.
For example the 800 (v3) series Meridian. I'm running the 500 series and it sounds excellent to my ear. Now if only I could get more material to play on it....I'm begining to suspect that it is more difficult to do a very good DVD-A player then a very good SACD player. Speculating that it is something to do with a single bit DAC?
Listening to the Mickey Hart DVD-A at the moment at 24/96 2CH upsampled which reminds me. If I follow what Meridian is saying, 24/96 is all that is need for excellent playback. Have you noticed a difference between 24/96 vs. 24/192 for the same material?
I do think it's rather difficult to do an excellent 24 bit DAC. When trying to find a DAC to playback my personal recordings, I listened to anything 24/96 capable that I could get my hands on. I quickly concluded that just because the DAC is 24 bit capable doesn't mean it will even come close to resolving all 24 bits. dCS has some fantastic whitepapers on this... I'm not sure about DSD/1-bit, I don't have the ability to record DSD so I can't really comment on that intelligibly. dCS says 1 bit DACs has their own inherent problems, too, tho..As for DVD-A players, I haven't heard that many. Most of the Pioneers and Denons. None sounded as good, IMO, as my Cary CD308 feeding my Delius 16/44.1. 24 bit is hard to do. Now if DVD-A allowed 24/192 LPCM out, I'm certain when coupled with the dCS it would SMASH 16/44 in my house. I've done many 24/96 vs. 16/44.1 comparos via my dCS (with my concert recordings) and 24 bit is SUBSTANTIALLY better, especially at 96khz.
I have only heard DVD-A players at 24/192, and I don't have the ability (currently) to record 24/192, so I can't comment on a good 24/96 vs. 24/192 comparo. I will say that my ears hear a fairly substantial difference between 24/48 and 24/96. I don't know whether that means I will hear a similar benefit with 24/192, but I am willing to try someday :)
Didn't Meridian say that 20/58, or something weird like that, was all we needed? I recall reading a whitepaper on it...
That said, I would *love* to hear (and own!) the Meridian 800 series DVD Player. Nice.
I'm still hoping dCS will implement a *standard* 1394 interface (vs their proprietary one) that will accept both DSD and DVD-A. Here's to hoping...
nt
...I run Microtech Gefell M300 mics into a modded Edirol UA5 (www.oade.com, I have the "warm mod") into a Dell Laptop via USB.Sounds *fantastic*!!!
If portable 24/192 harddrive recorders come out soon (Sound Devices has one on the horizon), I'm going to sell my UA5 and buy a Grace Lunatec V3... That's the only portable 24/192 solution I know of right now.
24/96 was a great leap over 24/48 in my experience, and 24/192 is even better... MMMN. To tell you the truth, I love analog LPs. But 24/96 is so damn close, and better in some regards... and it's portable for live on location recording! Not a bad time to be digital. :D
Although I have found the DAC you use to listen makes a HUGE difference. That's why the lack of LPCM output on DVD-A players really makes me angry!
So you feed your laptop through the Edirol UA5 and record in 24/96... right?
You must have huge dynamics, great for concerts.
What soundcard and software do you use?Best
...the UA5 is a nice little unit, especially with Oade Bros. preamp mods. I also have the digi mod, which enables coax and toslink out, if I choose to use a DAT or something instead of my laptop. The UA5 has USB out, too, and most of the time I use my laptop and record at 24/96. 24/96 sounds *incredible* for concert recording, alot of the "live" feel translates very well at 96khz. I have recorded 24/48, too, and it's good; but 24/96 is much much better.I don't use a soundcard on my laptop for recording; recording software picks up the USB feed as .wav in, no soundcard needed (actually, it kindof "sees" the external device as a soundcard). There are lots of choices for recording: samplitude, cool edit 2000, nTrack studio. nTrack is nice in that it automatically stripes files (to get around the ~2 gig .wav file limit that is an old windows holdover).
For playback I use an EMI 2|6 USB device hooked up to my laptop just like the UA5. It has coax out, and I feed that to my dCS. It's fantastic...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: