|
Post by PaulBe on Jan 14, 2020 14:09:45 GMT -5
Engineering Reality - It's just another format.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Jan 14, 2020 14:12:59 GMT -5
Insights from KeithL: Just to add a little insight here.... It has recently become possible to actually edit in DSD... so, at least in principle, some modern SACDs and DSD recordings may actually be "purely done in DSD". However, this is a relatively recent innovation, and, until recently, it was essentially impossible to actually edit audio in DSD. (And, yes, the VAST majority of recording and editing is still done in PCM...) This means that.... - Any older recording, in order to have remained purely in DSD, must be the equivalent of "direct to disc". (You could literally cut a file into separate tracks in DSD... but, until quite recently, even simple fade-ins and fade-out required a trip into PCM-land and back again.) - Any older DSD recording that has obviously been "mixed" or "edited" in any way was almost surely converted to PCM, edited, then converted back to DSD. - In case there is any doubt about what this means.... If you believe that PCM somehow degrades the sound of a DSD recording then... If you convert it to PCM and back again you now have: the flaws inherent in DSD, plus the flaws inherent in PCM, plus the flaws introduced by two conversions... It has been my personal experience that: - I have never heard any specific difference that I can attribute to a difference in sound between DSD and PCM. - I have certainly heard SACDs that sounded different than their CD counterparts; and many that even sound better to me; but it seems pretty obvious that they were mastered differently. - Even when you compare "the SACD layer" and "the CD layer" on the same disc there is no reason whatsoever to believe they were made from identical masters (although they could be). - Whenever I have personally converted from one to the other, in either direction, I have never heard any significant difference (besides the infinitesimally tiny difference that is inevitable in any conversion process). (Note that the conversion process does involve filtering, so any conversion, in either direction, will not be "bit perfect", and may introduce tiny differences... which may vary depending on which converter and settings you use.) (The top commercial software converters are Weiss Saracon and Korg Audiogate... but jRiver Media Center, dB PowerAmp, and the firmware in Oppo disc players, all seem to do an excellent job.) I'm absolutely NOT going to get into a discussion about "the relative merits of DSD vs PCM" in this thread.... (Feel free to start a separate thread on that subject if it interests you... I'll be glad to participate.) However, suffice it to say that most, if not all, of the "benefits" claimed for DSD are NOT substantiated by engineering reality... (Most of the so-called explanations of why "DSD is better" range from "sincere arguments by folks who don't understand the technology", to "technically flawed", to "just plain made up".) However, since some of our customers seem to want it, and the DACs we use support it internally, we will get it straightened out for those of you who want it... emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/1017178/thread
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Jan 14, 2020 14:16:41 GMT -5
Insights from KeithL: You're asking the question in reverse.... (Playing audio in DSD imposes several limitations that you avoid by using PCM.) PCM is the audio industry standard format and virtually all audio gear supports PCM. Only a small minority of audio gear supports DSD and only a small minority of disc players can play SACDs. DSD is a relatively obscure format which was originally developed specifically for SACDs - but is now also used for a few download files. (The XMC-1 and the RMC-1 and family can play both PCM and DSD... although we're currently working through a few issues with playing DSD on the RMC-1.) In addition to that, in every piece of gear I know of, any and all internal processing, including bass management and room correction, is done in PCM. (I am not aware of any home gear, at any price, that can actually do any sort of processing in DSD - without internally converting the audio to PCM and back again.) This means that, in the XMC-1 and RMC-1, you have a choice... - you can listen to DSD (but, in order to do so, you will have to give up all bass management, processing, and room correction) - you can listen to PCM (and enjoy all the features the unit offers) The fact that there is so little actual support for DSD is widely recognized and many accommodations have been made. For example, if you play an SACD in most "universal players", if they detect that your processor or AVR doesn't support DSD, they will AUTOMATICALLY convert your DSD audio into PCM before sending it out. (There are a few "SACD players" that don't offer the option to output as PCM... ) We are NOT talking about "simply playing the Red Book CD layer"; we're talking about playing the "SACD layer" then converting the resulting DSD audio into PCM before sending it out. (So, if the SACD layer is mastered differently than the CD layer, that's what you'll be hearing...) Oppo players will do this automatically if your processor doesn't support DSD... or they can be configured to always do it. (I believe the high-end Panasonic and Sony players have pretty much the same options.) So, if you're playing a Hybrid SACD on your Oppo player.... - you can just play the Red Book CD layer as a PCM CD - you can play the SACD layer as DSD (if your processor supports it) - you can play the SACD layer as DSD then have the Oppo convert it into PCM for output (if your processor doesn't support DSD - or if you want to continue to be able to use EQ, room correction, and bass management). So, if your Oppo is connected to an XMC-1 or RMC-1 (which can play both DSD and PCM).... - you can play the SACD layer as DSD and send it