Here is an excellent article written by Barry Henderson, President of
iZ Technology Corp. who is the wizard behind the Radar 24 system. This
is in response to a question about whether iZ Corp. plans to release a
DSD recorder in the futu

Audy

There has been alot of discussion here at iZ lately about putting out a DSD
machine. We even had a visit from Ayataki Nishio of Sony Japan, the man who
invented DSD. We invited him to come to Vancouver a few months ago to meet
with us and discuss the technical aspects of building a DSD machine. We may
build one if we could get around some of the problems he pointed out to us,
namely;

1) Advanced editing is not possible. The Pyramix system first converts the DSD
files to PCM and then does the editing. If there is an advantage to DSD
recording, then you may have lost it in the conversion.

2) Mixing is not possible. According to Sony, it is not ever possible to have
a DSD mixer. AMS just released a digital mixer with DSD I/O. However the DSD
immediately converts the DSD stream to PCM for internal use in the mixer and
then converts it back again. We are concerned with having so many conversions
that you may be introducing many artifacts into the audio.

3) The sample rate is not high enough. DSD is in its infant stage of
development. The current "State of the Art" is 1 bit x 64fs (means 64 x 44.1
kHz sample rate) which is a data rate of 2.822 megabits per second per
channel. RADAR currently has a maximum resolution of 24 bits x 216 kHz sample
rate = 5.184 megabits per second per channel. The 64fs limitation is a Sony
thing cause you need to use special Sony chips to make the recorder work which
brings us to our 4th problem...

4) Development is very Sony dependant.
Like it or not, its a PCM world and until that changes there will be very
little demand for DSD. So it is hard to justify an R&D budget to do alot of
very complex development only to still have significant problems remaining and
a very small market.

That said, we are looking at PCM to DSD file conversion. In other words we
would record in RADAR PCM at 5 megabits per second in order to capture as many
nuances of the audio as possible and then down sample it to the lower 2.822
megabit rate and save the files on another hard disk or even burn a DVD.

Barry Henderson, President
iZ Technology Corp.

1) Advanced editing is not possible. The Pyramix system first converts the DSD
files to PCM and then does the editing. If there is an advantage to DSD
recording, then you may have lost it in the conversion.

Open to debate, since Pyramix maintains the 2.8 mbit data rate of the
DSD stream and doesn't mangle its gentle filters.

1) Advanced editing is not possible. The Pyramix system first converts the DSD
files to PCM and then does the editing. If there is an advantage to DSD
recording, then you may have lost it in the conversion.

Open to debate, since Pyramix maintains the 2.8 mbit data rate of the
DSD stream and doesn't mangle its gentle filters.

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message


1) Advanced editing is not possible. The Pyramix system first
converts the DSD files to PCM and then does the editing. If there
is an advantage to DSD recording, then you may have lost it in the
conversion.

Open to debate, since Pyramix maintains the 2.8 mbit data rate of the
DSD stream and doesn't mangle its gentle filters.

I think we have to consider the mind set that the statement: "If there is an
advantage to DSD recording, then you may have lost it in the conversion."
refers to.

My understanding is that some people believe that there are some
undefinable, immeasurable, currently unquantifiable *something(s)* that make
DSD recordings sound better than traditional PCM with a similar or greater
bitrate.

I've certainly run into these people on Usenet and seen articles in other
media that seem to say to the same basic thing(s).

Since "gentle filters" actually exist, can be analyzed, quantified, and
found to disagree with this belief about the alleged superior sound of DSD,
it *can't* be what these people are talking about.

BTW, one context in which I find these kinds of beliefs about the
superiority of DSD is PCABX. I've suggested to DSD advocates that the output
of a SACD player be digitized at 24/192, downsampled to 16/44, and the two
be compared.

The response is that re-quantizing DSD into any form of PCM destroys a
significant sound quality advantage of DSD.

Ironically, some of these same people go on for zillions of posts on Usenet
about the improved sound quality of DSD recordings that are now known to
have been made from 48 KHz PCM recordings but...

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message


1) Advanced editing is not possible. The Pyramix system first
converts the DSD files to PCM and then does the editing. If there
is an advantage to DSD recording, then you may have lost it in the
conversion.

