|
Post by PaulBe on Jan 30, 2020 7:59:35 GMT -5
From the post above.....
PROVENANCE: Recorded to 2" tape (Studer) and DSD64 (Sonoma System) simultaneously.
Stereo Mixed from 2" tape to 1/2" tape and DSD64 simultaneously.
5.1 Surround mixes mixed from 2" tape to DSD 64 in 5.1.
Mastered to CD layer using 1/2" tape.
Mastered from DSD64 for SACD layer and DSD Downloads.
Newly remastered using our SEA Process to DSD256.
I would have to say that the wording is in fact quite confusing. According to that, the recording itself WAS originally recorded to both 2" analog tape and DSD64 (on the Sonoma Console)....
They then created several DSD64 mixes from the analog original (lines 2 and 3). They then mastered the CD layer from a 1/2" analog tape which was mastered from the 2" analog tape (pure analog signal path until the conversion to CD format).
The final sentence then isn't exactly clear which DSD64 versions were used to master the DSD downloads and SACD DSD layer. (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that, since BlueCoast is obsessive about DSD, and did record a DSD64 master, they would use that to create the SACD DSD layer and DSD downloads.)
All in all this suggests excellent attention to detail... With the asserted goal of avoiding digital processing whenever possible... And of staying in DSD whenever possible...
And of minimizing processing in general...
(With the idea, stated in a few places, that "anything is better than PCM"... which seems... err... more opinion than substantiated fact.)
I have to admit that I have very mixed feelings about Blue Coast Records and their various product offerings.
1) Everything I've heard suggests that both the audio sound quality and production quality on all their albums is excellent. (I would credit this to excellent production values... and not necessarily to the recording format chosen.)
2) Sadly, that said, so far I have been unable to find any albums they've produced that I actually want to own. (They simply do not cover the artists and genres I listen to.)
3) I absolutely do NOT agree with some specific things that Cookie Marenco and her company have claimed. For example, in one posting on DSD-Guide, they claim that, when converting from a 44.k file to DSD....
"if you're blessed with great analog gear, it has been generally accepted that the analog to digital transfer does less damage to the sound than a digital conversion".
They describe this as "an analog conversion" and go on to say that "most engineers agree that it sounds better than a digital conversion". First off, I think the description is misleading....
We are NOT talking about an analog process....
What we're talking about is a digital-to-analog conversion followed by an analog-to-digital conversion. That is two conversions, both between digital and analog, and both requiring the application of filtering that may add coloration to the sound. (In addition to any coloration that may be introduced by the analog circuitry connecting the two processes.) And, while passing the digital content through an analog stage on its way to its new format may produce a pleasing sound, I doubt that it produces a more accurate conversion. (It is certainly a much more complicated process, involving more conversions, more settings that can be fiddled with, and more places where inaccuracy can potentially creep in.)
I also fail to see any technical benefit whatsoever to upsampling DSD recordings to a higher DSD sample rate. At one point they describe it as "a luxury format"... but I am at a loss as to what that means... (other than "bigger and more expensive").
It reminds me of a line from the movie Barbarella.... about "why the great tyrant has chosen to feed orchids to the slaves".
(if you know the line then you know what I mean )
My point is that, from their provenance, it sounds very much as if the PCM and DSD versions were recorded on different recorders. (I'm assuming that the FLAC files were sourced from the 2" Studer master tape while the SACDs and DSD files were sourced from the DSD files recorded on the Sonoma.)
This raises the distinct possibility that there could be differences due to differences in how the recorders and their internal A/D circuitry sound, or due to other variations in the mixing and mastering process. (I would still consider converting a single source myself to be a more reliable way to get the most "equivalent" samples for comparison purposes.)
And, yes, any recent model Oppo can play SACD discs (with output to Analog, DSD via HDMI, or PCM via HDMI - but not other digital formats)... And can also play most current DSD file formats (from disc or USB stick)... (Although I'm not sure about DSD128 and DSD256.)
