[Orpheus]

it just hit me this morning.......

i was thinking... if most modern music is mixed and mastered to 24bit depth and 96khz (192khz is starting to get more popular though...) sampling rate, wouldn't one naturally want to use DVD-A as the final consumer medium?

think about it... if the "final" result is already in 24bit/96khz, why would you want to resample it to SACD format, which inevitably will result in a loss of fidelity, as any type of processing always results in a theoretical loss of information from the original recording?

DVD-A supports 24bit/96khz (or 192khz) directly... so, how does one justify using SACD assuming that master recordings are in 24bit/96khz?

the use of SACD seems totally illogical to me.

 

[Orpheus]

so, what you guys think?

 

[aeberbach]

I went SACD because there just isn't much music I want in DVD-A. Also I don't think the ideal SACD recording is limited this way because DSD recording (http://interprod5.imgusa.com/son-637/technology.asp) has a higher sampling rate. Or at least that's why Sony says we should pay more for it, of course old recordings converted won't have this. But then why use CD for any recording pre-1980?

 

[Orpheus]

yeah.... but that's not the point i'm trying to make.

....we are not arguing whether SACD or DVD-A is superior. the point is, it doesn't matter which medium can potentially carry better sound quality...

the point is, as far as i know, almost every recent digital recording (there are still engineers who use analog)... every recent digital recording is recorded with quality ranging from 16bit/44khz to 24bit/192khz... the most popular among higher-grade studios would probably be 24bit/96khz.

so, the point is........ if everything is already 24bit/96khz, in order to produce a SACD, one has to process the original data somehow to make the new medium. any processing inevitably results in a loss of information from the original. DVD-A directly supports 24bit/96khz, so no processing is needed.

using Sony's language, recording using PCM technology requires "decimation" in the AD stage (recording,) and "interpolation" during the DA stage (playback.) Sony claims SACD is superior partly because it illiminates decimation and interpolation. but that's not entirely true. because, as i have said, all recordings are recorded/mixed with PCM technology anyway. so, there's no point in converting the original PCM recorded material to SACD, after already going through "decimation."

again, if one must produce a SACD, one must process the original PCM material further to produce the SACD..... and I am saying it is illogical to do such a thing. it cannot produce higher fideilty...

therefore, DVD-A's should always have better sound compared to SACD.

the only way i can justify using SACD is if SACD's playback method is superior enough to PCM's "interpolation" to overcome the detrimental effect of converting PCM to SACD.

of course... this would be different if mixing engineers use SACD technology through the entire recording process, but i am not aware of any popular DACs/ADCs that do this...

so....... what you guys think? can SACD logically sound better than DVD-A give today's recording methods?

 

[Orpheus]

hmm... let's put it this way then....

take your favorite redbook 16bit/44khz CD.... if we take that CD and convert it to SACD, would it sound better? of course not!

and that's pretty much what engineers would be doing to make a SACD from their digital masters.

so?... what you think?

 

[lini]

Orpheus: There is is DSD equipment for studios, which will be used for producing SACDs. But I guess for smaller studios without big bugdet 24bit/192kHz PCM would be the better choice. Nevertheless, in the end the bitrates are almost the same anyway.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[Orpheus]

yes, i realize that there is DSD equipment available. but that is not what is being used by the mixing engineers. i think almost all digital music is recorded via PCM. DSD stuff might be used in the very last stages.... but almost the entire work is done in PCM. we all know Pro Tools is like THE most used system.... it's everywhere. and it's PCM just like everything else. in fact, it's so successful that big studios are worried that they are on the verge of extinction, cause of the popularity of smaller studios using DAW's.

i have never seen any digital compressors/limiters/EQs/mixing boards/preamps/converters/interfaces/DAWs use DSD technology. so, DSD must be used only in the mastering stage....

i could be wrong, i guess. got an example of recording gear using DSD?

so, again....... the majority (99.99%?) of music is recorded via PCM, as far as i know. so...................................... why use SACD?

 

[Maxvla]

it appears to me that the question of this thread is why sacd... NOW?

with the dsd tech in the recording studios the original sound will be recorded at 24/192 native. thus there will be no conversion going to sacd.

you end up with better sound. thus sacd is the next level in audio recording.

as far as making sacds right now while most studios are using pcm.. thats something that is quite debatable.

at present it certainly is quite a waste making sacds if the original recordings are 24/96. however, it appears as though the sacd format is more prevalent than the dvd-a format and thus the studios want their stuff in the hands of more people so they release it on sacd and not even bother with the lesser trafficked medium even if it is a truer sound right now which is completely illogical like you say, but in the end it sort of is.

think of it this way:

illogical: resample 24/96 recordings and put them on sacd resulting in a slightly colored sound, not original.

logical: "sacd is much more popular right now. if we put it on dvda it might go unnoticed, but since Sony is really pushing sacd right now we can put it on sacd and sell more copies"

in the end its all about making money. granted doing it that way is not the way to run a truely audiophile company, but a true audiophile company would have gone bankrupt long ago from over expense.

 

[Tuberoller]

This argument seems based in the theory that since the entire recording process is not done in DSD then sound quality suffers.Very little in High End audio is based on hard fact.The superiority of sonics based on the opinions and emotions of listeners is what will decide the fate of SACD and DVD-A(thoretically).If you sat an average audiophile down and tried to explain that SACD does'nt sound as good as it could and then played an SACD disc for him he would care very little because,most of the time,the SACD disc does indeed sound better than the redbook example.You are using logic where logic does not apply.