Open to debate, since Pyramix maintains the 2.8 mbit data rate of the
DSD stream and doesn't mangle its gentle filters.

I think we have to consider the mind set that the statement: "If there is an
advantage to DSD recording, then you may have lost it in the conversion."
refers to.

My understanding is that some people believe that there are some
undefinable, immeasurable, currently unquantifiable *something(s)* that make
DSD recordings sound better than traditional PCM with a similar or greater
bitrate.

I've certainly run into these people on Usenet and seen articles in other
media that seem to say to the same basic thing(s).

Since "gentle filters" actually exist, can be analyzed, quantified, and
found to disagree with this belief about the alleged superior sound of DSD,
it *can't* be what these people are talking about.

BTW, one context in which I find these kinds of beliefs about the
superiority of DSD is PCABX. I've suggested to DSD advocates that the output
of a SACD player be digitized at 24/192, downsampled to 16/44, and the two
be compared.

The response is that re-quantizing DSD into any form of PCM destroys a
significant sound quality advantage of DSD.

Ironically, some of these same people go on for zillions of posts on Usenet
about the improved sound quality of DSD recordings that are now known to
have been made from 48 KHz PCM recordings but...

I think we have to consider the mind set that the statement: "If there is an
advantage to DSD recording, then you may have lost it in the conversion."
refers to.

My understanding is that some people believe that there are some
undefinable, immeasurable, currently unquantifiable *something(s)* that
make DSD recordings sound better than traditional PCM with a similar
or greater bitrate.

I reviewed the dbx 700 for Stereophile about 20 years ago. This unit used a
delta-modulation system similar to DSD. I made at least one live recording with
the mics feeding both the dbx 700 and my Nakamichi DMP-100 (a modified Sony
PCM-F1).

There was no question that dbx was superior to the Nakamichi, particularly in
regard to high-frequency distortion. Brass instruments, in particular, were
cleaner.

Of course, this was a comparison between two particular products, both designed
in an era when digital recording was undergoing significant refinement. It
proves nothing about the ultimate subjective quality of either PCM or DSD.
However, I've always had a prejudice toward bit-stream systems, simply because
they're so crude.

I bought a high-end Sony multi-channel SACD player last Christmas, and was
pleasantly surprised to discover that SACDs were noticeably less hard-sounding
and "colored" than CDs. "Unfortunately," my existing CDs showed a similar sonic
improvement. So, if there really is a significant difference between SACD and
CD, it might be due to nothing more than improved conversion.

"One of these days" I'm going to get around to comparing the Sony's CD output to
my Kinergetics DAC. The SACD player has an S/PDIF digital output for CDs, so
it's possible to make instantaneous comparisons.

I think we have to consider the mind set that the statement: "If there is an
advantage to DSD recording, then you may have lost it in the conversion."
refers to.

My understanding is that some people believe that there are some
undefinable, immeasurable, currently unquantifiable *something(s)* that
make DSD recordings sound better than traditional PCM with a similar
or greater bitrate.

I reviewed the dbx 700 for Stereophile about 20 years ago. This unit used a
delta-modulation system similar to DSD. I made at least one live recording with
the mics feeding both the dbx 700 and my Nakamichi DMP-100 (a modified Sony
PCM-F1).

There was no question that dbx was superior to the Nakamichi, particularly in
regard to high-frequency distortion. Brass instruments, in particular, were
cleaner.

Of course, this was a comparison between two particular products, both designed
in an era when digital recording was undergoing significant refinement. It
proves nothing about the ultimate subjective quality of either PCM or DSD.
However, I've always had a prejudice toward bit-stream systems, simply because
they're so crude.

I bought a high-end Sony multi-channel SACD player last Christmas, and was
pleasantly surprised to discover that SACDs were noticeably less hard-sounding
and "colored" than CDs. "Unfortunately," my existing CDs showed a similar sonic
improvement. So, if there really is a significant difference between SACD and
CD, it might be due to nothing more than improved conversion.

"One of these days" I'm going to get around to comparing the Sony's CD output to
my Kinergetics DAC. The SACD player has an S/PDIF digital output for CDs, so
it's possible to make instantaneous comparisons.

Arny Krueger wrote:


Ironically, some of these same people go on for zillions of posts on Usenet
about the improved sound quality of DSD recordings that are now known to
have been made from 48 KHz PCM recordings but...


Well the first step in forming your own opinion might be to ACTUALLY
LISTEN TO ONE!

Arny Krueger wrote:


Ironically, some of these same people go on for zillions of posts on Usenet
about the improved sound quality of DSD recordings that are now known to
have been made from 48 KHz PCM recordings but...


Well the first step in forming your own opinion might be to ACTUALLY
LISTEN TO ONE!

"Rob Adelman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Ironically, some of these same people go on for zillions of posts on
Usenet about the improved sound quality of DSD recordings that are
now known to have been made from 48 KHz PCM recordings but...

Well the first step in forming your own opinion might be to ACTUALLY
LISTEN TO ONE!

Please post a 24/96 or 24/192 .wav file of a track from your favorite SACD
at your earliest convenience.

"Rob Adelman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Ironically, some of these same people go on for zillions of posts on
Usenet about the improved sound quality of DSD recordings that are
now known to have been made from 48 KHz PCM recordings but...

Well the first step in forming your own opinion might be to ACTUALLY
LISTEN TO ONE!

Please post a 24/96 or 24/192 .wav file of a track from your favorite SACD
at your earliest convenience.

Well the first step in forming your own opinion might be to
ACTUALLY LISTEN TO ONE!

Please post a 24/96 or 24/192 .wav file of a track from your
favorite SACD at your earliest convenience.


I can't (always) read your mind and determine your intent, but...

How can we take _anything_ you say seriously when you offer such a response...?

Well the first step in forming your own opinion might be to
ACTUALLY LISTEN TO ONE!

Please post a 24/96 or 24/192 .wav file of a track from your
favorite SACD at your earliest convenience.


I can't (always) read your mind and determine your intent, but...

How can we take _anything_ you say seriously when you offer such a response...?

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I can't (always) read your mind and determine your intent, but...

How can we take _anything_ you say seriously when you offer such a response...?


Arny is afraid to listen to the format for fear he might actually agree
that it does sound better. Easier to just avoid the possibility.

b.t.w. a good player can now be had for 150 bucks!
http://store.acousticsounds.com/store.cfm?Title_ID=12119&do=detail

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I can't (always) read your mind and determine your intent, but...

How can we take _anything_ you say seriously when you offer such a response...?


Arny is afraid to listen to the format for fear he might actually agree
that it does sound better. Easier to just avoid the possibility.

b.t.w. a good player can now be had for 150 bucks!
http://store.acousticsounds.com/store.cfm?Title_ID=12119&do=detail

Rob Adelman wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Ironically, some of these same people go on for zillions of posts on Usenet
about the improved sound quality of DSD recordings that are now known to
have been made from 48 KHz PCM recordings but...

Well the first step in forming your own opinion might be to ACTUALLY
LISTEN TO ONE!

The problem is that this isn't enough when you don't know the processing
being done.

The fact that DSD makes flattopping harder to do is a big deal, and will
probably result in greatly improved sound quality. Not for any technical
reasons, though, just for social ones.

I have LPs that sound better than the CD, and CDs that sound better than
the LPs. The guys in the mastering room have a lot more to do with the
sound quality than the release format. This isn't going to change.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Rob Adelman wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Ironically, some of these same people go on for zillions of posts on Usenet
about the improved sound quality of DSD recordings that are now known to
have been made from 48 KHz PCM recordings but...

Well the first step in forming your own opinion might be to ACTUALLY
LISTEN TO ONE!

The problem is that this isn't enough when you don't know the processing
being done.

The fact that DSD makes flattopping harder to do is a big deal, and will
probably result in greatly improved sound quality. Not for any technical
reasons, though, just for social ones.

I have LPs that sound better than the CD, and CDs that sound better than
the LPs. The guys in the mastering room have a lot more to do with the
sound quality than the release format. This isn't going to change.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message


Well the first step in forming your own opinion might be to
ACTUALLY LISTEN TO ONE!

Please post a 24/96 or 24/192 .wav file of a track from your
favorite SACD at your earliest convenience.

I can't (always) read your mind and determine your intent, but...

How can we take _anything_ you say seriously when you offer such a
response...?

