Sadlly, despite all these advantages, I bought an expensive DSD/SACD player. I have only one real DSD/SACD title and so far my personal opinion is that the SACD sounds better than the redbook, at least in terms of imaging, detail and space. However I have no idea what a DVD-A would sound like but I think this level is good enough for me... ... for now!
most of your post is simply not so, but rather than get into what is and what is not read this arcticle from optical-disc systems journal, remember that is a partially a critique of DSD and you will see that the experts give more due to DSD that you want to accept. DVDA v Bitstream article also look at this article from this dcs paper and this paper and see that there are valid scientific reasons why folk might prefer DSD to DVDA happy reading.
Yes, well... ... Um... ...Yes... Or rather no... I don't get it!!??
I am not an EE. I didn't undertstand those articles. They could have been in a cuneiform an made more sense to me.
Audiohobby,
Please translate them for us lesser mortals!
Despite my obvious stupidity when it comes to this I noticed that the high vs. low sampling rate paper seemed to indicate that higher sampling rates were superior i.e. 192 Khz is superior to 44.1Khz. While this made sense, would the bit density make a difference, considering most 192 Khz signals have a 24 bit depth while the 2.822 Mhz signals have only single bit sampling?
Again, please don't be offended, Just explain the papers a little bit for technically challenged people like me!
While this made sense, would the bit density make a difference, considering most 192 Khz signals have a 24 bit depth while the 2.822 Mhz signals have only single bit sampling? While this made sense, would the bit density make a difference, considering most 192 Khz signals have a 24 bit depth while the 2.822 Mhz signals have only single bit sampling?
The one of big differences between PCM and DSD is bit significance, In DSD every bit is important ,whereas in PCM (ie DVDA) there is concept of LSB (least significant bit) and MSB (Most significant Bit) hence the requirement to sample the signal as a single 'pulse code'. Secondly, The effective SNR is digital systems determines the actual bit resolution. Therefore, The useful bit density (as opposed to actual bit density which will include noise) of DSD will diminish as ultrasonic noise rises in line with the frequency increase though I think it tails off at around 80KHz. However it retains better time response throughout it's specified bandwidth that response is unaffected by the presence of ultrasonic noise. Therefore for a given input, DSD produces a more linear (i.e. accurate) response than DVDA owing to it's superior time response. As I said in an earlier post, I am yet to see any paper contesting the superiority of DSD time response since this is a mathematical fact, however there has been various valid objections to some of the trades offs namely ultrasonic noise and by extension effective bit resolution. However when you consider that under critical conditions a lot of people prefer vinyl to digital even though it has lower resolution that CD, justification for the trade offs begin to make sence.
Yesterday I went to a musical event, Robert Woods, the President of Telarc, and Richard Vandersteen, the designer of Vandersteen speakers gave a presentation. showed off and discussed SACD.
As what I understand, Telarc's view on SACD is, 2 channel SACD is way better than CD for sure; SACD is better than PCM DVD-A because the sound is more analog-like; DSD recording is more complicated and expensive; Sony and Philips's monopolize and marketing sucks; Multi-channal surround is a huge leap up, it gives more realistic and 'environmental' sound that no any previous tech. can match.
We audited some CD and SACDs, through Linn Unidisk 2.1 and Vandersteen speakers, don't remember which pre-amp, there are 5 speakers, each speaker with a dedicated power-amp and subwoofer. With such a setup, I can clearly notice that CD's resolution is not high enough, the sound is un-natural, has 'holes' in it. Switch to SACD, 2 channal and multi-channal, the sound shined, from bottom to up I can hardly find any dis-satisfaction.
Originally posted by theaudiohobby
...The one of big differences between PCM and DSD is bit significance, In DSD every bit is important ,whereas in PCM (ie DVDA) there is concept of LSB (least significant bit) and MSB (Most significant Bit) hence the requirement to sample the signal as a single 'pulse code'...
I hope this helps. [/B]
I don't know if i get this, but is what you are saying that DVD-A looks at 24 shades of blacks and whites to make a shade of gray or is it still black or white depending on the intensity and the number of blacks/whites? So arguably the advantage DSD offers is the ability to assess each black or white on an individual basis. Albeit noise would be assessed on the same basis having its own bit rather than being one of 24 bts sampled at any point of time. Theoretically, this indicates that while the noise level in the DVD-A is less (because of the natural noise filtration built into selecting the MSB) so is its true accuracy becuase a lot of times the so-called noise might be an artefact of the primary recording.