 

[lini]

Orpheus: I've already met one studio guy over here some time ago, who told me that they're already using dsd equipment - and he seemd to be really in love with the stuff. And I've just tried googling for dsd recording equipment - the results are quite a few hits.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[markl]

My understanding is that all masters tapes are analog in nature. Mixing engineers take all the separately-recorded tracks on different tapes, and mix them down into a two-channel master tape. None of this is done in the digital domain, so they are taking an analog master tape and converting that into a SACD. So we are listening to data that has been first converted to analog, then digitized onto an SACD. Therefore it's irrelevant whether the original tracks were recorded in 24/96 or on analog tape to begin with.

Mark

 

[Orpheus]

tuberoller :
Quote:

If you sat an average audiophile down and tried to explain that SACD does'nt sound as good as it could and then played an SACD disc for him he would care very little because,most of the time,the SACD disc does indeed sound better than the redbook example.You are using logic where logic does not apply.

no, that is not what i'm saying... my reference to redbook was as a metaphor. you see, masters are in 24bit/96khz, which is above the resolution on redbook. you have two choices right now, DVD-A and SACD, both of which offfer higher resolution than redbook. DVD-A will most faithfully reproduce the sound of the master, which SACD will require some processing, but still retain more resolution than redbook. so, yes, SACD is better than redbook, given that the original masters were already higher resolution than SACD. absolutely logical.

again, tuberoller, we are not arguing which is the better format, SACD or DVD-A, we are arguing whether SACD would result in better "sonics" because in theory most masters are in DVD-A format already. hence my metaphor to redbook.

in audiophile terms, the SACD is colored, while DVD-A is pure.

do you understand the argument now?--if so, then feel free to argue the logic of the argument.

markl:
Quote:

My understanding is that all masters tapes are analog in nature. Mixing engineers take all the separately-recorded tracks on different tapes, and mix them down into a two-channel master tape. None of this is done in the digital domain, so they are taking an analog master tape and converting that into a SACD.

no, that's incorrect. most recordings/mixes are done in the digital domain these days. big analog studios are going out of business because of the popularity of low-cost DAW based small studios. yes, old recordings were done on analog tape, but times have changed. and that's the premise of my argument. ....anyway, want an example closer to home?--check out atkinson's (did i spell his name right?--he's the editor) recording articles in Stereophile. he recently recorded some group called Cantus. the entire thing was recorded via digital (Tascam DA series, and something else.... forgot.) only a minority of studios use analog tape... and they're struggling i might add. read some articles in Mix magazine... it seems all they ever talk about--that big analog studios are a thing of the past. it's expensive, and does not compare with digital in terms of editability.

lini:
well, i posted this thread to learn. if you can show me some DAWs that use DSD. or better yet.... tell me what equipment your friend's using. i personally use Sonar and Nuendo here, and neither supports DSD. i know that all the other big names don't either, like Pro Tools, Samplitude, Cubase SX, Logic.... etc. ....there might be some extremely expensive consoles out there that do.... but the popular ones like the Sony's and the Yamahas don't either. i know of no interfaces at all for the computers than can record or import DSD. so.... got some examples? even if you can uses DSD instances, it is clear that 99.99% of digital equipment is PCM, so you would still have to convert more than is logical.

maxvla:
so i take it you understand my argument and agree? your reasoning for using SACD is for purely economic reasons?

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl My understanding is that all masters tapes are analog in nature. Mixing engineers take all the separately-recorded tracks on different tapes, and mix them down into a two-channel master tape. None of this is done in the digital domain, so they are taking an analog master tape and converting that into a SACD. So we are listening to data that has been first converted to analog, then digitized onto an SACD. Therefore it's irrelevant whether the original tracks were recorded in 24/96 or on analog tape to begin with. Mark

Read what Orpheus wrote. It's been well documented that many studio's switched over to the digital medium when recording in the mid 90's, whether its dat or recording directly to computer HD's then mixing it down from there with software.

 

[markl]

So there is no such thing as a "master tape" anymore? All "masters" are just files stored on a computer somewhere? This doesn't sound right to me somehow, but I'm no studio owner or recording engineer.

But even if new recordings made in the last 5 years exist mostly in the digital domain, That still leaves 80 years of recorded music in some form of analog. The bulk of SACD releases are older albums that were recorded on tape.

Mark

 

[grinch]

from what i hear, it's a toss up between analog and digital: some albums are recorded/mixed/mastered analog, some are recorded analog then mixed/mastered in digital, some are recorded/mixed/mastered in digital. sadly, to my ears, it's the digital albums that sound like ****.

i think part of the fact that sacd sounds better is that a lot of them are based on analog masters, which is oppose to the dvd-a albums which are most definitely based on digital masters. the few sacds i own (rolling stone hybrids, blonde on blonde, kind of blue, and thelonius monk) were all recorded originally in analog and i imagine they were remastered in analog and that's how the sacds were made. perhaps this is why some, not all albums are made into sacd?

there may be some real truth to this, digital recording may be why some albums aren't released on sacd yet, and i wonder if that's a reason for some albums to never be released on it. but anyway, so far, i'm pretty sure most of the albums released on sacd had analog masters to work from. this is mostly coming from memory of the sacd releases i have seen out though.

this just furthers the fact that i don't own any dvd-a's and now i REALLY don't plan on getting in on that technology.