Yes, I agree. Although fairly expensive and relatively obscure, Bluecoast/Cookie Marenco are straightforward and transparent insofar as provenance. She also makes one take, direct to DSD recordings which, unless I am mistaken, are playable via Oppo. "The final sentence then isn't exactly clear which DSD64 versions were used to master the DSD downloads and SACD DSD layer. (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that, since BlueCoast is obsessive about DSD, and did record a DSD64 master, they would use that to create the SACD DSD layer and DSD downloads.)" I can't give them the benefit of the doubt. I think the "DSD64 (Sonoma System)", recorded "simultaneously", is a backup. It's the raw archive in case something happens to their 2" tape and they need another copy. Bluecoast's primary format is 2" analog tape, from which they produce their masters. Bluecoast's production and recording values are very good. I enjoyed some of their music, as I noted. Nothing I would spend money on just to get better production and recording quality; nothing which is dependent on DSD. I wonder what kind of digital reverb they used for the vocals.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 30, 2020 19:52:32 GMT -5
I believe DSD is a superior capture format but here's what confuses me. With so few albums being recorded, edited and mastered in DSD, why does it seem as if the sky is falling if a new DAC these days does not have DSD capability? People like me with an ever growing collection of SACD's would not be happy. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Jan 31, 2020 2:37:57 GMT -5
People like me with an ever growing collection of SACD's would not be happy. Are you ripping your SACDs into DSF files and running them through a DAC? That's how I listen to DSD. My DAC does DoP (DSD over PCM).
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 31, 2020 5:13:09 GMT -5
People like me with an ever growing collection of SACD's would not be happy. Are you ripping your SACDs into DSF files and running them through a DAC? That's how I listen to DSD. My DAC does DoP (DSD over PCM). Nope, I play SACD’s in the SONY BDP, DSD, vis HDMI to the XMC-1. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Jan 31, 2020 8:05:27 GMT -5
Are you ripping your SACDs into DSF files and running them through a DAC? That's how I listen to DSD. My DAC does DoP (DSD over PCM). Nope, I play SACD’s in the SONY BDP, DSD, vis HDMI to the XMC-1. Cheers Gary Gary. What SACD titles have you bought that are particularly good? Both music and sound. Thanks.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,902
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 31, 2020 11:47:56 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity... (serious legitimate question here)... What - specifically - makes you think that DSD is "a superior capture format"?
I'm really curious if this is based on some sort of personal experience - or merely on "what you read somewhere". And, if it's based on claims you've read somewhere, I would be curious which ones...
(There have been an awful lot of claims made for DSD - many of which are simply not substantiated by engineering fact... )
I'm also curious if you're differentiating "a good capture format", from "a good archival format", and "a good delivery format"...
Those three are not always quite the same.
For example, early on, the DSD recording format was specifically promoted as being a good archival format.. But SACD discs were promoted as being a good commercial delivery format (for very different reasons).
I believe DSD is a superior capture format but here's what confuses me. With so few albums being recorded, edited and mastered in DSD, why does it seem as if the sky is falling if a new DAC these days does not have DSD capability?
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,902
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 31, 2020 12:11:46 GMT -5
There are a few details worth noting here....
In general the term DoP refers to DSD-over-PCM-over-USB (in theory it can be done with other S/PDIF connections but I've never seen anyone do it so far). DoP is a format that is virtually always offered as an output choice by devices that can play DSD files - meaning various computers and computer-based players. (Disc players virtually never offer USB audio outputs - so no DoP.)
Note the following.....
1) The actual SACD disc standard forbids playing the DSD content from an SACD disc via "an unsecured digital connection". This requirement allows playing the DSD content from an SACD via HDMI because, being encrypted, HDMI qualifies as a secure connection. However, it excludes other types of digital connections (including coax, Optical, and DoP). This refers to actual SACD discs... and not to DSD files that you download. (There have - supposedly - historically been a few disc players that violated the license agreement and ignored this limitation.)
2) Virtually the only type of devices that deliver a USB output are computers and computer-based streamers... so they are also the only ones that support DoP. Playing SACD discs requires special HARDWARE and, as far as I know, no computer-compatible SACD disc drive has ever existed (or ever been sold). This means that, while you can play DSD files via DoP, there is no way to play SACD discs via DoP.
As you probably know, it is actually possible to obtain DSD files that were ripped from SACD discs, although in many cases their provenance may be somewhat dubious. You can also do so yourself - with the right combination of hardware and software.
However, by definition all of those are illegal bootlegs, so how to play them is a whole different subject.