to us as DSD (and we will play it in "pure DSD" - with no conversions, but no bass management, no room correction, no EQ, etc). - you can play the SACD layer, and have the Oppo convert it to PCM (and we will play it as PCM - with bass management, and room correction, and EQ and other processing) The reality seems to be that, while many SACDs sound different than their CD counterparts, the difference is mainly because they're mastered differently. Because of that, they really don't sound much different, whether you play them in "real DSD" or as "converted PCM".... Conversion between DSD and PCM may cause a tiny change to the sound.... but that doesn't necessarily mean that one or the other is necessarily better. And, by playing your SACDs as PCM, you get to keep options like bass management and room correction.... (It's also worth noting that, since most processors don't support DSD, but your player may not inform you that it's converting DSD to PCM, many folks are probably listening to their SACDs in PCM without even knowing it.) Incidentally, in case it escaped you, features like the Dolby Surround Upmixer are processing options... So you CANNOT use the Dolby Surround Upmixer with DSD content... (no processing on DSD) If you want to use the Dolby Surround Upmixer then you MUST listen to your SACDs as PCM... emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/1017190/thread
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Jan 14, 2020 14:18:35 GMT -5
Insights from KeithL: I just added a new section for "SACD and DSD" under the "AUDIO TECHNOLOGIES" section. SACDs and the DSD format are smewhat popular topics of late in audiophile circles... so it should make for a lively discussion. I personally don't see why people bother... There are some fair arguments for why SACDs may be slightly superior to Red Book CDs (at 16/44k)... But simply moving up to 24/96k PCM seems to me to tip the balance firmly in favor of PCM... (The few times I've heard DSD versions of tracks that I preferred, I converted them to 24/96k PCM, and they retained the differences I'd noticed perfectly.) Note that, by intent, getting the DSD audio off of an SACD disc is miserably difficult.... However, that difficulty lies with the copy protection features of the physical disc, and not with the DSD audio format itself.... Converting DSD tracks to PCM is quite trivial, and many popular audio programs, including jRiver Media Center and FooBar2000, can do a good job.... Post a few comments or questions to start things off. (I'm sure it will be a lively debate.) emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/1017192/thread
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Jan 14, 2020 14:20:39 GMT -5
Insights from KeithL: In Delta-Sigma DACs, which are by far the most popular type these days, the audio signal is INTERNALLY converted into something that resembles DSD. (The DSD format was reputedly developed in part as a sort of way of "extracting this intermediate format and saving it".) To be technically accurate... modern Delta-Sigma DACs now use a somewhat different multi-bit hybrid format anyway. However, ever since DSD was first introduced, there have been various attempts to suggest that it is a better format "because it's what the DAC uses internally" or "because it's more like analog". But, while some of these claims may have slight merit if you were designing your own DAC chip from scratch, they are otherwise meaningless. DSD is simply another digital audio format... And, regardless of what's going on inside the chip, virtually all current DAC chips accept PCM audio as their primary type of input signal. (And many also accept DSD as an alternate input format.) The ONLY current reason to want to play DSD is because you have an SACD disc - which is already in DSD - and you wish to play it without an extra conversion step. emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/1017199/thread
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Jan 14, 2020 15:50:44 GMT -5
Insights from KeithL: In Delta-Sigma DACs, which are by far the most popular type these days, the audio signal is INTERNALLY converted into something that resembles DSD. (The DSD format was reputedly developed in part as a sort of way of "extracting this intermediate format and saving it".) To be technically accurate... modern Delta-Sigma DACs now use a somewhat different multi-bit hybrid format anyway. However, ever since DSD was first introduced, there have been various attempts to suggest that it is a better format "because it's what the DAC uses internally" or "because it's more like analog". But, while some of these claims may have slight merit if you were designing your own DAC chip from scratch, they are otherwise meaningless. DSD is simply another digital audio format... And, regardless of what's going on inside the chip, virtually all current DAC chips accept PCM audio as their primary type of input signal. (And many also accept DSD as an alternate input format.) The ONLY current reason to want to play DSD is because you have an SACD disc - which is already in DSD - and you wish to play it without an extra conversion step. emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/1017199/threadSACD is far from the only source of DSD. It is not even the only source of multichannel DSD.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 14, 2020 16:02:18 GMT -5
I play SACD’s because, in general, they sound better which I suspect is mostly to do with their mastering not the fact that they are in DSD format. “Mastering” covers any number of things, from who the mixer is to which tapes were used to how bad the original mastering was. This is especially relevant to early 80’s CD mixes that were simply horrible, with accentuated bass and overhyped dynamics. Versus mixes that were so flat and lacking in dynamics that they made great elevator music. Compared to the quality of the mastering, what format it is is next to irrelevant to me.
