A few words on "the second coming of DSD"!
Collapse
X
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Main hifi: Rasbery PI digi+ MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub.
Bedroom/Office: Boom
Loggia: Raspi hifiberry dac + Adams
Bathroom : Radio (with battery)
iPad with iPengHD & SqueezePad
(spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller )
server Intel NUC Esxi VM Linux mint 18 LMS 7.9.2
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html -
Interesting how business seems to work. Blade Runner in this case.
Mastering engineer, Kevin Gray discusses the remastering work on the reissue of Vangelis, "Blade Runner." The Audio Fidelity release is a 180g red translucen...
There he states he got a 24bit 88.2khz file that is uncompressed, as i understand he got this directly from Warner.
The funny thing is that they are doing a SACD release from this with recording it sourced from a Meitner ADC8 into a Tascam DV-RA1000HD: Audio Fidelity Reissuing "Blade Runner" Sndtrk On Vinyl LP and SACD*
Sadly no info if analog or digital but my bet is on it is done analog. The recorded DSD file goes to SACD mastering. The CD layer is another conversation back from the DSD.
This means the CD is 24/88.2kHz PCM -> DSD (most likely analog) -> 16/44.1kHz PCM in some way
Since in the link to the Steve Hoffman forum he praises the quality from the files they got from Warner me as customer really has to wonder why not getting the 24/88.2KHz directly and preventing some pointless format conversions.
I donĀ“t have the Audio Fidelity version but the 25th Anniversary edition from Warner themself. In theory these CDs may sound nearer to the 24/88.2kHz version if Warner used that master files in 2007 already.
Of course one can use the conversion steps to add some tiny spectral enhancements and audiophile sparkling noise...
P.S. Regarding the video, did anbody else wonder how some ancient blinking electric bulbs can cause excitement in the days of real-time spectral analysis in modern computer audio editors?Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakersComment
-
DSD - Don't totally agree with the negativity
First off, I agree that DSD doesn't have a big future. Most of the music being recorded in DSD today is classical. If you like classical you can even get quite a decent library as downloads. Otherwise, there isn't much to get.
I think a lot of the excitement about DSD is coming from audiophiles who have a large or reasonably large investment in SACD. For them the DSD DACs are quite a boon, now that they have a way to rip the SACD/DSD to HD. IMO, these rips sound better than the SACD they came from. Plus it adds the convenience of computer audio for the owners of these discs. There are enough of these people around to make it useful for high end audio companies to add DSD capabilities to DACs. These expensive DACs sell in small absolute numbers anyway, so adding the buyers who are interested in DSD is worthwhile for these companies. In other words, I think it is a logical business decision on their part, not just cynical "check box marketing". And don't forget, the companies that don't jump on board with DSD now risk losing customers to companies who do, so that's another incentive for them.
As far as sound quality, I think native DSD recordings sound fantastic when well done. Some of my classical recordings are probably the most natural, best sounding recordings of any type I have - including other hi-res (example: the Mahler symphonies from Blue Coast in DSD).
I also have some analog>DSD conversions that sound wonderful. To my ears, DSD is better for this than PCM - the result just sounds more natural and analog-like.
So purely in terms of SQ, I think there is a legitimate place for DSD.
Yes, a lot of SACDs are made from upsampled Redbook or analogue. Deriving them from upsampled PCM is a rip-off. But as I stated, I think DSD derived from analog is a very legitimate use, and from my reckoning, of about 8000 SACDs in existence, about 1500 are recorded in native DSD. Many of these SACDs still aren't available in any other hi-res format. So I don't see the problem with either the native DSD ones or the SACD/DSD derived from analog.
All that said, I do think the future of hi-res is in 24/96 and 24/192. And I certainly have no problem with that. I just wish there was more new and archive material available in properly done hi-res.GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Isol Line conditioner/protection. iFi AC iPurifiers>CAPS4 Pipeline w/Sonore PS >Kii Control>Kii Three speakers.iFi iOne+ Schiit Freya Pre for analog. An SB Touch, Duet Controller, a RB Pi 3B+ running piCorePlayer as an SBT emulator in additional rooms.Comment
-
At the time, of course, there weren't CDs, so the music was initially distributed in analog form, on records and tapes.
As to Jazz, this might be my favorite Cooder recording, although again I've seen Ry expressing some negative thoughts about the project. It was recorded in the classical analog fashion.
R.Last edited by RonM; 2013-07-25, 13:08.LMS on a dedicated server (PiCorePlayer)
Transporter (Ethernet) - main listen ining, Onkyo receiver, Paradigm speakers
Touch (WiFi) - home theater 5.1, Sony receiver, Energy speakers
Boom 1 (WiFi) - work-space
Boom 2 (WiFi) - various (deck, garage, etc.)
Radio (WiFi) - home office
Control - Squeeze Control (Android mobile), 2 Controllers (seldom used), Squeeze Remote (on Surface Pro 4)
Touch x 1 - spare
UE Radio x 1 - spare
Boom x 1 - spare
Controller x 1 - SpareComment
-
For the truly geeky, a full history of digital recording can be found at the link below. There were digital recordings before Cooder's, but his is considered the first pop multi-track one. It's truly interesting to note that in several cases digital recording was done simultaneously to analog direct-to-disc, and that upon subsequent comparative listening, digital was considered superior and became the source for the ultimate release.