Not at all, the LSB and MSB are simpler than that, For example if we have the number 24 its binary equivalent is 11000. The LSB is 0 and the MSB is 1. The accuracy is defined by the last bit in the word length. In other words, if we say we have 39876, that number can be aproximated to 39880, 39900 or 40000 depending on what is the most significant digit.
With such a setup, I can clearly notice that CD's resolution is not high enough, the sound is un-natural, has 'holes' in it. Switch to SACD, 2 channal and multi-channal, the sound shined, from bottom to up I can hardly find any dis-satisfaction.
well, i haven't read up on this thread in a long time.... but you know, i don't think anyone has has a chance to compare a SACD and DVD-A mastered from EXACTLY the same source, with EXACTLY the same processing, done on the same level of conversion equipment (best DSD and PCM samplers available.) see, that's the whole frickin' problem with all this arguing. how can we verify which sounds better without doing a blind-test with exact same recordings?
i want to see exactly this experiment with a large enough pool of SACD-lovers to satisfactorily put this argument to rest.
my hypothesis (not surprisingly cause i'm always the skeptic) is that no one will be able to hear the difference substantially (statistically) one way or the other.
then i want to see an experiment comparing SACD to CD and DVD-A to CD in the same manner. again, i think no one will be able to hear the difference.
why i think it makes no difference?--cause at home i record everything in 96khz/24bit resolution. but when i make a CD, i have to convert to 44khz/16bit. but i hear no difference either way. but that's just me. maybe someone hear has better ears......
anyway.... someone who has heard the same recordings (and i mean EXACT same EVERYTHING) on both formats please comment.
Still.........it makes not one shred of sense to use DSD if the recording has to be converted to 24/96 PCM anyway - or if like most recordings, was recorded in high-bit PCM in the first place.
Chesky, for instance, makes there digital SACDs from 24 bit PCM, and then converts it to DSD.
BTW Bloggs, where did you hear the 8000 Hz thing is fixed?
well, i haven't read up on this thread in a long time.... but you know, i don't think anyone has has a chance to compare a SACD and DVD-A mastered from EXACTLY the same source, with EXACTLY the same processing, done on the same level of conversion equipment (best DSD and PCM samplers available.) see, that's the whole frickin' problem with all this arguing. how can we verify which sounds better without doing a blind-test with exact same recordings?
i want to see exactly this experiment with a large enough pool of SACD-lovers to satisfactorily put this argument to rest.
read the papers recommended to joe, that should point you in right direction. there is empirical evidence and reasonable scientific basis why listeners might prefer DSD. read about 'time resolution' and 'bit resolution' and their relevance to accurate music reproduction.
if some universal players will be introduced in a short while (this means DVD-A, SACD, and regular redbook and or maybe DVD together?) should i just wait until then to get a universal player for my SACD or DVD-A needs? or should i just pick one or the other now, and not really worry about having both? and, will there be budget universal players coming out, or will they all be in the high end price range? i'm getting my Rega Planet 2000 in a few days, and i even wonder if i really want or need to get SACD or DVD-A considering that a lot of you say there's just not a huge difference??? however, i have a dvd/cd player that plays DTS cd's...and my Diana Krall cd sounds wonderful when i listen to it through my surround sound system, but i just don't know if it's worth it? a little help here
thanx for the help guys, it is greatly appreciated!!
read the papers recommended to joe, that should point you in right direction. there is empirical evidence and reasonable scientific basis why listeners might prefer DSD. read about 'time resolution' and 'bit resolution' and their relevance to accurate music reproduction.
yes, there's probably empirical evidence either way.
but i'm addressing those that say "SACD 'sounds' better." i am saying, you can't say something sounds better until you can identify the differences when comparing the same material. i don't understand how people can say one sounds better than another when comparing apples and oranges.
look... most of us are probably familiar with the basics of science. in order to do an experiment, there must only be one variable, within reason. to fairly compare SACD to DVD-A, you must use the same recording, same processing, same level of convertors, and be monitored through the same equipment and speakers. if you do not, it would not be a fair comparison. and before you do such critical listening, you cannot say for certain one is better than the other, even though you are still subjectively listening.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
