Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Lets Talk Metal
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lets Talk Metal - Page 645

post #9661 of 16560
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBSC View Post

Referring to the question that was asked awhile back, DSD is the name that Sony uses for their method of PDM (pulse density modulation) as opposed to the typical PCM (pulse code modulation). CD is 16-bit/44.1kHz. SACD is 1-bit/2.8224Mhz. DSD is far more capable than 16/44 CD audio with its 22.05Khz hard cutoff, but against high-res PCM, the argument is trickier. SOME people think that DSD sounds much closer to analog than even high-res PCM, but as with everything, the mastering is far more important than everything else.



We are going to have an article about this soon on Metal-Fi.
post #9662 of 16560
Check out my review on Metal-Fi about the spaced out Progenie Terrestre Pura project, U.M.A.



Available on Bandcamp.

No word of a vinyl yet, but I am hoping more people discover it and there is demand. Definitely a favorite of mine this year.
Edited by Trogdor - 5/15/13 at 4:57am
post #9663 of 16560
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBSC View Post

Referring to the question that was asked awhile back, DSD is the name that Sony uses for their method of PDM (pulse density modulation) as opposed to the typical PCM (pulse code modulation). CD is 16-bit/44.1kHz. SACD is 1-bit/2.8224Mhz. DSD is far more capable than 16/44 CD audio with its 22.05Khz hard cutoff, but against high-res PCM, the argument is trickier. SOME people think that DSD sounds much closer to analog than even high-res PCM, but as with everything, the mastering is far more important than everything else.

 

 

Apparently, a certain amount of DSD is mixed in PCM (or mixed analog and recorded in PCM) and converted. This is because DSP is difficult to apply to DSD, both because DSD is 1-bit and because there's very little DSP equipment available for DSD.

post #9664 of 16560
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBSC View Post

In 99% of cases, you should buy first press vinyl if at all possible. Earache seems to be doing it right with the FDR series, but labels like BOB or MOV usually blow it. If there's a vinyl version available, it's usually worth getting. Sometimes even different regions will get different masters. For example, from what I understand Infestissumam as pressed by Universal is the same brickwalled crap as the CD, but the Rise Above Records press is much more dynamic. It definitely pays to do your research.

 

 

Yeah enough research is always the right ting to do. The only problem I have is actually getting the information. Could you recommend me some places where I can get these kind of informations?

post #9665 of 16560
Finally got them properly framed. So happy with the results! My favourite is The Swans print on the left.

http://www.malleusdelic.com/
Edited by Kirnupiima - 5/15/13 at 11:13am
post #9666 of 16560
post #9667 of 16560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pritolus View Post

 

Apparently, a certain amount of DSD is mixed in PCM (or mixed analog and recorded in PCM) and converted. This is because DSP is difficult to apply to DSD, both because DSD is 1-bit and because there's very little DSP equipment available for DSD.

 

Yep. A lot of early SACD releases especially were also just essentially CD transfers, just like some vinyl. SACD has the equivalent resolution of roughly 24-bit/117kHz, but of course if you take a CD master and upconvert it to a higher resolution you don't get anything back. The only possible benefit is you no longer have to worry about the effects of the linear or minimum phase filter operating in the audible band. SACD doesn't use those kinds of filters.

post #9668 of 16560

So that begs the question: Why in the bloody hell are brands pushing "upsampling" DACs at us? I want my bit-perfect dammit!

post #9669 of 16560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blazingsonic View Post

 

Yeah enough research is always the right ting to do. The only problem I have is actually getting the information. Could you recommend me some places where I can get these kind of informations?


Here's one: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

 

Unfortunately it only shows the dynamic range values, and doesn't include information about which mix is best and why.

post #9670 of 16560
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLACKENEDPLAGUE View Post

So that begs the question: Why in the bloody hell are brands pushing "upsampling" DACs at us? I want my bit-perfect dammit!

They are two different concepts.

Bit-perfect is just what it sounds like, all the bits in each sample are accurately represented in the PCM stream that hits the DAC.

Upsampling involves clocking the incoming samples as part of a PCM data stream at a higher sampling rate than the original stream was created.
post #9671 of 16560

But if nothing is gained from upsampling, why do it?

post #9672 of 16560
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLACKENEDPLAGUE View Post

So that begs the question: Why in the bloody hell are brands pushing "upsampling" DACs at us? I want my bit-perfect dammit!


It's a quick and dirty method of jitter control. Asynchronous upsampling (say 16/44.1 to 24/192 which isn't a direct multiple of 44.1) is not bit-perfect and is generally best avoided. Synchronous upsampling (44.1 to 176.4) doesn't do the same damage, and can have some benefit for especially bad recordings by shaving off the rough edges. In most cases US is better left off or done in software, provided the DAC has a good filter rather than the typical linear with a lot of pre-ringing.

post #9673 of 16560
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBSC View Post


It's a quick and dirty method of jitter control. Asynchronous upsampling (say 16/44.1 to 24/192 which isn't a direct multiple of 44.1) is not bit-perfect and is generally best avoided. Synchronous upsampling (44.1 to 176.4) doesn't do the same damage, and can have some benefit for especially bad recordings by shaving off the rough edges. In most cases US is better left off or done in software, provided the DAC has a good filter rather than the typical linear with a lot of pre-ringing.

No more! We have too many "Killing Technology" topics here! :-)
post #9674 of 16560
Quote:
Originally Posted by macrocheesium View Post

Here's one: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

 

Unfortunately it only shows the dynamic range values, and doesn't include information about which mix is best and why.

 

True, but if the vinyl version has double the amount of dynamic range as is often the case, at the very least that's a clue that it's not a lazy CD transfer. To get deeper than that you just have to ask around. The Steve Hoffman forums can be a good resource, or just Google. And of course you can always check the Classic Wax section. very_evil_smiley.gif

 

http://www.metal-fi.com/category/articles/classic-wax-articles/

post #9675 of 16560
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLACKENEDPLAGUE View Post

But if nothing is gained from upsampling, why do it?

A short answer might be:
"Upsampling is the process of converting audio material to higher resolution (e.g. from 44kHz to 88kHz, 16 bit to 24 bit).
Although upsampling does not not add new information to the music, it appears to allow a higher quality of rendering that, without upsampling, would require much more expensive equipment.

This is the subject of considerable debate in the audio community.

CD resolution is 44kHz at 16 bit sample size.
High-resolution is a combination of sampling rates higher than 88kHz and/or sample size of 24 bit.
Due to the additional amount of information used to represent the audio waves, high-resolution music is generally perceived as more precise with more warmth and stage presence.
If you tend to find CD music as too harsh, then you will likely enjoy high-resolution audio."

Ditto for upsampling,some people simply prefer the sound.
Now,back to the scheduled Heavy Metal...
Edited by 5aces - 5/15/13 at 2:34pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Lets Talk Metal