[rickcr42]

It is late where i am at and i really want to hit the hay so i would appreciate it if you follks could act like civilised adults and let me go to bed.
But being tired i also am in no mood so behave guys

thanks

rickamundo rexetarious

 

[bifcake]

Wow! Why are some of us getting so upset over whether or not others like hi-rez formats? There are so many other things, important things, to get upset about. Things like people getting killed, people going hungry, people getting exploited, people getting tortured, etc. To get all bent out of shape over whether or not someone else, who has no bearing on you what so ever, dislikes a particular digital encoding is rather childish.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glassman This is not correct, PCM doesn't mean it have to be limited to 192kHz, pro tools work either with 4bit/2.8MHz or 24(32)bit/352.8kHz.. and I don't think DSD can be any better in low-level behaviour than 24bit PCM with it's theoretical 144dB dynamic range.

I forgot that there's a tool (developed by Sony, right?) designed for DSD editing with minimal theoretical loss by format conversion. But how many studios work with it? How many «pure DSD» recordings are available? It's less than 5% of the buyable SACDs. All others are either based on analog tape (without the guarantee for pure DSD encoding without any intermediate PCM editing) or -- probably the majority -- PCM with resolution between 16 bit/44.1 kHz and 24 bit/192 kHz. Yes, it's possible to maintain DSD or at least DSD qualities such as the high sample rate throughout the production chain, but in reality less than 5% of the available SACDs are produced like that (I may be wrong, but that's my guess).

Quote:

The sense is in the possibility to retain 2.8MHz sampling rate from A/D through editing and mastering up to the D/A, but that of course depends on the whole process.. and the fact is that even with such high samplerate the signal has to be band limited to about 100kHz before going to delta sigma modulator, but still DSD shows noticably better impulse response than even 192kHz PCM.. probably because the 100kHz filter doesn't need to have >140dB stopband at that frequency, just gently rolling off.. and there's another strong reason for using DSD over PCM - one cannot use it on computer and hence no illegal copying possible.. think of it as an additional copy protection layer

I certainly have nothing against DSD and even give it some credit in terms of a possible sonic superiority over (high-rez) PCM. Some people say the two formats sound significantly different. I haven't heard DVD-Audio though. But despite the possibilities to preserve the inherent qualities of DSD during production -- supposed there are any worth of being preserved --, in reality the consumer doesn't benefit from them in the end, save for some rare pure DSD productions.

With players converting DSD to (24/192) PCM, to enable bass management, DSD doesn't make sense at all and can only sound worse/less accurate than pure PCM productions. Other than that, I'm not sure if its impulse response is really better. It certainly isn't anymore after filtering in the SACD and universal players I've seen measurements from. Frequency-response curves show the same if not even earlier drop-off with not significantly less steepness than DVD(-Audio).

 

[av98m2]

Welly, why can't you accept the fact that not everyone is going to agree with you? Does it upset you that much? Are you intolerant of different viewpoints?

I think most of the guys in this thread have 3 main reasons for not jumping on the hi-rez bandwagon, and they're anything but ignorant. Just displaying basic common sense.

1. Not enough titles(of the kind of music they listen to) in hi-rez format.

2. Copy protection on hi-rez formats means no burning extra copies or ripping for the car cd-changer, ipod, portable cd player etc etc. Basically they're a bad idea for people who listen on the go.

3. Uncertain future of the hi-rez formats. Most of us do not want to spend lots of money to essentially beta-test new products. Few people like being early adopters of new technology. We prefer to wait for a common standard to emerge. This way we minimise the pain and expense.

Aren't these very valid reasons?

There's no need for us to shell out our own $$$ to buy a universal player to arrive at these. Even if SACDs sound twice as good as redbooks(and they don't), the above 3 points are still valid.

Edit: But yeah, when my DVD player finally dies, I'll likely end up with a universal DVD player. Hopefully by then there'll be a better variety of selections.

 

[kunwar]

Got nothing against hirez audio.
Just that they are restricitve in there nature and as such do not appeal to me at all. I intend to listen to my music while travelling and sitting down at home.
Which is why i'd prefer to just buy CD's for now.
until something comes out that supports any of the Hi-Rez formats portably and the universal players come down in price or start utilising facilities on external DACs it would be pointless for me to invest in it.
That is what I said before and that is what I say again.

 

[markl]

Ugh, Welly, with all due respect, you started a thread to ask why some forum Members aren't interested in the new formats, and they've given you their answers. So far the thread had been a reasonable discussion, no one has attacked you personally, or even owners of hi-rez gear generally, there's no reason to get so upset that I can see. Maybe it's time to take a deep breath or a little break...?