R.Last edited by RonM; 2013-07-25, 16:18.LMS on a dedicated server (PiCorePlayer)
Transporter (Ethernet) - main listen ining, Onkyo receiver, Paradigm speakers
Touch (WiFi) - home theater 5.1, Sony receiver, Energy speakers
Boom 1 (WiFi) - work-space
Boom 2 (WiFi) - various (deck, garage, etc.)
Radio (WiFi) - home office
Control - Squeeze Control (Android mobile), 2 Controllers (seldom used), Squeeze Remote (on Surface Pro 4)
Touch x 1 - spare
UE Radio x 1 - spare
Boom x 1 - spare
Controller x 1 - SpareComment
-
For the truly geeky, a full history of digital recording can be found at the link below. There were digital recordings before Cooder's, but his is considered the first pop multi-track one. It's truly interesting to note that in several cases digital recording was done simultaneously to analog direct-to-disc, and that upon subsequent comparative listening, digital was considered superior and became the source for the ultimate release.
R.Home: Pi4B-8GB/pCP8.2.x/4TB>LMS 8.5.x>Transporter, Touch, Boom, Radio (all ethernet)
Cottage: rPi4B-4GB/pCP8.2.x/4TB>LMS 8.5.x>Touch>Benchmark DAC I, Boom, Radio w/Battery (Radio WIFI)
Office: Win11(64)>foobar2000
The Wild: rPi3B+/pCP7.x/4TB>LMS 8.1.x>hifiberry Dac+Pro (LMS & Squeezelite)
Controllers: Material Skin, iPhone14Pro & iPadAir5 (iPeng), or CONTROLLER
Files: Ripping: dBpoweramp > FLAC; Post-rip: mp3tag, PerfectTunes, TuneFusion; Streaming: SpotifyComment
-
... But as I stated, I think DSD derived from analog is a very legitimate use, and from my reckoning, of about 8000 SACDs in existence, about 1500 are recorded in native DSD. Many of these SACDs still aren't available in any other hi-res format. So I don't see the problem with either the native DSD ones or the SACD/DSD derived from analog.
All that said, I do think the future of hi-res is in 24/96 and 24/192. And I certainly have no problem with that. I just wish there was more new and archive material available in properly done hi-res.
I've whimpered about this before, but I still hold out hope of a resource, listing recordings available in hi-res, with notes on the various versions, and how they relate to original mastering, etc.
e.g. just as you say, "this recording was originally recorded in DSD, and thus this SACD version is the best available", or "these 24/96 files are in fact upsampled from some old vinyl that the engineer found in his lavatory", etc, etc.
I would love to see that, rather than have to fight with the loonies in various HD forums; after getting used to the sense talked here, I can't bear it...Comment
-
[apologies for late reply]
I've whimpered about this before, but I still hold out hope of a resource, listing recordings available in hi-res, with notes on the various versions, and how they relate to original mastering, etc.
e.g. just as you say, "this recording was originally recorded in DSD, and thus this SACD version is the best available", or "these 24/96 files are in fact upsampled from some old vinyl that the engineer found in his lavatory", etc, etc.
I would love to see that, rather than have to fight with the loonies in various HD forums; after getting used to the sense talked here, I can't bear it...
Then we get things back into proportions , it is the master and the real recording quality that is the issue , not the consumer carrier format , which is completely unimportant as long it's 16/44.1 lossles or better just pick any .
That said converting good SACD's that where sourced from analog to something like 24/88.2 would actually be a good idea . you would theoretically have a possibility of a small conversion loss , but that "loss" would not be audiable to a human being in any case .
Another issue is how these newfangled DSD DAC's really works , like any imperfect tech they seems not to treat all signal equally ?
If there is a difference in sound DSD vs PCM I gues you should look for problems in the DAC or the source material .
Yes that's my 0.02$ on it if anything >16/44.1 sounds different it's in the DAC or the source material . either the DAC designs is off or the different sources does not really sound the same due to different masters or engineering mistakes.
You can test part of it , convert a good real 24/192 track to any/all formats >=16/44.1 yourself and try out if it sounds really different you got an issue . or you could turn it , if you really like your DAC you migth find out which kind of signals it works best with . if it is a NOS DAC wo filters as high as possible is a good guess .--------------------------------------------------------------------
Main hifi: Rasbery PI digi+ MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub.
Bedroom/Office: Boom
Loggia: Raspi hifiberry dac + Adams
Bathroom : Radio (with battery)
iPad with iPengHD & SqueezePad
(spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller )
server Intel NUC Esxi VM Linux mint 18 LMS 7.9.2
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.htmlComment
-
One thing i notice is the ones that now swear dsd sounds better then everything else are often the ones that heard strange things before but never seriously questinoned themself. Higher numbers are enough to make their minds hear things. Now that they read about how great dsd is they hear it for better.Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakersComment
Comment