Just put me down as a believer in science. I know that in some circles that
makes me an object of hostility and derision, but I'm used to it by now.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message


Well the first step in forming your own opinion might be to
ACTUALLY LISTEN TO ONE!

Please post a 24/96 or 24/192 .wav file of a track from your
favorite SACD at your earliest convenience.

I can't (always) read your mind and determine your intent, but...

How can we take _anything_ you say seriously when you offer such a
response...?

Just put me down as a believer in science. I know that in some circles that
makes me an object of hostility and derision, but I'm used to it by now.

"Rob Adelman" wrote in message

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I can't (always) read your mind and determine your intent, but...

How can we take _anything_ you say seriously when you offer such a
response...?


Arny is afraid to listen to the format for fear he might actually
agree that it does sound better. Easier to just avoid the possibility.

b.t.w. a good player can now be had for 150 bucks!
http://store.acousticsounds.com/store.cfm?Title_ID=12119&do=detail

Great, send one to me and a few disks of your choosing. If this expense is
actually that little of a hassle, why not do so?

"Rob Adelman" wrote in message

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I can't (always) read your mind and determine your intent, but...

How can we take _anything_ you say seriously when you offer such a
response...?


Arny is afraid to listen to the format for fear he might actually
agree that it does sound better. Easier to just avoid the possibility.

b.t.w. a good player can now be had for 150 bucks!
http://store.acousticsounds.com/store.cfm?Title_ID=12119&do=detail

Great, send one to me and a few disks of your choosing. If this expense is
actually that little of a hassle, why not do so?

Arny Krueger wrote...

William Sommerwerck wrote...

Well the first step in forming your own opinion might be to
ACTUALLY LISTEN TO ONE!

Please post a 24/96 or 24/192 .wav file of a track from your
favorite SACD at your earliest convenience.

I can't (always) read your mind and determine your intent, but...
How can we take _anything_ you say seriously when you offer
such a response...?

Just put me down as a believer in science. I know that in some circles that
makes me an object of hostility and derision, but I'm used to it by now.

I am reminded of a demo ReVox used to stage at audio shows. They had a line of
five (I think) A-77s with the output of one feeding the input of the next. They
claimed the output of the fifth was indistinguishable from the input to the
first.

We both know that, given a high-quality program source, a _single_ ReVox would
not pass such a test. I've never heard a piece of electronics that was 100%
transparent (though some come awfully close), and I doubt anyone has ever built
a recorder (analog or digital) that is subjectively perfect. Do you know of any?

Given the differences between PCM and DSD, it would not be surprising if one
were more-accurate than the other -- or that they at least had different
errors/colorations.

Arny Krueger wrote...

William Sommerwerck wrote...

Well the first step in forming your own opinion might be to
ACTUALLY LISTEN TO ONE!

Please post a 24/96 or 24/192 .wav file of a track from your
favorite SACD at your earliest convenience.

I can't (always) read your mind and determine your intent, but...
How can we take _anything_ you say seriously when you offer
such a response...?

Just put me down as a believer in science. I know that in some circles that
makes me an object of hostility and derision, but I'm used to it by now.

I am reminded of a demo ReVox used to stage at audio shows. They had a line of
five (I think) A-77s with the output of one feeding the input of the next. They
claimed the output of the fifth was indistinguishable from the input to the
first.

We both know that, given a high-quality program source, a _single_ ReVox would
not pass such a test. I've never heard a piece of electronics that was 100%
transparent (though some come awfully close), and I doubt anyone has ever built
a recorder (analog or digital) that is subjectively perfect. Do you know of any?

Given the differences between PCM and DSD, it would not be surprising if one
were more-accurate than the other -- or that they at least had different
errors/colorations.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I am reminded of a demo ReVox used to stage at audio shows. They had a line of
five (I think) A-77s with the output of one feeding the input of the next. They
claimed the output of the fifth was indistinguishable from the input to the
first.

I bet through a pair of Auratones, it really was indistinguishable.

We both know that, given a high-quality program source, a _single_ ReVox would
not pass such a test. I've never heard a piece of electronics that was 100%
transparent (though some come awfully close), and I doubt anyone has ever built
a recorder (analog or digital) that is subjectively perfect. Do you know of any?