 

[viator122]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welly Wu It's just ****ing crazy: you can't call me a chink but you can spout off the mouth with all this bias and prejudice and outright hatred against hi-rez and universal dvd players. Pick 'n choose your target, I guess...hmmph.

I may not be an expert on audio formats, but I'm with you on this, Welly.

I say we form an alliance. We take our case to Capitol Hill and state governments everywhere: we will not stand for hate crimes against DVD-A, SACD, LaserDisc, HDCD, or minority-colored vinyl. We need to be aggressive. Not only would spouting this rhetorical venom and poisonous prose become illegal, but so would downsampling, compression and playing these beautiful creations through computer speakers.

Stop the hate. Friends of Hi-Rez unite!

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Yes, it's possible to maintain DSD or at least DSD qualities such as the high sample rate throughout the production chain, but in reality less than 5% of the available SACDs are produced like that (I may be wrong, but that's my guess).

According to sa-cd.net, as of today, 510 SACDs are direct DSD recordings, which represent about 20% of all SACD titles.

 

[IanS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welly Wu So, it really is a generational gap, no? I would appreciate more answers instead of hate mail.

No. It has nothing to do with generations. I am a member of the generation that does purchase SACD (a geezer by Head-Fi standards). I have purchased about 160 CD's this year. I'd be surprised if 5 of them were available in high rez.

 

[NeilPeart]

Even though I own several dozen DVD-A titles and really appreciate the extra dynamics and air it provides (much like a good vinyl rig in that regard) I still have many issues with it. The first is the obvious problem of copy protection. I just bought the Led Zeppelin live DVD-A of "How the West was Won." While it does sound fantastic I now want to enjoy it at work and on my portable devices, but I can't; even a regular Redbook version appended to the DVD-A would be tremendous. Another issue for me related to copy protection is the issue of digital output manipulation. Aside from the fact that most consumer DVD-A players lock the digital output @ 48kHz, most big-studio DVD-As are locked on the media itself, forcing a low-rate digital output regardless if one's player supports un-molested, full-bandwidth digital output or not. This is very frustrating because I'm really happy with my DAC1, but to truly appreciate the DVD-A capabilities, I'm limited to smaller studios like AIX, Telarc (only 2 DVD-A releases ever), Denon, Chesky and Silverline. While many of these companies (especially AIX) have amazingly-recorded pieces that are also musically pleasing, I won't find my favorite artists' best works captured on un-locked media (if I even find it in DVD-A altogether), but I have discovered lots of great new music via Chesky and AIX (some of the acoustic pieces are absolutely stunning – I wish you all could hear it). DVD-A and SACD both have tremendous potential but the record companies' constant fear of its own customers and the fact that most music fans could care less if they're enjoying an MP3, a poorly-mastered CD or a 24/192kHz DVD-A will likely result in the slow death of DVD-A and SACD, IMO. I’m not happy about this at all and I hope it doesn’t end this way but the record companies need to realize that enthusiasts who would even consider spending the extra dough on hi-rez media need more freedom with it. The record companies will be solely responsible for the demise of high-resolution media.

 

[Jon L]

Because if I look at the last 20 CD's I bought and enjoy, NONE are available on SACD or DVD-A.

What's the use of hi-res if there's no software you would actually buy and enjoy?

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon L Because if I look at the last 20 CD's I bought and enjoy, NONE are available on SACD or DVD-A. What's the use of hi-res if there's no software you would actually buy and enjoy?

I think this analogy is not entirely rigorous. For example, I can also say that the last 50 classical CDs I have bought and enjoyed, NONE are available on the ECM label. This is simply because I have never bought any classical album from ECM. This does not prove that ECM's calssical catalog is worthless. In fact, I know they have a lot of good classical titles. I am sure, if I look carefully into their catalog, I will find some things that is very interesting to me. There are over 800 SACD titles on Tower's website. The average engineering standard of these titles is probably better than that of CDs. It is hard to imagine if one can't find anything enjoyable in this stockpile. Whether or not SACD discs are worth buying is another issue though, becuase of hardware investment and slightly higher music unit price.

I do agree, however, that software is limited for both formats, especially DVD-A. I think we need to look at SACD and DVD-A not as something that would replace CD anytime soon, or ever, but as an interesting alternative. Think of it as a small audiophile label. I will never buy all my music from a small audiophile label, but it might have some albums I want to buy.