And, yes, in the future, the USB inputs on the RMC-1 and the XMC-2 will support DoP (but we're still working on that).
People like me with an ever growing collection of SACD's would not be happy. Are you ripping your SACDs into DSF files and running them through a DAC? That's how I listen to DSD. My DAC does DoP (DSD over PCM).
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Jan 31, 2020 12:45:35 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity... (serious legitimate question here)... What - specifically - makes you think that DSD is "a superior capture format"?
I'm really curious if this is based on some sort of personal experience - or merely on "what you read somewhere". And, if it's based on claims you've read somewhere, I would be curious which ones...
(There have been an awful lot of claims made for DSD - many of which are simply not substantiated by engineering fact... )
I'm also curious if you're differentiating "a good capture format", from "a good archival format", and "a good delivery format"...
Those three are not always quite the same.
For example, early on, the DSD recording format was specifically promoted as being a good archival format.. But SACD discs were promoted as being a good commercial delivery format (for very different reasons).
I believe DSD is a superior capture format but here's what confuses me. With so few albums being recorded, edited and mastered in DSD, why does it seem as if the sky is falling if a new DAC these days does not have DSD capability? It is superior at capturing more money from audiophiles... just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Jan 31, 2020 13:11:35 GMT -5
Countless times I have tried DSD over PCM with my Mac Book Pro, Audirvana + 3.5 with the Holo Spring DAC mainly due to the fact that so many people swear up and down it sounds better. I have yet to realize this once but its not for lack of trying. It does perform or sound different but better? Not yet. Taken another step using the Oppo 203 users have the choice to use either DSD or PCM as an output to their pre-pro over HDMI. Again they sound different and in some cases dramatically so but I'm not convinced its demonstrably better sending DSD vs letting the Oppo player convert on the fly.
Much ado about nothing?
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Jan 31, 2020 13:17:22 GMT -5
Countless times I have tried DSD over PCM with my Mac Book Pro, Audirvana + 3.5 with the Holo Spring DAC mainly due to the fact that so many people swear up and down it sounds better. I have yet to realize this once but its not for lack of trying. It does perform or sound different but better? Not yet. Taken another step using the Oppo 203 users have the choice to use either DSD or PCM as an output to their pre-pro over HDMI. Again they sound different and in some cases dramatically so but I'm not convinced its demonstrably better sending DSD vs letting the Oppo player convert on the fly. Much ado about nothing? "Much ado about nothing?" Yes. And, you can't use bass management unless converted to PCM.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 31, 2020 18:50:57 GMT -5
Nope, I play SACD’s in the SONY BDP, DSD, vis HDMI to the XMC-1. Gary. What SACD titles have you bought that are particularly good? Both music and sound. Thanks. Pretty simple to guess my age by the list, off the top of my head and not in any particular order; Dark Side of the Moon Bro’s in Arms Hotel California Rumours Piano Man Come Away With Me Breakfast in America Machine Head Slowhand Any Moody Blues SACD, they are all good Girl in the Other Room, in fact any Dianna Krall SACD Same for Cat Stevens Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Jan 31, 2020 21:15:29 GMT -5
Gary. What SACD titles have you bought that are particularly good? Both music and sound. Thanks. Pretty simple to guess my age by the list, off the top of my head and not in any particular order; Dark Side of the Moon Bro’s in Arms Hotel California Rumours Piano Man Come Away With Me Breakfast in America Machine Head Slowhand Any Moody Blues SACD, they are all good Girl in the Other Room, in fact any Dianna Krall SACD Same for Cat Stevens Cheers Gary I think we are close in age. I have a couple of your titles: Dark Side of the Moon Girl in the Other Room also have these titles and more: Monty Alexander Allman Bros Dave Brubeck Johnny Cash - Folsom Prison Bunch of Miles Davis - favorite is *bleep* Brew and Kind of Blue Jazz at the Pawnshop - 30th Anniversary Billy Holiday Monk's Music Willie Nelson - Stardust Dolly Parton - Little Sparrow Quite a few classical albums, including LSO titles that came in hybrid SACD and Hi Rez PCM Others The provenance of most of the titles I have originated in analog tape. The LSO titles, Rachmaninov Symphonies and Nielsen Symphonies, are hybrid SACD, and Pure Audio Blu-Ray- 2.0 LPCM 24 bit 192k and 5.1 DTS-HD MA 24 bit 192k; so I can compare them in 4 formats. The Nielsen was recorded live in DSD; no resolution mentioned. The Rachmaninov was recorded live in DSD 128 and DSD 64, depending on the piece and recording date. Both discs also have downloadable files in various formats and channel count. I haven't downloaded any of the files yet. I haven't spent enough time with the discs to hear any difference besides channel count. LSO sells music in different formats; disc and download: lso.co.uk/lsolive.lso.co.uk/collections/all-products