No, but the thing is that today, the quality of the recorders has got to
the point where it is far higher than the quality of the people behind them
in most cases. Recorders aren't transparent at all, but they have long ago
ceased to be the weak link in the chain.

Given the differences between PCM and DSD, it would not be surprising if one
were more-accurate than the other -- or that they at least had different
errors/colorations.

Absolutely. The question is whether these errors and colorations are really
all that significant in light of the more severe errors present in speakers
and microphones. I can't answer this, either, and I don't think anyone really
can yet.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I am reminded of a demo ReVox used to stage at audio shows. They had a line of
five (I think) A-77s with the output of one feeding the input of the next. They
claimed the output of the fifth was indistinguishable from the input to the
first.

I bet through a pair of Auratones, it really was indistinguishable.

We both know that, given a high-quality program source, a _single_ ReVox would
not pass such a test. I've never heard a piece of electronics that was 100%
transparent (though some come awfully close), and I doubt anyone has ever built
a recorder (analog or digital) that is subjectively perfect. Do you know of any?

No, but the thing is that today, the quality of the recorders has got to
the point where it is far higher than the quality of the people behind them
in most cases. Recorders aren't transparent at all, but they have long ago
ceased to be the weak link in the chain.

Given the differences between PCM and DSD, it would not be surprising if one
were more-accurate than the other -- or that they at least had different
errors/colorations.

Absolutely. The question is whether these errors and colorations are really
all that significant in light of the more severe errors present in speakers
and microphones. I can't answer this, either, and I don't think anyone really
can yet.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote...

William Sommerwerck wrote...

Well the first step in forming your own opinion might be to
ACTUALLY LISTEN TO ONE!

Please post a 24/96 or 24/192 .wav file of a track from your
favorite SACD at your earliest convenience.

I can't (always) read your mind and determine your intent, but...
How can we take _anything_ you say seriously when you offer
such a response...?

Just put me down as a believer in science. I know that in some
circles that makes me an object of hostility and derision, but I'm
used to it by now.

I am reminded of a demo ReVox used to stage at audio shows. They had
a line of five (I think) A-77s with the output of one feeding the
input of the next. They claimed the output of the fifth was
indistinguishable from the input to the first.

This might actually work if you pick the music *right*. A somewhat distant
recording of say a piano... But if one runs the stuff I use, detection at
one generation would probably be a cakewalk. For a more interesting test,
look he http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_tapg.htm

We both know that, given a high-quality program source, a _single_
ReVox would not pass such a test.

Been there, done that, I had an A77 for years.

I've never heard a piece of
electronics that was 100% transparent (though some come awfully
close),

I've heard a great many of them, especially lately.

and I doubt anyone has ever built a recorder (analog or
digital) that is subjectively perfect. Do you know of any?

http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm

Tell me when you start hearing differences in a blind test - 1, 5, 10, 20
cycles?

This one is a little easier:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

One generation is hard, the rest shouldn't be a problem.

This one is easier still:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

One generation is easy, the rest are almost so easy its an insult.

And then:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/layla24/index.htm

It's a broken card as it was built, so it's very easy.

If you actually want to try these tests out and not just talk about them,
start here and work towards the top. When you hit the top, you'll be glad
you started here.

Given the differences between PCM and DSD, it would not be surprising
if one were more-accurate than the other -- or that they at least had
different errors/colorations.

Given how they measure, not a freakin' chance. There's a reason why all the
record companies are remastering the DSD layers - that's the only way they
can bet on people hearing a difference.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote...

William Sommerwerck wrote...

Well the first step in forming your own opinion might be to
ACTUALLY LISTEN TO ONE!

Please post a 24/96 or 24/192 .wav file of a track from your
favorite SACD at your earliest convenience.

I can't (always) read your mind and determine your intent, but...
How can we take _anything_ you say seriously when you offer
such a response...?

Just put me down as a believer in science. I know that in some
circles that makes me an object of hostility and derision, but I'm
used to it by now.

I am reminded of a demo ReVox used to stage at audio shows. They had
a line of five (I think) A-77s with the output of one feeding the
input of the next. They claimed the output of the fifth was
indistinguishable from the input to the first.