For example, RCA is reissuing living precence (edited: sorry, should be living stereo) series in SACD. This is one of the most prestigious product series in classical music. The performers are exceptional, and the engineer Lewis Layton is a genius as well. Did CD reissue do sonic justice to these brilliant analog tapes? Definitely not, in the strick audiophile sense. Now SACD is supposedly coming to the resue. I am prepared to get a few of these discs, on top of my SACD collection of a dozen titles.

 

[clarke68]

Quote:

Copy protection on hi-rez formats means no burning extra copies or ripping for the car cd-changer, ipod, portable cd player etc etc. Basically they're a bad idea for people who listen on the go.

Quote:

Just that they are restricitve in there nature and as such do not appeal to me at all. I intend to listen to my music while travelling and sitting down at home. Which is why i'd prefer to just buy CD's for now...

I don't think this is an entirely valid reason to avoid the format, although I agree with NeilPeart, it is frustrating that the music industry is so obtuse that they feel they need it at all (remember home taping? The people most heavily involved with home taping were also the people who bought the most music).

The high-rez formats may be a pain, but they're not nearly as much of a pain as vinyl, which I wouldn't expect to enjoy even at work, let alone in the car or on a portable.

I'm not ready to replace my CD player with a universal, but I am ready to replace my DVD player with a universal. I don't think either SACD or DVD-A is going to make it, but I'll still need a DVD player for at least another 5 years (if only so the kids can watch Disney videos while I clean the house). If I can have the added functionality for not a lot of additional money, I'll take it even if the only hi-rez disc I ever buy is 'Kind of Blue'.

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarke68 I'm not ready to replace my CD player with a universal, but I am ready to replace my DVD player with a universal. I don't think either SACD or DVD-A is going to make it, but I'll still need a DVD player for at least another 5 years (if only so the kids can watch Disney videos while I clean the house). If I can have the added functionality for not a lot of additional money, I'll take it even if the only hi-rez disc I ever buy is 'Kind of Blue'.

I agree with your approach to hi-rez format.

Today I went out and bought RCA living stereo SACD featuring Van Cliburn palying Tchaikovsky No 1 and Rach No 2. Needless to say, the performance is great in the absolute sense and the sound quality is also very remarkable. It is on sale at a local Tower store for 8.99, for the content of two LPs. I only have two channel playback so I can't experience the three track version. The original master tape is in three channels and no digital processing is required because it is already mastered so well by Lewis Layton. All engineers have to do now is analog to DSD conversion. For two channel SACD, simply split center channel to left and right. To get CD, just use math algorithm to convert DSD to PCM. There is no nonsense and even the CD version sounds really lively through my DAC/AMP. With musical gems like this album being released at 12.99, I think SACD deserves a niche market to say the least. When I went home this summer to Taiwan, I saw Mercury living presence SACD selling for $10 USD, making them also highly desirable.

On the other hand, I am not very happy with DVD-A. I only have DVD video machine connected to two channel setup. I can still play DVD-A discs' DTS or AC-3 or LPCM material. Today I compared the CD version and the DVD-A version of a Naxos symphony recording. I discovered that sound quality is CD>DTS>AC-3, which is not surprising. The difference between CD and AC-3 is not huge, but kind of obvious. This makes me unhappy, because the backward compatible mode of DVD-A gives me something worse than CD. All DVD-A have Dolby AC-3 material, and some have additionally DTS. Very few have LPCM, which means on my setup most DVD-A discs will sound worse than CD. This is a real JOKE: hi-rez turns into low-rez. DVD-A manufacturers, wake up! You need to include 96/24 or at least 48/20 LPCM to attract more buyers! With hybrid SACD at least I get CD quality, and generally a better quality version than the previously released CD. Non-hybrid SACD is just dumb and extinct by now.

Yes, I have my own complaints about hi-rez formats. For one, my headphone amp is on my DAC, which means I can't listen to SACD through headphone. Still, hi-rez is not worthless...

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soundboy According to sa-cd.net, as of today, 510 SACDs are direct DSD recordings, which represent about 20% of all SACD titles.

Thanks for the useful link!

That's more than I thought. But not all of these are pure DSD recordings, some DSD recordings have been mixed analog, and I guess at least half of them are processed in PCM anywhere in the production chain. However, maybe I was a bit too critical. But 10 or 20% isn't intoxicating anyway. Add to this the 50% of the players converting DSD to PCM for playback... The sense of SACD as a format is questionale under these circumstances.