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Feb 1, 2020 0:11:58 GMT -5
And don't forget "Native DSD" over USB. This is a thing and a growing number of devices support it. For instance, the Linux Kernel has a list of these in sound/usb/quirks.c which uses the USB Vendor & Device IDs to determine what the capabilities of the device are. Casey
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Feb 11, 2020 9:45:56 GMT -5
I think these are interesting comments: PROVENANCE: Recorded to 96kHz, 24-bit WAV PCM and mixed through an analog stage to DSD128 (5.6MHz). The DSD128 files are the original digital file generation received from the artist or label. The WAV and FLAC files are considered second generation and made from conversions using our Blue Coast conversion methods. DSF and FLAC will offer the convenience of metadata that WAV files may not. After several blindfold tests, it is our opinion that the DSD128 files sound the best, followed by WAV 9624 and after that the FLAC 9624. The difference is minimal. We suggest you purchase files for your best performing home DAC. The DAC will make more difference than the file type.bluecoastmusic.com/lawrence-blatt/emergenceI added the bold.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,902
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 11, 2020 11:04:18 GMT -5
I find many things about how Blue Coast Music describes the provenance and processing done on their offerings to be somewhat confusing.
For example, in the one we were talking about before, they said that the original recording was done in parallel, using both 2" analog tape and DSD. They then went on to describe "DSD copies that were sourced from the 2" analog tape". However, they were unclear (at least to me), whether their DSD downloads came "right from the DSD master" or from the copy that had been created from the 2" analog tape.
I would assume that "die hard DSD fans" would prefer to purchase DSD files that were recorded in DSD and "remained purely DSD all the way" (sourced from the original DSD recording). However, in at least one interview, Blue Coast Music (I forget who was actually speaking) made it plain that they prefer to have their recordings "pass through an analog stage along the way". At one point they specifically said that, when converting between PCM and DSD, they prefer a double conversion (converting from one to analog; then from analog to the other). From an engineering perspective this makes little sense. Because DSD and PCM are not directly equivalent, any conversion in either direction involves at least some small amount of filtering, and so is never "bit perfect".
However, making two conversions, and adding "a stopover at analog along the way", is bound to result in more coloration than a single conversion. To me, the obvious conclusion seems to be that they consider the coloration added by passing the audio through multiple conversions, and an analog stage, to be beneficial.
I've also seen it mentioned that, on some of their newer recordings, they basically "upsample them to DSD256 to make them sound better". The quote is my wording but the intent of their claim seems perfectly clear... they are converting lower sample rate DSD recordings to DSD256 recordings before selling them... because they "sound better".
(W could be cynical and suggest that the real reason is "to enable audiophiles who paid for a DAC that can handle DSD256 to actually see that number displayed on their DAC once in a while.)
Now, from this version of provenance, I am again confused. They seem to be saying that the actual original recording was done in 24/96k PCM... And that this was then converted into analog, passed through an analog stage, and re-recorded in DSD128. However, they then "define" this DSD128 copy as "the original... generation received from the artist or label"... And they consider the WAV or FLAC file to be a second generation of this version...
Now, to me, it seems as if the "real original" here is the 24/96k PCM version... (and, by that, I mean "the copy that will sound closest to the original recording").
However, there is a different way of looking at it, and that is from the perspective of a recording engineer... From that perspective... you could consider the original 24/96k recording as "a rough mix"... The conversion to analog and subsequent recording back to DSD would then become "a sound effect process used by the recording engineer to modify the sound"... And, at that point, by definition, whatever the recording engineer hands you as "the final mix" becomes "the master" for purposes of distribution to customers.
