SACD fundamentally flawed?

Yeah, from everything I've read or heard it seems that he's considered one of the very best, if not the best, at designing convertors. That interview sure seems to have him poking a lot of holes into the "PCM is better" theory.

Didn't he build the convertors for MoFi when they came out with the GAIN process?

 

Thanks for posting that link! I'd love to know Bruno's response to Meitner's piece.

 

When I first followed the link, I thought it was an older article as I was under the impression that the current crop of ADC chips are multi-bit.

 

I don't know, Gardo, should we really waste Bruno's time with all that PCM-bashing nonsense?

Besides, I now feel that PCM-induced-headache coming on again............*damn* that DCC Joni Mitchell Blue CD!

_________
Thom

 

"Didn't he build the convertors for MoFi when they came out with the GAIN process?"

Good question but I honestly don't know.

 

That's the old interview from PF, a couple of years ago. I have that issue. Bruno's comments are much more current.

 

I thought as much. Current parts are multi-bit.

 

Hi all,
I now have an SACD player, and enjoy it very much. From what I've heard, I slightly prefer the sound of SACD over DVD-A, but they are both fine.

But: I believe DVD-A has a serious flaw in virtually requiring the use of a video monitor to select the correct "group" - TV watching and music listening are two very different things for me (except for concert videos, etc)

And I also believe SACD has a very serious flaw - and that is the lack of computer-burning capabilities and home recording and editing. If we're ever to improve the quality of music on the market, we have to wrest control of music production away from the big labels and put it more in the hands of artists and smaller enterprises. (This doesn't apply to labels smart enough to hire Steve, though). Will a home studio ever be able to record, mix, and master an SACD disc? If not, I'm afraid SACD just tightens the corporate grip on music production and manufacturing.

The ability to record and master DVD-A on a home computer is here. As much as I love the sound of SACD, I worry about it's lack of suitability for the person who wants to make his or her own music, not just listen.

 

I guess my experience with SACD is a little different that yours ZenArcher. With my set-up, all DSD information is converted into analog in my Sony SACD player via devoted DSD to analog converters, making the audio information very much recordable into any digital format that you choose. You can not access a pure digital output from an SACD player via fiber optic or coax, but you can access a pure digital signal via firewire. But who really cares, the DSD to analog to PCM is so clean and pure, you will never notice the second conversion of information from one domain to another. Give this a try, you will be happy.

 

Hi Rocky,
Thanks for your response - I enjoy your insights on things.

I think I wasn't very good at expressing myself. I'm talking about people who want to *record* and master music at home. Can a home-based musician or band with limited resources set up mikes, record on hard drive, and burn an SACD master?

That's what I'm getting at - not copying music, creating it! I'd like our next format to make it easier for independent musicians to record and release material on a hi-rez format.

Thanks again,
Bob aka ZenArcher

 

ZenArcher,
I am sorry, I misundersttod your question. Please go to the archives on this forum in the Hardware section, there is a very recent thread regarding DSD recording software. It is available, but it is a bit pricey. I am glad that you did not take offense by my first answer, but now that we re on the same page I can see where you are coming from.

 

Hmm ... Meitner's comments didn't strike me as nonsense, particularly what he had to say about reasons why DSD might be audibly superior (human ear's response to velocity changes) and his thoughts on the extent to which the noise-shaping in DSD does or does not preclude the kind of production environment Bruno talks about.

Obviously Meitner has his opinion about DSD and is down on PCM. It's fair to say that Bruno has his opinion too, and is not enthusiastic about DSD except as a delivery medium. But both men have intriguing technical arguments beyond the scope of what most of us on the Forum can provide, and those technical arguments don't seem nonsensical to me on either side.

 

I agree Gardo. Meitner's comments on zero crossing distortion have been discussed by engineers at the AES and in the audiophile press. And no one has said his DSD converters are less than superb.

There are technical problems with both formats but done well I find both to sound superb. I think the DSD mic feed is just a bit better than DVDA, but that's my personal opinion. PCM just sounds a bit bright to me when I work on 24/96 projects.

What really matters is the music. As long as Steve Hoffman, Jared Sacks (Channel), Shawn Britton (MoFi) and Barry Wolifson (Chesky) and many others keep turning out good albums, I am one happy camper!

 

And what was the conclusion from these discussions?

________
Thom

 

Well here goes another anti-high resolution remark in the press. According to an article in the new Sound & Vision magazine (I know it's a cheap rag, but I read it anyway) there has been a study conducted by researchers at NHK, which is suppose to be "the Japanese equivalent to the BBC", which purports that redbook CD is just as good as SACD or DVD-A. The article is called MULTICHANNEL REVISIONISM and is written by David Ranada. This article states that the 2 additional octaves that are available on high resolution discs are basically in-audible, and "they could niether conform nor deny the possibility that some subjects could discrimanate between musical sounds with or without very high frequncy components." This test was suppose to have been conducted using a very high quality playback system that consisted of some B&W's Nautilus 801s.


Oh well, we'll see where this whole thing heads now.

 

Cheap rag aside, David Ranada is an excellent journalist.

________
Thom

 

And these lower octaves would be encompassed by what bandwidth?

________
Thom

 

Let us assume that it is the analog to digital conversion process that has caused undesirable results some people have complained about for years. The approach taken with DSD eliminates many of those problems. The improved converters used today in the best DVD-A projects also is said to eliminate many of those problems.

Then we have the "better resolution in the lower octaves" theory stated by our own Steve Hoffman. This also may play a roll in better sound. It is still too early to sort this out. But the multi-channel option with both formats is a clear step beyond the current CD.

Richard.

 

Logically, I think with the higher sampling rates resolution would inherently increase in the audible range.

 

So how is resolution increased without an increase in frequency extension? It seems to me resolution is just another way of saying the amount of information in the recorded signal, and the only way to increase the information in the signal is to increase the bandwidth.

I don't have a position on this, just a desire to learn!
Thanks,
Bob

 

No, that is not correct. Assuming perfect conversion, an 18kHz signal is captured 100% whether it is sampled at 44.1, 96 or 192 since it is within Nyquist.

_________
Thom

 

It is possible that the Sigma Delta approach more accurately captures the "analog" integrity of the audio information. It is possible that high rez PCM has improved digital to analog converters that more accurately reproduce the audio information. If resolution is the same as accuracy than Steve and I are on the same page.

Richard.

 

Steve,
Are you able to tell us ANYTHING about those projects?

Please??

Pretty please???

Pretty please with a cherry on top?????