[StanD]

  I WISH it was that simple.
 
Please go trough last few posts - the improved pulse response DOES allow much finer gradations of what is audible and what not. It will allow, for example, the audibility of string section on quiet entry a few moments before on DSD than on PCM - depending on resolution of each, this time can take from few tenths to few seconds... - it is NOT an imaginary difference that does not require ability to hear beyond 20 kHz.
 
And forget "it must be a different master" mantra, so popular over here - derived from my own DSD original recording, the only manipulation being bouncing down to whatever format.

So now we're back into time travel. Are you deliberately trying to entertain us or do you really believe this stuff?

 

[analogsurviver]

   
DSD has no advantage over PCM, only disadvantages. And high res audio is only good for recording sounds too quiet to hear or ultrasonic frequencies. It's as simple as that.

If the audibility of the quiet entrance of -say- string sections at the precise time, without lag to the original feed from the microphone, is not an audible advantage - then I do not know what it is. 
 
I can vividly remember the rehearsal of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra in 2008 ( Bartok Concerto for Orchestra ) with Ivan Fischer at the helm; in the large concert Gallus Hall in Cankarjev Dom , Ljubljana, Slovenia

 

 
during the opening bars of one of the movements, where EVERYBODY were playing pppp, he quietly spoke : Leise (quiet) - and that quietly spoken word , in a LARGE hall, was louder than all the members of the VPO playing at the same time (!). I have that recorded to the Sony HiMD ( 44.1/16 uncompressed redbook ) - and it would have been one hell of a lot better recorded with the DSD ( which I obtained september/october 2009 ).
 
So much for the advantages of DSD over PCM. They ARE REAL - and do not require hearing above 20 kHz.
 
But I agree, it is MUCH harder to work with DSD than PCM - specially if lots of editing/mastering is required.

 

[manbear]

It doesn't. Analoguesurvivor makes this up as he goes along.

Yes but I'm curious all the same.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
Every time I point out your mistakes you conveniently jump to a different topic. What do MC cartridges have to do with 24 bit digital audio!?

As a group, "normal" MC cartridges are faster than , again as a group, MM cartridges. VERY broadly are MM carts comparable in bandwidth to CD (still more extended/with less sharp filtering than CD ) - while MCs are, again broadly, comparable to frequency response of (good) hirez.
 
There are exceptions to this rule, the fastest known production cartridge was Technics EPC 100CMK4 ( or P-Mount version, EPC P100CMK4) with bandwidth over 120 kHz - and it is a MM cartridge.

 

[RazorJack]

 

[StanD]

 

Does popcorn sound better when on DSD?

 

[analogsurviver]

There are any number of reasons different cartridge designs could sound different. It's not clear why you single out rise times.

Because it is the single most important factor which distinguishes cartridges one from another.
 
I had a crazy luck to be able to play/hear the prototype for what later emerged as Benz Ruby cartridge. It was not practical, producing only 0.03 mV/5cm/sec output voltage - getting anything approaching "normal" signal to noise ratio, hum supresion included, was (next to, even with most advanced electronics imaginable) impossible. The rest of the system included Swiss Physics preamp and heat pipe cooled real 100 W Class A amp (>> 100 kHz ) driving tall Magneplanars with full height ribbon (>40 kHz) . TT was Thorens, arm SME V. So, the entire system was limited by the performance of the ribbon tweeter of Magneplanar.
 
This cart sounded compared to regular MCs about the same as does FM sound to AM. Everything else measured more or less similar to the regular MCs -  except for the frequency response and, consequently, rise time.
 
Measured with the CBS STR 112 test record : rise and fall times < 3 microseconds (!)

 

[analogsurviver]

How does an impulse response improvement in microseconds become an audible improvement on the order of tenths to a few seconds?

Please see the link by lindberg above; CD can capture mere 16 % of the real amplitude of pulse - and, according to the playing, it takes so much more time for the CD to reach enough amplitude to become audible. If the playing is really fine at pppp, and if it prolongs for a relatively long time, CD could NEVER produce an audible sound.
This is audible when listening to live mike feed - it starts when it should, CD (44.1/16) is lagging. Better PCM with higher sampling rates approaches DSD better - but even DXD at 384/24 only can capture 84% of the original pulse.
 
This sounds cruel - but sorry, it is the truth. And is raison d'etre behind DSD.

 

[RRod]

  If the audibility of the quiet entrance of -say- string sections at the precise time, without lag to the original feed from the microphone, is not an audible advantage - then I do not know what it is. 
 
I can vividly remember the rehearsal of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra in 2008 ( Bartok Concerto for Orchestra ) with Ivan Fischer at the helm; in the large concert Gallus Hall in Cankarjev Dom , Ljubljana, Slovenia
 
 
 
 
during the opening bars of one of the movements, where EVERYBODY were playing pppp, he quietly spoke : Leise (quiet) - and that quietly spoken word , in a LARGE hall, was louder than all the members of the VPO playing at the same time (!). I have that recorded to the Sony HiMD ( 44.1/16 uncompressed redbook ) - and it would have been one hell of a lot better recorded with the DSD ( which I obtained september/october 2009 ).
 
So much for the advantages of DSD over PCM. They ARE REAL - and do not require hearing above 20 kHz.
 
But I agree, it is MUCH harder to work with DSD than PCM - specially if lots of editing/mastering is required.

 
How was it better? You could actually hear it? Were the recording levels just different?

 

[analogsurviver]

   
It doesn't. Analoguesurvivor makes this up as he goes along.

This is not the case.

 

[analogsurviver]

  Does popcorn sound better when on DSD?

If popping while being fried is what you mean, probably yes. Do not make popcorn at home.
 
But I did record frying an egg in different formats - no kidding. It is a part of my standard "obstacle course" whenever testing new or modified recording gear.

 

[lamode]

  then I do not know what it is.

 
Nonsense, perhaps?

 

[lamode]

  Please see the link by lindberg above; CD can capture mere 16 % of the real amplitude of pulse - and, according to the playing, it takes so much more time for the CD to reach enough amplitude to become audible. If the playing is really fine at pppp, and if it prolongs for a relatively long time, CD could NEVER produce an audible sound.
This is audible when listening to live mike feed - it starts when it should, CD (44.1/16) is lagging. Better PCM with higher sampling rates approaches DSD better - but even DXD at 384/24 only can capture 84% of the original pulse.
 
This sounds cruel - but sorry, it is the truth. And is raison d'etre behind DSD.

 
More nonsense. Seriously, this is trolling, plain and simple.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
How was it better? You could actually hear it? Were the recording levels just different?

Recording levels ARE always set equally. Same recorder, same recording level setting - just recording format selected differently.
 
You get the same result by bouncing DSD128 to say CD. Original DSD128 will play as it should, CD would be lacking/delaying in low levels. It is the nature how DSD and PCM work.
 
And it does not require ability to hear beyond 20 kHz.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
More nonsense. Seriously, this is trolling, plain and simple.

Explain that to musicians. Who have been practicing for umpteen "yet another mile".
 
Specially the ones who stated, loud and clear, that they have never heard their playing/instrument better recorded.