This might actually work if you pick the music *right*. A somewhat distant
recording of say a piano... But if one runs the stuff I use, detection at
one generation would probably be a cakewalk. For a more interesting test,
look he http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_tapg.htm

We both know that, given a high-quality program source, a _single_
ReVox would not pass such a test.

Been there, done that, I had an A77 for years.

I've never heard a piece of
electronics that was 100% transparent (though some come awfully
close),

I've heard a great many of them, especially lately.

and I doubt anyone has ever built a recorder (analog or
digital) that is subjectively perfect. Do you know of any?

http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm

Tell me when you start hearing differences in a blind test - 1, 5, 10, 20
cycles?

This one is a little easier:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

One generation is hard, the rest shouldn't be a problem.

This one is easier still:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

One generation is easy, the rest are almost so easy its an insult.

And then:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/layla24/index.htm

It's a broken card as it was built, so it's very easy.

If you actually want to try these tests out and not just talk about them,
start here and work towards the top. When you hit the top, you'll be glad
you started here.

Given the differences between PCM and DSD, it would not be surprising
if one were more-accurate than the other -- or that they at least had
different errors/colorations.

Given how they measure, not a freakin' chance. There's a reason why all the
record companies are remastering the DSD layers - that's the only way they
can bet on people hearing a difference.

Arny Krueger wrote:


Given how they measure, not a freakin' chance. There's a reason why all the
record companies are remastering the DSD layers - that's the only way they
can bet on people hearing a difference.

In fact you are quite wrong. The vast majority of the SACD's I bought
are not remastered at all. The music sounds exactly the same as it has
since I first heard it on vinyl, 10, 20, 30 years ago without the added
noise. I still have most of the vinyl too. The couple of SACD's I have
(one I sent back) that WERE obviously remastered sound like ass. DSD
seems to be a clear reproduction of whatever you give it. So if you have
an old analog master that sounds stunning, and LEAVE IT ALONE, that is
what you hear. If you mess with it, the changes you make become even
more obvious.

The lesser systems, pcm, and especially MP3 kind of muddy the waters a
little, so some of this stuff is less obvious, you can actually get away
with a lot more futzing.

Arny Krueger wrote:


Given how they measure, not a freakin' chance. There's a reason why all the
record companies are remastering the DSD layers - that's the only way they
can bet on people hearing a difference.

In fact you are quite wrong. The vast majority of the SACD's I bought
are not remastered at all. The music sounds exactly the same as it has
since I first heard it on vinyl, 10, 20, 30 years ago without the added
noise. I still have most of the vinyl too. The couple of SACD's I have
(one I sent back) that WERE obviously remastered sound like ass. DSD
seems to be a clear reproduction of whatever you give it. So if you have
an old analog master that sounds stunning, and LEAVE IT ALONE, that is
what you hear. If you mess with it, the changes you make become even
more obvious.

The lesser systems, pcm, and especially MP3 kind of muddy the waters a
little, so some of this stuff is less obvious, you can actually get away
with a lot more futzing.

About a year ago on RAHE Arnie was holding forth about the price of SACD
players being prohibitive, when challenged as to why he didn't just buy one
and listen. He then said none were available under $200. When that price
barrier was broken it was "under $150".

All he ever does is propose we convert DSD to PCM and then be surprised when
the signal gives a "no difference" under his abx testing to the same signal
using the same PCM technology. It is an insult to our intelligence,
frankly.

"Rob Adelman" wrote in message
...


William Sommerwerck wrote:

I can't (always) read your mind and determine your intent, but...

How can we take _anything_ you say seriously when you offer such a
response...?


Arny is afraid to listen to the format for fear he might actually agree
that it does sound better. Easier to just avoid the possibility.

b.t.w. a good player can now be had for 150 bucks!
http://store.acousticsounds.com/store.cfm?Title_ID=12119&do=detail

About a year ago on RAHE Arnie was holding forth about the price of SACD
players being prohibitive, when challenged as to why he didn't just buy one
and listen. He then said none were available under $200. When that price
barrier was broken it was "under $150".

All he ever does is propose we convert DSD to PCM and then be surprised when
the signal gives a "no difference" under his abx testing to the same signal
using the same PCM technology. It is an insult to our intelligence,
frankly.

"Rob Adelman" wrote in message
...