(Many, or at least some, recording engineers still record using analog tape, or use it as a stage along the way, simply because they enjoy the particular coloration it imparts to the sound.)
But, if you look at it that way, then you must also consider the question... Is DSD "a more accurate way to record something" or simply "one more way you can change the sound in a way that some people think sounds nice"? In other words, the way they do it, while "artistically valid", seems to be absolutely contrary to the idea that recording in DSD is way to produce a more accurate copy of the original.
It seems more like, rather than fulfilling any desire for absolute accuracy, "they do it simply because they like the way it sounds".
So... to be brutally blunt... WHICH IS IT? Is DSD really super accurate? (which suggests that it adds little or no coloration of its own)
Or is it "just something that some people think sounds nice"? (which suggest that it adds a distinct but pleasant coloration)
My PERSONAL OPINION there, based on a purely engineering perspective, is as follows: DSD is really "just another digital audio format" and should not be audibly different than any other format recorded at a similar resolution (meaning that DSD64 = PCM 24/88 and DSD128 = PCM 24/176). Any differences you hear between the two may be due to how your particular DAC processes each one. Or they may be due to deliberate differences introduced during the mixing and mastering process.
Or they may be due to artifacts or other colorations accidentally introduced during an imperfect conversion process.
However, I see nothing to suggest that DSD, in and of itself, is inherently able to deliver "a more accurate reproduction of the original performance".
I think these are interesting comments: PROVENANCE: Recorded to 96kHz, 24-bit WAV PCM and mixed through an analog stage to DSD128 (5.6MHz). The DSD128 files are the original digital file generation received from the artist or label. The WAV and FLAC files are considered second generation and made from conversions using our Blue Coast conversion methods. DSF and FLAC will offer the convenience of metadata that WAV files may not. After several blindfold tests, it is our opinion that the DSD128 files sound the best, followed by WAV 9624 and after that the FLAC 9624. The difference is minimal. We suggest you purchase files for your best performing home DAC. The DAC will make more difference than the file type.bluecoastmusic.com/lawrence-blatt/emergenceI added the bold.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Feb 11, 2020 13:29:03 GMT -5
I find many things about how Blue Coast Music describes the provenance and processing done on their offerings to be somewhat confusing.
....
But, if you look at it that way, then you must also consider the question... Is DSD "a more accurate way to record something" or simply "one more way you can change the sound in a way that some people think sounds nice"? In other words, the way they do it, while "artistically valid", seems to be absolutely contrary to the idea that recording in DSD is way to produce a more accurate copy of the original.
It seems more like, rather than fulfilling any desire for absolute accuracy, "they do it simply because they like the way it sounds".
So... to be brutally blunt... WHICH IS IT? Is DSD really super accurate? (which suggests that it adds little or no coloration of its own)
Or is it "just something that some people think sounds nice"? (which suggest that it adds a distinct but pleasant coloration)
My PERSONAL OPINION there, based on a purely engineering perspective, is as follows: DSD is really "just another digital audio format" and should not be audibly different than any other format recorded at a similar resolution (meaning that DSD64 = PCM 24/88 and DSD128 = PCM 24/176). Any differences you hear between the two may be due to how your particular DAC processes each one. Or they may be due to deliberate differences introduced during the mixing and mastering process.
Or they may be due to artifacts or other colorations accidentally introduced during an imperfect conversion process.
However, I see nothing to suggest that DSD, in and of itself, is inherently able to deliver "a more accurate reproduction of the original performance".