So far I haven’t found one SACD that sounds worse than it’s CD or streamed version, a few are indistinguishable but most are superior, not always night and day but noticeable nonetheless. As a result I really don’t care about 16/44 or 24/96 or if it was mixed in PCM, all I care about is how it sounds.
Cheers Gary
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,902
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 14, 2020 16:14:28 GMT -5
Indeed..... The single major significant difference is this......
DSD FILES are not inherently copy protected. This means that, once you acquire a DSD file, you can easily convert it into multi-PCM, or any other format you like. At that point, you can play the resulting PCM file on any standard PCM DAC or other playback equipment.
In contrast, SACD DISCS are quite securely copy protected. SACD discs were specifically designed to make it difficult to get the DSD audio content they contain into a file. As such, unless you are willing to break a few laws, and jump through a few somewhat technical hoops, you can only play an SACD disc on a physical SACD disc player.
And, with a few specific exceptions, the ONLY options you will have are: 1) listen to the CD Red Book layer of the disc as a regular CD (if it's a hybrid SACD disc) 2) play the disc on your player and listen to the SACD portion through the player's ANALOG outputs 3) play the disc on your player and play the DSD content from the SACD portion via its HDMI output (if it has one) 4) play the disc on your player and play the content from the SACD portion, after allowing the player to convert it to PCM, via its HDMI output (if it has an HDMI output and has conversion capability)
There is no option to acquire the DSD audio from the disc, in DSD format, or in PCM format, as a full quality digital audio FILE. There are no SACD drives for computers which you could use to RIP the content of an SACD to disc using software. While some players do offer a digital output via Coax output - it will be at reduced quality - or may only work for the Red Book CD layer and not the SACD layer. (The license requirements forbid an SACD player from providing "a full quality digital output of the SACD's DSD content" via any output except HDMI.)
This does make SACDs "the only source of DSD content that you cannot easily convert to PCM to play on other equipment that doesn't support DSD".