William Sommerwerck wrote:

I can't (always) read your mind and determine your intent, but...

How can we take _anything_ you say seriously when you offer such a
response...?


Arny is afraid to listen to the format for fear he might actually agree
that it does sound better. Easier to just avoid the possibility.

b.t.w. a good player can now be had for 150 bucks!
http://store.acousticsounds.com/store.cfm?Title_ID=12119&do=detail

In response to the statement that you can't edit or mix DSD audio
files: Sadie has two DSD DAWs out now that purport to do exactly that.
They are pretty straightforward guys, and there is no mention of them
converting the DSD to PCM for editing or mixing. "The integrity of
the 64fs DSD signal is fully maintained throughout the editing and
signal processing operation." www.sadie.com

Philip Perkins

In response to the statement that you can't edit or mix DSD audio
files: Sadie has two DSD DAWs out now that purport to do exactly that.
They are pretty straightforward guys, and there is no mention of them
converting the DSD to PCM for editing or mixing. "The integrity of
the 64fs DSD signal is fully maintained throughout the editing and
signal processing operation." www.sadie.com

Philip Perkins

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:62fkb.819297$uu5.143198@sccrnsc04

About a year ago on RAHE Arnie was holding forth about the price of
SACD players being prohibitive, when challenged as to why he didn't
just buy one and listen. He then said none were available under
$200. When that price barrier was broken it was "under $150".

Harry, given your well-knokwn fascination with audio-related fiction, why
don't you prove that claim with a quote from google?

All he ever does is propose we convert DSD to PCM and then be
surprised when the signal gives a "no difference" under his abx
testing to the same signal using the same PCM technology. It is an
insult to our intelligence, frankly.

I don't believe I've ever insulted your intelligence, Harry. Or your
veracity for that part.

;-)

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:62fkb.819297$uu5.143198@sccrnsc04

About a year ago on RAHE Arnie was holding forth about the price of
SACD players being prohibitive, when challenged as to why he didn't
just buy one and listen. He then said none were available under
$200. When that price barrier was broken it was "under $150".

Harry, given your well-knokwn fascination with audio-related fiction, why
don't you prove that claim with a quote from google?

All he ever does is propose we convert DSD to PCM and then be
surprised when the signal gives a "no difference" under his abx
testing to the same signal using the same PCM technology. It is an
insult to our intelligence, frankly.

I don't believe I've ever insulted your intelligence, Harry. Or your
veracity for that part.

;-)

"Rob Adelman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


Given how they measure, not a freakin' chance. There's a reason why
all the record companies are remastering the DSD layers - that's the
only way they can bet on people hearing a difference.

In fact you are quite wrong. The vast majority of the SACD's I bought
are not remastered at all. The music sounds exactly the same as it has
since I first heard it on vinyl, 10, 20, 30 years ago without the
added noise. I still have most of the vinyl too.

I strongly suspect that if I said the same thing about SACD and CD Rob,
you'd probably condemn my hearing, my choice of player, and/or the rest of
my audio system.

The couple of SACD's
I have (one I sent back) that WERE obviously remastered sound like
ass.

OK so what are you saying here, there's some magic something that makes
*all* remastered SACDs sound like "ass"? I can't believe that the guys who
remastered these things blew it 100% of the time.

DSD seems to be a clear reproduction of whatever you give it.

Of course I'm bound to agree with that. See the paragraph that I wrote and
you quoted, Rob. That's what I meant - DSD can be reasonably be expected to
provide sonically transparent reproduction. However, sonically transparent
reproduction is happily NOT a feature that DSD ALONE can rightfully claim.

So if you have an old analog master that sounds stunning, and LEAVE IT
ALONE, that is what you hear. If you mess with it, the changes you
make become even more obvious.

Thing is, no way is LP record/playback *anything* like sonically
transparent. I'm still waiting for *someone* to push my contribution to RAP
5 through the vinyl mill, and bring back an indistinguishable reproduction
of it. Interestingly enough, the world is full of $59 CD Burners, $200 CD
players and $39 CD ROM drives that can do this *trick* without a bit of
trouble.

The lesser systems, pcm, and especially MP3 kind of muddy the waters a
little, so some of this stuff is less obvious, you can actually get
away with a lot more futzing.

