There has been some predictable fuss and fidget raised in certain
audiophile circles over the credits in recent DG SACD releases, which
indicate that DG uses PCM sources for its SACDs. To some this is cause
for wailing and gnashing of teeth, since PCM *can't* sound as good as DSD,
can it?

I ran across a partial translation of DG's explanation here, taken from an
article in http://www1.production-partner.de/magazin/magazin.htm

translation:

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/dv...ages/7851.html


They used ABX to compare PCM to DSD.

On 6 Oct 2003 21:59:21 GMT, in article , Steven
Sullivan stated:

There has been some predictable fuss and fidget raised in certain
audiophile circles over the credits in recent DG SACD releases, which
indicate that DG uses PCM sources for its SACDs. To some this is cause
for wailing and gnashing of teeth, since PCM *can't* sound as good as DSD,
can it?

I ran across a partial translation of DG's explanation here, taken from an
article in http://www1.production-partner.de/magazin/magazin.htm

translation:

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/dv...ages/7851.html


They used ABX to compare PCM to DSD.


Well, those excerpts aren't very convincing, are they?

Bottom line is that they're entitled to do what they want. But at a personal
level, the best recordings I have heard have been "pure" DSD recordings where
the signal has not been decimated at any stage. DG can take the opposite
approach and generate their SACD masters from PCM recordings, but to the extent
they produce a digital recording I would like to have (it's been a while!), I'll
buy the (presumably less expensive) CD version, and I will go to Telarc and
others who use pure DSD for my SACDs.

goFab.com wrote:
On 6 Oct 2003 21:59:21 GMT, in article , Steven
Sullivan stated:

There has been some predictable fuss and fidget raised in certain
audiophile circles over the credits in recent DG SACD releases, which
indicate that DG uses PCM sources for its SACDs. To some this is cause
for wailing and gnashing of teeth, since PCM *can't* sound as good as DSD,
can it?

I ran across a partial translation of DG's explanation here, taken from an
article in http://www1.production-partner.de/magazin/magazin.htm

translation:

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/dv...ages/7851.html


They used ABX to compare PCM to DSD.


Well, those excerpts aren't very convincing, are they?



Did I promise you'd be convinced?

They certainly pique one's interest. And DGM certainly is
archiving to PCM.



Bottom line is that they're entitled to do what they want. But at a personal
level, the best recordings I have heard have been "pure" DSD recordings where
the signal has not been decimated at any stage. DG can take the opposite
approach and generate their SACD masters from PCM recordings, but to the extent
they produce a digital recording I would like to have (it's been a while!), I'll
buy the (presumably less expensive) CD version, and I will go to Telarc and
others who use pure DSD for my SACDs.

That's certainly your prerogative. Personally I thinkn the main benefit of
SACD and DVD-A will turn out to be their surround format capability, rather than
a still-quesitonable increase in audible fidelity.



--
-S.
______
"You're an abuser Sullivan....a base beast with
intellect but little intelligence to show for it" -- KENNEH!

On 9 Oct 2003 23:53:35 GMT, in article , Steven
Sullivan stated:

That's certainly your prerogative. Personally I thinkn the main benefit of
SACD and DVD-A will turn out to be their surround format capability, rather than
a still-quesitonable increase in audible fidelity.


I disagree that the increase is questionable, at least in the case of properly
executed SACDs. I personally do agree, however, that it is hard to make out the
sonic difference between a well-done redbook CD and DVD-A.

But to say surround will be the main benefit? Maybe you're right, looking at it
from the big picture perspective. Given the high penetration of DVD players in
US homes, and the current mania over home theatre surround and large, cinema
style video displays, it makes sense to think that the main way in which SACD
and DVD-A will penetrate the mass market is through relatively inexpensive
universal players that will be slotted into home theatre surround systems. If
the software manufacturers follow the money, there should be an increasing
emphasis on surround music using those technologies. On the other hand, from an
audiophile point of view, I don't think that will matter very much, because
ultimately surround is at best superfluous, and at worst distracting, to the
business of being transported by great music. It's not because I don't think
that surround, well executed, can incrementally increase the realism of recorded
music (although it hasn't happened for me yet). It's because I think the
complexity required to get there is ultimately so great that it will close the
high end door even further to the less-than-rabid hobbyist. So if surround
turns out to be the only raison d'etre for SACD and DVD-A, I think the high end
increasingly turns its back on the formats. We'll see.

Although this raises some interesting points. A while ago there was a thread
asking what is so high end about the high end. But is there "a" high end?
Seems to me there may be several high ends, with very different aims and
interests. Clearly there is a high end purportedly interested in the realistic
presentation of music uber alles (represented by the stated goals of the major
US audio magazines). There is another high end that fetishizes offbeat, rare
and very obscure equipment, usually with lots of glass bulbs sticking out of it.
And then there is the high end of the insiders and networkers and namedroppers.
Clearly, the new digital formats will have different meanings to people in these
different camps.

On 10 Oct 2003 18:05:31 GMT, "goFab.com" wrote:

On 9 Oct 2003 23:53:35 GMT, in article , Steven
Sullivan stated:

That's certainly your prerogative. Personally I thinkn the main benefit of
SACD and DVD-A will turn out to be their surround format capability, rather than
a still-quesitonable increase in audible fidelity.

I disagree that the increase is questionable, at least in the case of properly
executed SACDs. I personally do agree, however, that it is hard to make out the
sonic difference between a well-done redbook CD and DVD-A.

Interesting dislocation there. If you accept that a medium which is
linear to better than 20 bits and has a bandwidth of over 90kHz
(DVD-A) sounds almost identical to Red Book CD, then you must realise
that the only way SACD could sound different, would be that it
*degrades* the sound. Is that what you're saying?

ultimately surround is at best superfluous, and at worst distracting, to the
business of being transported by great music.

You could say the same for stereo, by that measure............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering