The lie of the hi-rez formats
Nov 15, 2004 at 11:08 PM Post #46 of 89
Quote:

Originally Posted by jefemeister
The majority of SACDs were in PCM at one point or another. No digital processing can be done on straight DSD. It has to be converted to PCM first. This includes gain, mixing, filtering, effects, etc. So, although this is a special case since the master is analog, I argue what's the point of SACD in general?


Sad, but true! After all it's hi-rez what we get (if we're not screwed!), and that's the good thing about SACD which offers more music titles than DVD-A and more convenient players so far.

peacesign.gif
 
Nov 15, 2004 at 11:39 PM Post #47 of 89
Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ
Sad, but true! After all it's hi-rez what we get (if we're not screwed!), and that's the good thing about SACD which offers more music titles than DVD-A and more convenient players so far.

peacesign.gif



nothing sad about that! unless you mean low samplerate in fact.. there's simply no way how to process in just 1bit quantisation.. there's absolutely nothing wrong with PCM, SACD stands and falls with the samplerate, that's what matters, not the number of bits.. after all, modern D/A conveters run in multibit too, not singlebit anymore.. SACDs should be processed either in 2.8MHz/4bit or 352.8kHz/32bit, both offering quite a wide bandwidth to avoid transient smearing.. the way it's stored on disc does not matter that much except for the fact that DSD is nonstandard and as such it's harder to steal and impossible to play on computer.. we could have been offered with 352.8/8bit but that's kind of strange to ppl and DSD concept is way more appealing and 'looks cool' even though all the marketing claims on how it provides direct path from ADC to DAC without interleaving processing is clear BS..
 
Nov 16, 2004 at 12:13 AM Post #48 of 89
Quote:

Originally Posted by Glassman
nothing sad about that! unless you mean low samplerate in fact.. there's simply no way how to process in just 1bit quantisation.. there's absolutely nothing wrong with PCM...


...I'm not quite sure about this. I see the theoretical problems of DSD (low dynamic resolution at high frequencies), but there are claims that other than PCM the DSD format provides undiminished resolution at low levels. I can't judge if that's true though. And the sad thing is that we have to deal with sample-rate conversion, which is a source of inaccuracies. And last but not least the SACD format is more interesting when it comes to the musical bandwidth until now, although it's still highly disappointing.

peacesign.gif
 
Nov 16, 2004 at 4:42 AM Post #49 of 89
Quote:

Originally Posted by jefemeister
The majority of SACDs were in PCM at one point or another. No digital processing can be done on straight DSD. It has to be converted to PCM first. this includes gain, mixing, filtering, effects, etc. So, although this is a special case since the master is analog, I argue what's the point of SACD in general?


Based on what I have read, it is true that DSD is not digitally processed directly and has to be connected to PCM for processing.

The irony of the age of digital music is that the best method to record music today is arguably still by analog tapes. Since our digital technology is not very mature when it comes to sound reproduction, analog tapes probably still offer the highest potential fidelity. I regret that record lables jumped to digital recording so soon. Now many great performances from the 80's are locked up in 44/16 lackluster digital masters. No amount of digital advances will save those. On the other hand, JVC XRCD can recreate miracles from analog tapes from late 50's and 60's. Having bought a number of dozen of well-engineered SACD and DVD-A discs, plus numerous new DDD recordings issued as CDs from hi-rez digital masters, I am surprised that my best digital audio recording is a JVC XRCD24 transferred from 1958 analog tapes. Old RCA "living stereo" master tape reissued in 44/16 still beats all the new DDD recordings I have bought (released as CD, DVD, SACD, DVD-A). The key to JVC's success is likely to be good analog mastering and the use of an atomic clock to control A-D conversion, without further digital processing (AAD, essentially). The sonic benefits of this minimalisitc apporach appear to exceed those of adopting a hi-rez format using commonly seen recording processes, including different flavors of DDD and ADD approaches. The only drawback of JVC's propietary process is its high cost, since only one mastering facitlity in the world is equipped with a rubidium atomic clock.
We should not be discouraged that SACD and DVD-A may be short-lived. Afterall, there is still a lot of things we don't understand about digital music and these hi-rez formats are helping us explore.
 