I think these are interesting comments: PROVENANCE: Recorded to 96kHz, 24-bit WAV PCM and mixed through an analog stage to DSD128 (5.6MHz). The DSD128 files are the original digital file generation received from the artist or label. The WAV and FLAC files are considered second generation and made from conversions using our Blue Coast conversion methods. DSF and FLAC will offer the convenience of metadata that WAV files may not. After several blindfold tests, it is our opinion that the DSD128 files sound the best, followed by WAV 9624 and after that the FLAC 9624. The difference is minimal. We suggest you purchase files for your best performing home DAC. The DAC will make more difference than the file type.bluecoastmusic.com/lawrence-blatt/emergenceI added the bold. I won’t add to your engineering logic. I think you’ve covered all the bases, including the confusing tech-newspeak in bluecoast’s language. “Is DSD "a more accurate way to record something" or simply "one more way you can change the sound in a way that some people think sounds nice"?” YES…lol… being “brutally blunt”. Confusion is a Sony feature of this discussion, not a flaw. They refused to admit that their good and expensive DSD archival format, meant to preserve intellectual property rights more than anything else, wasn’t as ready for consumer prime time as DVD-Audio was. It still isn’t, to this day. It doesn’t mean DSD is a low quality format. It does mean Sony should have stuck with DSD’s intended good purpose, instead of stirring the pot for little to nothing for the consumer. The natural progression of DVD-Audio is Pure Audio Blu-Ray; very consumer friendly; various Hi-Rez formats - PCM, DTS, and Dolby; plays on any Blu-ray machine. If Sony, and their Giant Ego, hadn’t needed to mess with the progression of Hi-Rez audio, we would be further down the road and much better for it. The format war nonsense is not a shake out to discover the best format. It’s a shake down by Sony, to make a little profit, at great expense to the consumer. Shame on them. I don’t particularly care what formats the industry would make standards. I do care that so much smoke is being blown up everyone’s behinds. All that being said, I’m looking forward to receiving my ordered hybrid SACD copy of the Planets Ultimate Edition, by Isao Tomita, in CD, SACD Stereo, and SACD 4.0; all on one disc. I want to hear that little winged messenger from Venus dance around my head in Hi-Rez. Down Jupiter! Up Mars! I can compare it to the LP and CD versions I have. I’ll let this board know how it sounds. If this disc is produced on Pure Audio Blu-ray, I'll buy that too.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,902
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 11, 2020 15:19:08 GMT -5
Indeed...
And Tomita / The Planets in surround.... that's worth looking into. (I haven't heard that album in far longer that I'd like to admit...) I find many things about how Blue Coast Music describes the provenance and processing done on their offerings to be somewhat confusing. .... But, if you look at it that way, then you must also consider the question... Is DSD "a more accurate way to record something" or simply "one more way you can change the sound in a way that some people think sounds nice"? In other words, the way they do it, while "artistically valid", seems to be absolutely contrary to the idea that recording in DSD is way to produce a more accurate copy of the original.
It seems more like, rather than fulfilling any desire for absolute accuracy, "they do it simply because they like the way it sounds". So... to be brutally blunt... WHICH IS IT? Is DSD really super accurate? (which suggests that it adds little or no coloration of its own)
Or is it "just something that some people think sounds nice"? (which suggest that it adds a distinct but pleasant coloration)
My PERSONAL OPINION there, based on a purely engineering perspective, is as follows: DSD is really "just another digital audio format" and should not be audibly different than any other format recorded at a similar resolution (meaning that DSD64 = PCM 24/88 and DSD128 = PCM 24/176). Any differences you hear between the two may be due to how your particular DAC processes each one. Or they may be due to deliberate differences introduced during the mixing and mastering process.
Or they may be due to artifacts or other colorations accidentally introduced during an imperfect conversion process.
However, I see nothing to suggest that DSD, in and of itself, is inherently able to deliver "a more accurate reproduction of the original performance".
I won’t add to your engineering logic. I think you’ve covered all the bases, including the confusing tech-newspeak in bluecoast’s language. “Is DSD "a more accurate way to record something" or simply "one more way you can change the sound in a way that some people think sounds nice"?” YES…lol… being “brutally blunt”. Confusion is a Sony feature of this discussion, not a flaw. They refused to admit that their good and expensive DSD archival format, meant to preserve intellectual property rights more than anything else, wasn’t as ready for consumer prime time as DVD-Audio was. It still isn’t, to this day. It doesn’t mean DSD is a low quality format. It does mean Sony should have stuck with DSD’s intended good purpose, instead of stirring the pot for little to nothing for the consumer. The natural progression of DVD-Audio is Pure Audio Blu-Ray; very consumer friendly; various Hi-Rez formats - PCM, DTS, and Dolby; plays on any Blu-ray machine. If Sony, and their Giant Ego, hadn’t needed to mess with the progression of Hi-Rez audio, we would be further down the road and much better for it. The format war nonsense is not a shake out to discover the best format. It’s a shake down by Sony, to make a little profit, at great expense to the consumer. Shame on them. I don’t particularly care what formats the industry would make standards. I do care that so much smoke is being blown up everyone’s behinds. All that being said, I’m looking forward to receiving my ordered hybrid SACD copy of the Planets Ultimate Edition, by Isao Tomita, in CD, SACD Stereo, and SACD 4.0; all on one disc. I want to hear that little winged messenger from Venus dance around my head in Hi-Rez. Down Jupiter! Up Mars! I can compare it to the LP and CD versions I have. I’ll let this board know how it sounds. If this disc is produced on Pure Audio Blu-ray, I'll buy that too.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Feb 11, 2020 17:39:45 GMT -5
Indeed...
