[MacDEF]

Quote:

btw, i'm sure that Sony developed SACD as a competition to DVD-A

Thomas, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't SACD developed *before* DVD-A (or at least development started earlier)?

 

[coolvij]

MacDEF: I think that pure DSD R&D started earlier...but that high-resolution PCM (DVD-A) actually came out a bit earlier....

 

[DanG]

In fact, "pure DSD" research started in the 1940s. I believe delta-sigma converters were put into use for CD players rather early as well (not that early, but I mean long before DVD-A). However, I do think that SACD technology per se began development before DVD-A and finished development earlier as well.

 

[coolvij]

"Pure DSD" I meant as DSD used without conversion to PCM...but maybe that was what you were talking about, too.

 

[DanG]

Yep, it sure was.

However, I did make a small mistake. Here's what Ken Pohlmann says in Principles of Digital Audio (Fourth Edition):

"Delta modulation and sigma-delta modulation (also called delta-sigma) were developed in the 1940s and 1960s, respectively, and used for voice telephony applications. Limitations prohibited their use in high quality music applications until the emergence of high-speed digital signal processing techniques in the 1980s."

Delta modulators, he goes on to say, are encoders which record the changes in amplitude alone. Sigma-delta modulators, on the other hand, "quantize the delta (difference) between the current signal and the sigma (sum) of the previous difference." Since DSD uses sigma-delta modulation, I guess it's fairer to say that DSD's roots were in the 1960s, not the 1940s. It was Stereophile that said that the paradigm itself was thought up in 1946 (see DSD sidebar to Sony SCD-1 review ).

 

[coolvij]

heh......i'll shut up now

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

I have the Aug/Sept issue of TAS in my hand right now. (No Beagle I am not a rich audiophile with more money than brains. I just needed something to read on the 10 hour flight back from Hawaii)

I read TAS whenever I fly too. Somehow it seems that I absorb more when I am stuck im my seat.

Personally, what bothers me about new supposedly improved formats is that there is only a handful of releases on offer, and even if they are an improvement and one format does indeed stick and become affordable, the thought of having to re-purchase my music collection yet again is nauseating at best.

I forsee a perfect medium someday. Afterwhich, there will be people complaining about the quality of instruments the musicians used, assuming there are still real musicians around at that point. Did they use a real bassoonist or a cloned one?

 

[morphsci]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beagle Personally, what bothers me about new supposedly improved formats is that there is only a handful of releases on offer, and even if they are an improvement and one format does indeed stick and become affordable, the thought of having to re-purchase my music collection yet again is nauseating at best.

I agree totally with the lack of titles available, the uncertainty of which format will succeed, if either and the prospect of another big hit in the wallet for software. I'm not as worried about buying a player since both SACD and DVD-A machines seem to play redbook CD's well (though perhaps not up to the standard of a really good CD player. I'm also not sure that either format will live up to its potential when it goes mainstream unless more attention is paid to mastering and mixing. IMHO

 

[coolvij]

OT -

I have always wondered why people argue over whether SACD can succumb to the effects of jitter.

Is SACD safe from jitter theoretically since the sound is recorded based on change, so timers aren't involved?

Or am I missing something?

And also, wouldn't jitter still be a problem with hardware - the disc being read would have to have PERFECT timers to not have jitter, right?