Noise removal for DSD...

[Jamie Tate]

And so it begins. (http://www.purenotes.com/news2.htm) :realmad:

C'mon people, the tape hiss is supposed to be there!!

Up next, look-ahead limiters for DSD.:realmad: :realmad:

[BradOlson]

This is what we don't need.

[BradOlson]

BTW, when this no-noise technology becomes widespread in DSD mastering, if Mike Callahan were to continue reviewing recordings, these would get the "A."

[Evan]

Oh My! :eek: Isn't that one of the signs of the end of the world as foretold in the Book of Revelations?

[Steve Hoffman]

Originally posted by cbsolson
BTW, when this no-noise technology becomes widespread in DSD mastering, if Mike Callahan were to continue reviewing recordings, these would get the "A."

That's the truth! :(

[mne563]

Finally!!!

After months of troubled SACD listening, now we will be rid of that terrible hiss that gets in the way of enjoying well-mastered classic music. Now if only they would add the compression so that label A's cd's will sound louder than label B's... Gosh, this is the first step to bring SACD's up to today's truly unbelievable modern red book cd standard.

Man this stinks, but I knew it would happen.

Flash forward five years: The Hoffman forums will be littered with threads showing labels of early "un-hissed" SACDs!!

:realmad:

[Jamie Tate]

Originally posted by mne563
Flash forward five years: The Hoffman forums will be littered with threads showing labels of early "un-hissed" SACDs!!

:realmad:

I thought of that too.:p

[Steve Hoffman]

Collect the good ones while you can. Soon they will be "remastered".

[mne563]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
Collect the good ones while you can. Soon they will be "remastered".

You know, there is an analogy here with photography. While we all can appreciate what digital photography can do, there is still nothing like seeing an original Ansel Adams print in a gallery or museum. And I'm not talking about a litho or poster I'm talking an enlargement from a real photographic negative. If you've never seen the real thing, please do so at some point in your life, it is breath-taking.

Last winter I saw an exhibit of some of Richard Avedon's portraits at the Met Museum in NYC. This guy shot b&w on 8"x10" negatives. This can yield a print that is the size of a wall and the resolution is unbelievable, it's scary how much detail is there, I mean every pore of the skin is visible if he wants it to be.

I always want to be able to see this stuff. I don't want the resolution reduced so it can be reproduced on a small poster or on the Internet. It simply is not the same thing anymore. And I don't want the "grain" (same as "hiss"??) reduced so that the picture is nicer to look at.

To me it just looks different. And in a way, it IS killing art. It sucks.

[Jason Brown]

Merging isn't going to like the e-mail I just sent...

[Mark H]

Depressing news to be sure. One step forward and two steps back! The audio mambo continues. "heavy sigh"

[Doug Hess Jr.]

What I always like is when these folks say it is "artifact free"... If EQ, Compression, etc. isn't artifact free-- how do they think they can make something digital that is artifact free?

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody was there, but you digitally removed the sound-- it would have artifacts...

[Jamie Tate]

Originally posted by Jason Brown
Merging isn't going to like the e-mail I just sent...

I did the same thing.:)

[John Carsell]

My god, more toys for Peter Mew and Jon Astley.

Totally unnnecessary and unwelcome!

[jkerr]

Damn. Knew this would happen.

But then again, there's nothing to prevent anyone from processing while in PCM and then converting to DSD. Which might be worse, I don't know.

[Grant]

Look at it this way: this ensures product for an audiophile market, and job security for Steve to remaster SACD's.

[Gary]

I feel sick to my stomach.........

[John B]

Yikes! They even boast about an "artefact-free operation" setting. :(

[Ian]

No no no no no no no no no no no no NO!!!!! :realmad: :realmad: :realmad:

[Pinknik]

Aren't there any Devil's Advocates anymore? Okay, here I go. Hey, maybe this one will sound great. Transparent, won't close up the top end, magically removes noise and leaves music intact. Sure, maybe it will suck, but nobody here has heard the thing. DSD Brickwall Limiting to the highest possible dB level will suck because brickwall limiting to the highest possible dB sucks, regardless of format or domain. Just a thought. Or two.

[mudbone]

Now if we can just get narrow multi-channel mixes I'll be really happy.

mud-

[BradOlson]

Narrow multi-channel mixes will definitely happen. It shows that one person's "super" is another person's crap.

[Jamie Tate]

I emailed the makers and got a response from them today:

I understand the reluctance of some audiophile listeners to entertain any
kind of improvement to the "original" recording.
This is a matter of personal taste and certainly plenty of "authentic"
recordings are available as you know.

I personally prefer my recordings noise-free so long as the original music
is unaffected. This is because I do not believe that the original artist
intended the tape hiss etc to be part of the performance. Some recordings
we have processed have signal to noise ratios of 30dB or so which severely
detracts from the enjoyment of the performance.

Unfortunately many supposedly high-quality noise removal algorithms effect
the ambiance and timber of the recording also. This has resulted in an
expectation of poor sounding recordings within some sectors.

As you know even unprocessed remasters on CD have a different feel to the
tape hiss and background noise than that of the original master tape (if
listened to directly). This being partly the effects of limited sampling at
44.1 and certain signal processing aspects.

Any kind of remastering will involve many decisions by the remastering
engineers, and each time (CD, DVD-A, DCC etc) certain choices of mix are
made. What we are offering is a powerful tool for the remastering engineer
to use (or not) as each case may merit.

If you reviewed our technology you will discover that we offer completely
adjustable background noise level, so it is up to the remastering engineer
to decide what sounds good. When used well, there will be no processing
artefacts, nor any quality loss - just a higher signal to noise ratio.
Regarding our technology for DSD we believe that this is the best sounding
NR technology currently available. We have had successful trials at many
studios and well known recording engineers have been amazed at the high
quality of the processing.

I hope that once a PureNotes DSD recording is available you have a chance to
listen for yourself, you will be convinced of its merits.

Best regards
Manelli

[Gary]

Good gobbly-gook answer.

I can hear it now at Mega-Corp Records:

SMITHERS!!

Cut the tape hiss outta that completely! What kind of mastering engineer are you!?! No more hiss, do ya hear me - or you're back to the mail room. :realmad:

[mne563]

Originally posted by yesman
I emailed the makers and got a response from them today:

I personally prefer my recordings noise-free so long as the original music
is unaffected. This is because I do not believe that the original artist
intended the tape hiss etc to be part of the performance.
Manelli

You know, I do not believe that the original artist intended:

"the tape hiss etc to be part of the performance" (Manelli)

"to have the movie in black and white" (Ted Turner)

"the performance to not have reverb" (Dave Dexter, Jr.!)

"the performance to be in mono" (fill in this blank!)

"to have the original mistakes in the live concert performance" (The Who, and whoever "fixed" Live at Leeds)

"to have his original production preserved" (Yoko Ono)

"to have their movie sound like anything other than crap" (producers of the A Hard Days' Night dvd)

"to have something resembling a dynamic range" (almost any present day mastering engineer)


You know the thing that bugs me about these people and this type of attitude is that there is no shame at all about this. Nobody says, "Hey, this is a different interpretation, it's our opinion, and it should co-exist with the sound of the original recording so that the consumer can decide what they would like to hear."

Instead, this stuff is substituted for the original version of master, and the original sound recording ends up on boots or cd-r's. And then the collector is blamed. Bulls**t.