How did MP3 creep into this discussion? Isn't the iTunes discussion in
another thread?

"Rob Adelman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


Given how they measure, not a freakin' chance. There's a reason why
all the record companies are remastering the DSD layers - that's the
only way they can bet on people hearing a difference.

In fact you are quite wrong. The vast majority of the SACD's I bought
are not remastered at all. The music sounds exactly the same as it has
since I first heard it on vinyl, 10, 20, 30 years ago without the
added noise. I still have most of the vinyl too.

I strongly suspect that if I said the same thing about SACD and CD Rob,
you'd probably condemn my hearing, my choice of player, and/or the rest of
my audio system.

The couple of SACD's
I have (one I sent back) that WERE obviously remastered sound like
ass.

OK so what are you saying here, there's some magic something that makes
*all* remastered SACDs sound like "ass"? I can't believe that the guys who
remastered these things blew it 100% of the time.

DSD seems to be a clear reproduction of whatever you give it.

Of course I'm bound to agree with that. See the paragraph that I wrote and
you quoted, Rob. That's what I meant - DSD can be reasonably be expected to
provide sonically transparent reproduction. However, sonically transparent
reproduction is happily NOT a feature that DSD ALONE can rightfully claim.

So if you have an old analog master that sounds stunning, and LEAVE IT
ALONE, that is what you hear. If you mess with it, the changes you
make become even more obvious.

Thing is, no way is LP record/playback *anything* like sonically
transparent. I'm still waiting for *someone* to push my contribution to RAP
5 through the vinyl mill, and bring back an indistinguishable reproduction
of it. Interestingly enough, the world is full of $59 CD Burners, $200 CD
players and $39 CD ROM drives that can do this *trick* without a bit of
trouble.

The lesser systems, pcm, and especially MP3 kind of muddy the waters a
little, so some of this stuff is less obvious, you can actually get
away with a lot more futzing.

How did MP3 creep into this discussion? Isn't the iTunes discussion in
another thread?

Arny Krueger wrote:

I strongly suspect that if I said the same thing about SACD and CD Rob,
you'd probably condemn my hearing, my choice of player, and/or the rest of
my audio system.

No i wouldn't. I would say, ok there is someone who disagrees. But
currently, I am still waiting for ONE person who has heard a comparable
recording on both to say the DSD does not sound better.





The couple of SACD's
I have (one I sent back) that WERE obviously remastered sound like
ass.


OK so what are you saying here, there's some magic something that makes
*all* remastered SACDs sound like "ass"? I can't believe that the guys who
remastered these things blew it 100% of the time.

Well I have only run into two, so in my case 100% of the time was easy..

Arny Krueger wrote:

I strongly suspect that if I said the same thing about SACD and CD Rob,
you'd probably condemn my hearing, my choice of player, and/or the rest of
my audio system.

No i wouldn't. I would say, ok there is someone who disagrees. But
currently, I am still waiting for ONE person who has heard a comparable
recording on both to say the DSD does not sound better.





The couple of SACD's
I have (one I sent back) that WERE obviously remastered sound like
ass.


OK so what are you saying here, there's some magic something that makes
*all* remastered SACDs sound like "ass"? I can't believe that the guys who
remastered these things blew it 100% of the time.

Well I have only run into two, so in my case 100% of the time was easy..

(Philip Perkins) wrote in message . com...
In response to the statement that you can't edit or mix DSD audio
files: Sadie has two DSD DAWs out now that purport to do exactly that.
They are pretty straightforward guys, and there is no mention of them
converting the DSD to PCM for editing or mixing. "The integrity of
the 64fs DSD signal is fully maintained throughout the editing and
signal processing operation." www.sadie.com


There are several editing systems that do NOT convert to PCM and they
have been available for quite a while. The latest comes from Genex,
who make some very nice DSD recorders. I purchased the GX9000 earlier
this year and I'm thrilled with the DSD converters. Until you have
recorded directly to DSD and listened to the playback without any PCM
steps involved, you haven't heard a real DSD recording.

And the best way I know of to compare DSD to PCM is to use a recorder
like the Genex that has high quality DSD and PCM converters. Record
the same signal to both PCM and DSD and compare. I've done it several
times and I'm sold.

steve

www.lexington125.com