Insights from KeithL: In Delta-Sigma DACs, which are by far the most popular type these days, the audio signal is INTERNALLY converted into something that resembles DSD. (The DSD format was reputedly developed in part as a sort of way of "extracting this intermediate format and saving it".) To be technically accurate... modern Delta-Sigma DACs now use a somewhat different multi-bit hybrid format anyway. However, ever since DSD was first introduced, there have been various attempts to suggest that it is a better format "because it's what the DAC uses internally" or "because it's more like analog". But, while some of these claims may have slight merit if you were designing your own DAC chip from scratch, they are otherwise meaningless. DSD is simply another digital audio format... And, regardless of what's going on inside the chip, virtually all current DAC chips accept PCM audio as their primary type of input signal. (And many also accept DSD as an alternate input format.) The ONLY current reason to want to play DSD is because you have an SACD disc - which is already in DSD - and you wish to play it without an extra conversion step. emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/1017199/threadSACD is far from the only source of DSD. It is not even the only source of multichannel DSD.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Jan 14, 2020 16:16:23 GMT -5
Insights from KeithL: In Delta-Sigma DACs, which are by far the most popular type these days, the audio signal is INTERNALLY converted into something that resembles DSD. (The DSD format was reputedly developed in part as a sort of way of "extracting this intermediate format and saving it".) To be technically accurate... modern Delta-Sigma DACs now use a somewhat different multi-bit hybrid format anyway. However, ever since DSD was first introduced, there have been various attempts to suggest that it is a better format "because it's what the DAC uses internally" or "because it's more like analog". But, while some of these claims may have slight merit if you were designing your own DAC chip from scratch, they are otherwise meaningless. DSD is simply another digital audio format... And, regardless of what's going on inside the chip, virtually all current DAC chips accept PCM audio as their primary type of input signal. (And many also accept DSD as an alternate input format.) The ONLY current reason to want to play DSD is because you have an SACD disc - which is already in DSD - and you wish to play it without an extra conversion step. emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/1017199/threadSACD is far from the only source of DSD. It is not even the only source of multichannel DSD. Agreed. Keith's statement is "The ONLY current reason to want to play DSD is because you have an SACD disc - which is already in DSD - and you wish to play it without an extra conversion step." The focus is on "ONLY current reason to want to play DSD". Not on how many sources of DSD are available. I agree with him too. I have about 60 SACD's. Some fine recordings. Some from old analog tape masters; which because of provenance, will never achieve full CD quality. Some started as PCM masters. A couple of LSO sets with both hybrid cd/sacd and Blu-Ray Pure Audio discs in the sets. I want to keep playing them all - converted to PCM so I can use bass management. If I had purchased DSD downloads, I would want to play them converted to PCM so I can use bass management. There is no compelling engineering quality reason to play DSD vs PCM. PCM is more user configurable and friendly. However, choice is good. Quality musicianship, production, mixing, and editing are the things that matter in any recording. Differences are not nuanced like between formats. No format will improve a bad recording.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,902
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 14, 2020 16:20:15 GMT -5
I absolutely agree....
It's double relevant because, since SACDs were always targeted at "audiophiles", we can probably assume that differences in mastering, when they exist, are also targeted at audiophiles. So, with luck, the SACD master has better dynamic range, or smoother frequency response, than masters targeted towards "consumers" or "radio play". Or, at the very least, perhaps a little extra effort was put into making the SACD master sound good.
(The annoying thing is that they have rather successfully managed to tether that difference to the bit of plastic... which is thankfully no longer true for DSD files.)
I play SACD’s because, in general, they sound better which I suspect is mostly to do with their mastering not the fact that they are in DSD format. “Mastering” covers any number of things, from who the mixer is to which tapes were used to how bad the original mastering was. This is especially relevant to early 80’s CD mixes that were simply horrible, with accentuated bass and overhyped dynamics. Versus mixes that were so flat and lacking in dynamics that they made great elevator music. Compared to the quality of the mastering, what format it is is next to irrelevant to me. So far I haven’t found one SACD that sounds worse than it’s CD or streamed version, a few are indistinguishable but most are superior, not always night and day but noticeable nonetheless. As a result I really don’t care about 16/44 or 24/96 or if it was mixed in PCM, all I care about is how it sounds. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Jan 14, 2020 16:22:39 GMT -5
I play SACD’s because, in general, they sound better which I suspect is mostly to do with their mastering not the fact that they are in DSD format. “Mastering” covers any number of things, from who the mixer is to which tapes were used to how bad the original mastering was. This is especially relevant to early 80’s CD mixes that were simply horrible, with accentuated bass and overhyped dynamics. Versus mixes that were so flat and lacking in dynamics that they made great elevator music. Compared to the quality of the mastering, what format it is is next to irrelevant to me. So far I haven’t found one SACD that sounds worse than it’s CD or streamed version, a few are indistinguishable but most are superior, not always night and day but noticeable nonetheless. As a result I really don’t care about 16/44 or 24/96 or if it was mixed in PCM, all I care about is how it sounds. Cheers Gary "...all I care about is how it sounds." Same here. So many fine recordings... so little time. I have some duplicate recordings on older CD and newer SACD. Most are a little different. It's not night and day.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Jan 29, 2020 10:38:42 GMT -5
MQA: Archimago Adds a "Final" Nail to the Coffin! www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6109~~~ MQA is a sophisticated technical container tuned to maximize royalty revenue on the input and output streams... nothing else. It's a hoax.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,902
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 29, 2020 12:25:14 GMT -5
I would strongly suggest that anyone interested in the technical details of MQA read the entire original article by Archimago at:
To throw in my two cents here:
First of all, I agree that "MQA is a (possible) solution looking for a problem"... However, my biggest issue with "MQA", is that the product itself really is not a single product at all. MQA starts with a concept... then branches out into several essentially different products...