And Tomita / The Planets in surround.... that's worth looking into. (I haven't heard that album in far longer that I'd like to admit...) I won’t add to your engineering logic. I think you’ve covered all the bases, including the confusing tech-newspeak in bluecoast’s language. “Is DSD "a more accurate way to record something" or simply "one more way you can change the sound in a way that some people think sounds nice"?” YES…lol… being “brutally blunt”. Confusion is a Sony feature of this discussion, not a flaw. They refused to admit that their good and expensive DSD archival format, meant to preserve intellectual property rights more than anything else, wasn’t as ready for consumer prime time as DVD-Audio was. It still isn’t, to this day. It doesn’t mean DSD is a low quality format. It does mean Sony should have stuck with DSD’s intended good purpose, instead of stirring the pot for little to nothing for the consumer. The natural progression of DVD-Audio is Pure Audio Blu-Ray; very consumer friendly; various Hi-Rez formats - PCM, DTS, and Dolby; plays on any Blu-ray machine. If Sony, and their Giant Ego, hadn’t needed to mess with the progression of Hi-Rez audio, we would be further down the road and much better for it. The format war nonsense is not a shake out to discover the best format. It’s a shake down by Sony, to make a little profit, at great expense to the consumer. Shame on them. I don’t particularly care what formats the industry would make standards. I do care that so much smoke is being blown up everyone’s behinds. All that being said, I’m looking forward to receiving my ordered hybrid SACD copy of the Planets Ultimate Edition, by Isao Tomita, in CD, SACD Stereo, and SACD 4.0; all on one disc. I want to hear that little winged messenger from Venus dance around my head in Hi-Rez. Down Jupiter! Up Mars! I can compare it to the LP and CD versions I have. I’ll let this board know how it sounds. If this disc is produced on Pure Audio Blu-ray, I'll buy that too. One left: www.amazon.com/Planets-Ultimate-ISAO-TOMITA/dp/B004RRVB1Y
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Feb 20, 2020 13:31:08 GMT -5
I've been playing with the SACD Tomita Ultimate Planets disc. First thing is my mistake in saying Venus is the winged messenger. It's Mercury. Haven't played the disc in a while, and I forgot. Also, I can't find my LP version. Hmmm. My old CD version is RCA Red Seal. It shows Tomita's equipment list. Quite a list. The SACD disc notes are in Japanese.
All versions sound good, in all formats. All have good surround effects. There are differences:
Old RCA CD - softer, good surround effects, slight compression. CD layer on Hybrid SACD disc. Playback is Direct - a bit more detail than old RCA disc, good surround effects. Sounds like a different mix; could be just less compression. SACD stereo converted to PCM, playback in reference stereo - a slight bit more detail than CD layer. I didn't play the CD layer in Reference Stereo. That could be the difference. Music comes out of a black background. SACD stereo bistream, DSD Direct playback mode - Etched; a video analogy would be slightly raised gamma, and a bit of HF peaking. Grey background. The mix sounds bright in bitstream.
Similar comments for the 4 channel SACD version. Effects are more solid, but no loss of phantom image effects.
All versions on Hybrid SACD sound less compressed than old RCA CD.
I'll take the 4 ch. bitstream or PCM conversion first, but the PCM conversion is a bit more comfortable to my ears. Playing back in 4 channel mode adds more to this music than any format difference, recorded from analog tape created in 1976.
Next, The CD layer, or stereo SACD layer on the hybrid disc.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Mar 11, 2020 21:42:13 GMT -5
|
|