Thread: Thoughts on DVD-A and SACD formats by Chuck Ainlay

Posts: 22
Page: 1 2 3 next

Post by dvda-sacd November 22, 2005 (1 of 22)
Brothers in Arms 20th Anniversary Edition: DVD-Audio or SACD?

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/features/brothers_in_arms_02.asp

Post by Scott November 22, 2005 (2 of 22)
dvda-sacd said:

Brothers in Arms 20th Anniversary Edition: DVD-Audio or SACD?

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/features/brothers_in_arms_02.asp

Wow...interesting. PCM scores over DSD.

Post by DrOctodivx November 22, 2005 (3 of 22)
I have both and somehow I like the sound of the SACD better. The sound quality seems richer.

Post by 51surr November 23, 2005 (4 of 22)
I only have the SACD of BIA and definetly prefer the sound of Knopfler's Shrangri-La to BIA(which I barely play).
Of the DVD-A and SACD disc I have I prefer the sound of SACDs.
I don't actually have an SACD and DVDA of the same disc, probably never will, so the comment is meant in general.
If they want to call it more analog then that is fine with me and I know what I need to look for.

Post by mdt November 24, 2005 (5 of 22)
Scott said:

Wow...interesting. PCM scores over DSD.

Guess we'll never find out, what is the truth. Here's a recording engineer saying PCM 24/96 sounds closest to the source, on an other site an egineer, having made comparisions between analog, hires PCM and DSD, said he thought the switching device wasn't working when switching to DSD because no difference (to the source) could be heard.

Post by racerguy November 24, 2005 (6 of 22)
mdt said:

Guess we'll never find out, what is the truth.

In this case, I think you're right. One thing to keep in mind is that the article author/interviewer is a self-described anti-SACD crusader, who has repeatedly stated that DSD is garbage and SACD is a scam. I'm not saying there was deliberate distortion, but there was absolutely no chance of objectivity or non-bias in questions asked or reporting of answers to those questions.

Post by Scott November 24, 2005 (7 of 22)
racerguy said:

In this case, I think you're right. One thing to keep in mind is that the article author/interviewer is a self-described anti-SACD crusader, who has repeatedly stated that DSD is garbage and SACD is a scam. I'm not saying there was deliberate distortion, but there was absolutely no chance of objectivity or non-bias in questions asked or reporting of answers to those questions.

I think his most interesting comment was on the "softening" effect of DSD that he believes does not exist similarly in 24 bit PCM. I wonder if anyone could comment on whether the effect he's describing sounds like it would occur in someone who sustained mild hearing loss and doesn't realize it...

Post by racerguy November 24, 2005 (8 of 22)
Scott said:

I think his most interesting comment was on the "softening" effect of DSD that he believes does not exist similarly in 24 bit PCM. I wonder if anyone could comment on whether the effect he's describing sounds like it would occur in someone who sustained mild hearing loss and doesn't realize it...

I actually agree with him that DSD has a bit of "softening" effect, and my hearing tests out to be quite good.

I notice the softening effect of DSD the most on piano. A piano is probably the most difficult instrument to reproduce in a recording. The sound is extremely complex, and its tonal quality relies on many factors that I don't believe are yet fully understood. Certainly there are many aspects to the tone that we haven't yet figured out to measure.

I have heard VERY few digital recordings that accurately reproduce the timbre of a real piano. PCM seems to make the recorded piano have more "bite" in the attack, but that's not really what the actual instrument produces. The DSD recordings I've heard come closer, although I think they soften the attack just a bit compared to the real thing.

So - in comparing PCM to DSD, neither is entirely accurate; however I think DSD does a bit less damage than PCM.

Post by raffells November 24, 2005 (9 of 22)
Scott said:

I think his most interesting comment was on the "softening" effect of DSD that he believes does not exist similarly in 24 bit PCM. I wonder if anyone could comment on whether the effect he's describing sounds like it would occur in someone who sustained mild hearing loss and doesn't realize it...

The effect I believe is caused by the fact that the sampling rate of DSD is higher in the lower regions and lower than CD in the 5k hz and above range and above.This has been analyzed and discussed to death by numerous eggheads etc and there are many reports.I may addthat I get fed up of seeing these boring comparisons which seem to treat the subject like a sports event where someone has to be the winner...It may well be that those hearing the effects have better hearing than those who dont.There may well be other factors caused by frequencies effecting the tweeter and amplifiers abilities in these higher frequencies which has more to do with the quality of the gear.ie compononts, speed of power supplies (IMO) which in general of a crap standard.I personally think that both are excellent but PCM has a potential edge.I even have my Denon 3910 modified and switch to PCM Playback at some stages/ I wont tell you what the differnce is.Also I really cannot understand why anyone considers one persons opinion whether in or out of the industry as anything more than an opinion.Dave

Post by ramesh November 24, 2005 (10 of 22)
racerguy said:


I notice the softening effect of DSD the most on piano. A piano is probably the most difficult instrument to reproduce in a recording. The sound is extremely complex, and its tonal quality relies on many factors that I don't believe are yet fully understood. Certainly there are many aspects to the tone that we haven't yet figured out to measure.

I have heard VERY few digital recordings that accurately reproduce the timbre of a real piano. PCM seems to make the recorded piano have more "bite" in the attack, but that's not really what the actual instrument produces. The DSD recordings I've heard come closer, although I think they soften the attack just a bit compared to the real thing.

Absolutely. The first time I ever heard DSD was when Mark Levinson ( the man not the Harman ) played me a piano work recorded onto a hard drive, over his Red Rose demo system. ( I think he mistook me for some Asian tycoon rather than a scruffy nobody from downunder ). The edge of the piano attack was reduced, and he remarked that most people had become 'accustomed' to PCM sound, so they mistake sonic artefacts for the real thing.
On recordings straddling the digital divide, eg DGG's Beethoven piano sonatas played by Gilels in their last remastering as a set, it is palpable how more natural the analogue recordings are, whereas the later digital ones are overlit, though they sound more impressive in terms of brilliance on a boombox.

Martin Colloms writing in the UK HiFi news seems anti DSD. The review he gave the Krell SACD player was very harsh. It seemed he wanted the 'bite' of the leading edge of the notes emphasised, as he is the inventor of the pace-rhythm-timing catchphrase, and I presume psychoacoustically, if one overcooks the leading edge of the note, it'll sound more 'in time' and pacey. Many of the reviewers cool towards DSD seem to have a preference to 'fast' solid state electronics such as Krell or Naim, and Colloms' disparaging of the Krell SACD player may be the exception which proves the rule, as it was a departure from the Krell house sound.
( I use a Krell preamp partnered with a valve pentode power amp, which seems to mitigate the individual shortfalls of each.)

Page: 1 2 3 next

Closed