However, the promoters persist in conflating the various aspects of it, in an attempt to sell us the whole ecosystem as a package deal. (My problem with this is that they refuse to treat the various aspects as separate things....which makes it very difficult to evaluate them.)
1)
MQA is frequently described as "an end to end solution" that can deliver audio that is more like the original performance. (The description claims that, even though not lossless in the sense of digital data, the MQA solution is "lossless in the analog domain".)
However, the reality is that there are few if any albums that have actually been "mastered in MQA", for which this description might apply.
2) The MQA CODEC is a high quality LOSSY compression CODEC which is described as "being able to deliver all of the benefits of high resolution audio - but using less bandwidth". Assuming that this is true, then this should make the MQA CODEC a useful product for streaming providers, and would justify its existence. Note that, if a streaming provider like Tidal uses MQA to deliver content, and decodes it in their client, then THEY experience the benefit there. (It doesn't matter to the end user what CODEC is used by the streaming provider and their proprietary client... for example, most Spotify customers don't even know Spotify uses the Ogg Vorbis CODEC.) (It is unfortunate that, in early marketing literature, MQA seemed to be trying very hard to falsely convince us that their CODEC actually was lossless... which is untrue.) (It is also unfortunate that, unlike the way Spotify uses Ogg Vorbis, MQA really wants you to buy an MQA certified modem to use with that Tidal account, while Spotify makes no such suggestion.)
3) MQA claims that their encoder can "reverse engineer flaws in a digital master that has already been encoded and actually correct them". In other words, the encoder actually alters the content of existing digital masters when you encode them, thus correcting flaws that already exist.
The result here would be that the MQA encoding process actually ALTERS the original content presented to it in a way that improves it.
(In other words: "What comes out of the encoder is NOT an accurate copy of the original. We've modified it to sound better.")
(It was originally claimed that the encoder could detect specific flaws, caused by specific ADCs, and make specific corrections to each... this claim seems to have been somewhat relaxed.) (It was also originally stated that a premium version of remastering, which included "hand-tuned corrections", would be an available option.)
4) MQA originally claimed that "you would get a specific indication that you were listening to an artist-approved master". It has since become obvious that this was an overstatement. The MQA version of an album is simply produced from whatever the studio presents as "the best version".
There is no "proof" or claim of "personal endorsement" beyond that. And, even beyond that, this only applies to certain "MQA certified" tracks.
(Don't assume that every "MQA track" on Tidal has been vetted and certified... most have simply been encoded by the automated encoder.)
5) There seems to be some significant confusion about the various "layers of unfolding" involved in the decoding process. As Archimago suggests, the "final unfold" seems to be merely be a requirement that "an MQA certified DAC" oversample MQA content using certain specific filter settings.
Note that, technically, this is not a terrible thing... since, presumably, the specific parameters they require complement their encoding process.
However, from a marketing perspective, they again somewhat overstated the situation... and implied that there was more specific decoding involved. It might have been more honest to say that "an MQA decoder is required for the first unfold" and "for best results MQA content should be played using certain specific filter settings - which MQA certified DACs provide". Also, from what Archimago seems to have found out, the filter choices they require, for their own potentially legitimate reasons, have some rather serious drawbacks as well
(The filter parameters MQA requires result in a filter whose performance is rather poor in other ways that are often considered important.)
My takeaway from all this (which hasn't changed much over the years) is this:
1) The MQA compression CODEC may be an excellent solution for streaming providers like Tidal. (But, as long as they handle the decoding in their client, that doesn't matter much to me either way... just as I don't care that Spotify uses Ogg Vorbis)
2) Albums actually mastered and delivered fully in MQA may sound very good. (But I'm doubtful that they will sound audibly better than albums mastered in high-res PCM... and we won't know until a few such albums actually exist.)