Nov 16, 2004 at 5:30 AM Post #50 of 89
I would be outraged had I jumped on the bandwagon. I held off because I went with my ears and high-end Redbook players continually impressed me more than SACD players in the price category and upwards.

What makes me laugh hard is when folks exclaimed the benefits of SACD vs. the Redbook layer on the Jones disc in particular. Head to head on top quality players (beyond my heavily bias towards this disc in particular - I don't like it at all) the Redbook will likely sound better since Redbook players usually do sound bettter than SACD players in teh same price category.

I was right, move towards vinyl for a "new" format, otherwise stick with Redbook. The technology is firmly grounded, there is a plethora of media available if I want to venture into classical/jazz/electronica (my main listening genres).

Solid state is the future, it isn't here yet, until it is, Redbook on a top drawer cd player will likley outdo anything thrown at us for a decade if not longer.
 
Nov 16, 2004 at 6:01 AM Post #51 of 89
I never bought into high res formats either because I wanted to wait and see how the market shakes itself out and I didn't feel like updating my entire catalog. And I do agree that redbook can sound really, really good with the right equipment.

However, even though I'm not one of those affected by the deceitful practices of stamping an SACD label on what essentially amounts to a redbook recording, I never the less violently outraged. These f'ers go out of their way to file law suits against kids who swap songs on the Internet because they claim that they're stealing intellectual property. And yet, these same f'ers repackage a redbook CD as an SACD and charge 50% more for it. As far as I'm concerned, that's theft - plain and simple. Except in this case, we're not dealing with kids, we're dealing with premeditated, calculated, conspired, well to do adults. I find this incredibly distasteful.
 
Nov 16, 2004 at 6:06 AM Post #52 of 89
Quote:

Originally Posted by bifcake
I find this incredibly distasteful.


..and absolutely criminal!
 
Nov 16, 2004 at 6:21 AM Post #53 of 89
I also looked upon hi-rez with dismay, as I found my Benchmark DAC1 an excellent redbook source. However, after reading of a DVD-A player (Panasonic DVD-S47) that outputs un-molested digital up to 192 kHz via its coax (for only $80 at Fry's no less) I had to give it a shot. One also must consider the recording companies themselves, as they will limit the output via software. However, labels such as AIX, Telarc, Grammophon and Teldec (among others) don't limit the output sampling rate at all, so pure 96 kHz and 192 kHz (and in-between) via coax digital to the DAC1 is a reality. The difference between the Redbook and DVD-A are startling, and now I've begun the search for un-locked DVD-A media. I'm still a firm believer in quality mastering and mixing, but the added bandwidth of DVD-A is impressive. Cyberlink's PowerDVD 6 will support DVD-A (the Deluxe version only and I'm still unsure whether it will allow digital output of said DVD-As). It’s too bad certain record companies are deceiving the very enthusiasts the hi-rez formats are intended to cater to.
frown.gif


EDIT: I just bought PowerDVD 6 Deluxe and it does indeed allow un-molested DVD-A digital out to my DAC1!
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Nov 16, 2004 at 6:25 AM Post #54 of 89
I'm too poor to support hi-rez formats. =P

I'll stick with redbook audio, kthnx. I'm getting tired of the endless sinking of money into equipment recently... source, amp, cans, interconnects...

I wanna buy some music now, dammit. XD I'll wait till later before I start worrying about SACD and/or DVD-A. And, I don't know of any SACD releases of any of the J-Rock/J-Pop I tend to listen to.
 
Nov 16, 2004 at 10:16 AM Post #55 of 89
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose
The key to JVC's success is likely to be good analog mastering and the use of an atomic clock to control A-D conversion, without further digital processing (AAD, essentially).
...The only drawback of JVC's propietary process is its high cost, since only one mastering facitlity in the world is equipped with a rubidium atomic clock.



From:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/10/14/a...ock/index.html

Atomic clock gets mini-makeover

By Simon Hooper for CNN
Wednesday, October 20, 2004 Posted: 12:54 PM EDT (1654 GMT)

CNN) -- Punctuality-phobes may soon no longer be able to blame perennial lateness on slow-running watches following the invention of an atomic clock small enough to wear on your wrist.

Scientists at the National Institute for Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado, have taken portable time keeping to new levels of accuracy with the creation of the device, which is driven by inner workings barely bigger than a grain of rice.

The complete working clock would be sugar cube-sized and would run on just 73 milliwatts -- small enough for it to be incorporated into battery-powered handheld devices such as mobile phones.

The clocks currently used in most electronic devices are based on quartz oscillators, in which minute vibrating quartz crystals produce precise pulses. But their accuracy can be adversely affected by factors such as temperature.

By contrast, the atomic clock would be accurate to within a second every 300 years, making it more than 1,000 times more reliable than a very good wristwatch.

Although still a long way short of the levels of precision achieved by larger atomic devices, which vary less than a second over millions of years, the miniature model has other factors in its favor.

Atomic clocks can be several meters tall, expensive to build and power-hungry, making them extremely impractical for commercial use. As well as being tiny by comparison, the new model is based on the same cost-efficient manufacturing techniques used to build microchips.

NIST scientists also expect to substantially improve the clock's long-term stability and reduce its power consumption.

"The real power of our technique is that we're able to run the clock on so little electrical power that it could be battery operated and that it's small enough to be easily incorporated into a cell phone or some other kind of handheld device," said NIST physicist John Kitching.

"And nothing else like it even comes close as far as being mass producible."

Atomic clocks work by measuring the frequency of cesium atoms, which vibrate almost 9.2 billion times a second. An infrared laser pulsed through them is converted into an electrical signal by a photo cell.

In the miniature version, a tiny amount of cesium vapor -- containing about one billion atoms -- is trapped in a silicon cell.

Although much cheaper to produce than the most accurate quartz oscillators, at around $100 the atomic clock may still be too expensive to attract the attention of electrical manufacturers. But its designers believe costs may fall in the same way that microchip prices have plunged.

Beyond making possible a new generation of extremely accurate electrical devices, the clock also has the potential to improve the security and performance of wireless communications devices, by enhancing network synchronization and channel selection.

It could also radically improve the precision of Global Positioning System satellite-based navigation devices.

----------------

Imagine the possibilities for Audio.
 
Nov 16, 2004 at 11:27 AM Post #56 of 89
Quote:

Originally Posted by bifcake
And yet, these same f'ers repackage a redbook CD as an SACD and charge 50% more for it. As far as I'm concerned, that's theft - plain and simple.


Isn't "fraud" the adequate term here?
 
Nov 16, 2004 at 3:35 PM Post #57 of 89
I've never really trusted "high resolution" formats. There's just too many variables in Master recordings.

If the record companies and artists get it right the first time, a pressed CD sounds great. If they don't, I'm not taking an expensive chance on a new version of the same music.
 
Nov 16, 2004 at 5:16 PM Post #58 of 89
In the Norah Jones case, I do think it's bordering on "fraud". However, they are many other SACD releases out there that are sonic spectaculars.

As for paying more for SACD releases, I have found the prices have come down so much that there are times when the hi-rez version is actually cheaper than the regular CD. I recently purchased a Mercury Living Presence SACD from Tower Records for $7.99! And the new Elton John album on SACD is only $9.99 from Best Buy. Yes, I have paid an arm and a leg for other SACD titles, but those are usually imports.
 
Nov 16, 2004 at 5:26 PM Post #59 of 89
Quote:

...I have found the prices have come down so much that there are times when the hi-rez version is actually cheaper than the regular CD.


Led Zeppelin's "How the West Was Won" DVD-A was $14.99 while the CD was $22.99 (at Fry's), and most classical music is within $1-2 of the CD (and often times cheaper).
 
Nov 16, 2004 at 5:39 PM Post #60 of 89
Someone suggested earlier to compile a list of substandard SACD recordings. Does anyone know how to obtain this info? Once we get this info, do you guys want to start bombarding the record companies with angry letters? I'm serious about this. It pisses me off that much.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top