3) The "MQA correction and remastering process" does in fact audibly change the way many albums sound.
This qualifies it as "one more post-processing option that sometimes delivers an audible improvement". And, as such, I would consider buying specific "MQA remasters" that I find to be improved by the process. (And, as such, I see no problem with their explaining at length why their remastering process works well.)
However, I would be much more receptive to "MQA remasters" if I weren't being asked to purchase new equipment to play them on. For example, sell me a 24/192k copy of a track, after it's been "fixed and made to sound better using MQA post-processing".... (And, maybe, if it really does sound better, I'll entertain the possibility of looking for that MQA logo on the next DAC I purchase.)
My overall problem is that, rather than promote the specific benefits of the various aspects of their technology... They seem to have taken the route of trying to convince me: "Just buy products with the MQA logo on them and don't worry about the details".
MQA: Archimago Adds a "Final" Nail to the Coffin! www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6109~~~ MQA is a sophisticated technical container tuned to maximize royalty revenue on the input and output streams... nothing else. It's a hoax.
|
|
|
Post by Jean Genie on Jan 29, 2020 13:20:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Jan 29, 2020 15:10:41 GMT -5
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. The provenance of the DSD is 2" analog tape. Not even CD quality. Lot of fun music at the label. Conceptually, very much like the Windham Hill recording label. I see Will Ackerman is involved there. I liked these: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfl9ALsmz5owww.youtube.com/watch?v=RdFePwtR9C4www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRwpfdiFSK4&list=RDQSCX92tG1hYI liked that one very much. "Heavenly Voices" more on the sidebars...
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Jan 29, 2020 15:26:40 GMT -5
Let's use this for an example. from the bluecoast label: For Heaven's Sake bluecoastmusic.com/valerie-joyce-michael-wolff/for-heavens-sakewww.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=0&v=83_9QtlwZBsPretty music. PROVENANCE: Recorded to 44.1kHz 24-bit PCM, mixed through an analog stage to DSD256. In other words, it's 'provenance' is only a little better than CD quality, theoretically. But you can buy DSD64 for $30. DSD128 for $40. DSD256 for $50. Hmmm... The 24-bit/96k wav file, which is higher resolution than the raw recording, is $20. The 16bit/44.1k download, which is close to the raw recording, is $15. At least bluecoast is being honest about the provenance of their recordings.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Jan 29, 2020 15:45:12 GMT -5
MQA: Archimago Adds a "Final" Nail to the Coffin! www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6109~~~ MQA is a sophisticated technical container tuned to maximize royalty revenue on the input and output streams... nothing else. It's a hoax. It just occurred to me that I put this MQA post in the wrong thread. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Jean Genie on Jan 29, 2020 16:00:02 GMT -5
Let's use this for an example. from the bluecoast label: For Heaven's Sake bluecoastmusic.com/valerie-joyce-michael-wolff/for-heavens-sakewww.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=0&v=83_9QtlwZBsPretty music. PROVENANCE: Recorded to 44.1kHz 24-bit PCM, mixed through an analog stage to DSD256. In other words, it's 'provenance' is only a little better than CD quality, theoretically. But you can buy DSD64 for $30. DSD128 for $40. DSD256 for $50. Hmmm... The 24-bit/96k wav file, which is higher resolution than the raw recording, is $20. The 16bit/44.1k download, which is close to the raw recording, is $15. At least bluecoast is being honest about the provenance of their recordings. 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.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,902
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 29, 2020 17:09:47 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.)
Let's use this for an example. from the bluecoast label: For Heaven's Sake bluecoastmusic.com/valerie-joyce-michael-wolff/for-heavens-sakewww.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=0&v=83_9QtlwZBsPretty music. PROVENANCE: Recorded to 44.1kHz 24-bit PCM, mixed through an analog stage to DSD256. In other words, it's 'provenance' is only a little better than CD quality, theoretically. But you can buy DSD64 for $30. DSD128 for $40. DSD256 for $50. Hmmm... The 24-bit/96k wav file, which is higher resolution than the raw recording, is $20. The 16bit/44.1k download, which is close to the raw recording, is $15. At least bluecoast is being honest about the provenance of their recordings. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Jan 29, 2020 21:36:41 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?
|
|