That is correct. They both have their strengths/weaknesses and you need to use them accordingly.
Kinda like working out There's no perfect exercise: only the right exercise for the right person at the right time
That is correct. They both have their strengths/weaknesses and you need to use them accordingly.
Well, it depends on one's definition of flawed. In 20 to 20 Khz, both of them "measure" perfectly. Andreas paper seems to argue for having better than 144 db dynamic range of PCM. Surely that is not a target, is it? If it is, the analog is the first one thrown off the boat .So to summarize, you prefer the sound of DSD, but the measurements show it's flawed.
I don't think it is an issue of measurement but quantifying what it is about ultransonics that is good, if anything. Maybe there is nothing there and it is all about filters. Or there is something there.So maybe we're not measuring the right thing or as Andreas suggests, there's some psychoacoustics at work.
I call a basic introduction of this type, marketing material . If it included the points I made which he is well aware of, then it would have been a proper introduction. He also makes points that are not substantiated such as the 100 Khz bit with language:Sorry but I don't see this as marketing material but a basic introduction for the average audiophile on what DSD/SACD is about.
I am debating what he has written, not who he is. That said, knowing his background, I am on guard that he is trying to defend/sell his baby. In that regard, he needs to go out of his way to look neutral. My read of the paper was the opposite in that it covered the basic talking points of DSD with a few additional tidbits like the above quote thrown around.BTW, Andreas Is probably one of the foremost experts on subject of DSD (he was also with Meitner---and Ed was a consultant to Sony) and his PD is the best digital playback system I've heard to date. Might I add Andreas has implemented some unique things in his digital gear.
That is correct. They both have their strengths/weaknesses and you need to use them accordingly.
Well, it depends on one's definition of flawed. In 20 to 20 Khz, both of them "measure" perfectly. Andreas paper seems to argue for having better than 144 db dynamic range of PCM. Surely that is not a target, is it? If it is, the analog is the first one thrown off the boat .
The argument then turns into the odd bit of what is above our normal hearing range that needs to be preserved and how. It is in that area that DSD is highly distorted relative to PCM (but then extends past it) that has flat response above our hearing range.
One method to resample to a higher rate but then filter gently since we don't need to be flat in ultrasonic frequencies. Here is an example in my quick search:How do current state of the art PCM systems handle these steep brickwalls?
Bruce,
Can we consider that for digitizing existing analogue material, that has foreseen maximum levels and dynamic range, DSD using an unit such as the Korg would be better than PCM 24/96?
That is correct. They both have their strengths/weaknesses and you need to use them accordingly.
i have always stated that the Korg MR2000s is the best 2-channel recorder under $10k. It's an amazing machine for the price of $1500.
And to get better fidelity and keep the nay-sayers quiet, record at DSD128fs.
Thanks! What do you think about the MR2000 analogue output converters quality? I was just discussing with a friend the possibility of making some DSD 128fs recordings from the analogue output of one the best CD playing systems and compare it with a medium price CD player playing the same CD.
* Are some speakers better sounding at a certain volume level for a certain room size,
and/or the Music genre, and also the recording medium (& technics), and also mic(s) used,
are part of this totality, or separate entities with unique variances?
** Is audio information in the 50 to 200 kHz frequency range important
for affecting the audio frequencies of the normal listening human range (20 Hz to 20 kHz)?
- Or let's say the 22 kHz to 122 kHz information; to stay more down where we live. :b
I’m a little confused. If you download DSD files to your computer, can you play them back through the Korg or do you have to have another D/A converter?
Yes, there are speakers that excel at certain genres of music. I love planer speakers on acoustical music. I haven't heard a dynamic speaker that can touch a planer in the mids.
The Fletcher/Munson curve shows that human hearing is more susceptible to freq. in the 250 - 5k range. If the freq. at 50 - 200Hz isn't right, it can leave the 250 - 5k range very muddy/dark. I'd say 70% of the material that comes through here has issues in the 50 - 200Hz range. Think about the trend in the past 5yr. where more engineers are cutting cost and recording/mixing in less than optimal rooms. The room issues show up in the files we get. Most of the room issues are exacerbated when engineers are sitting in nulls between 50-75Hz.... and then you get the harmonic of 100-150Hz as well..
Curious, Bruce, have you tried brick wall filtering in a DAW of a top notch digital recording which has genuine above 20kHz content, ie., not just noise; to then have the original and a version 100% stripped of "ultrasonic" frequencies content compared on the best playback setup for monitoring such -- could you hear a difference?
Frank
Sorry, Bruce, you didn't get my drift. I meant that both the original and filtered version were on exactly equivalent DSD formats and media: they are "identical" files, except that the spectrum for the filtered version will show no content above 20kHz.Helen Keller could hear a difference!
Case in point... The FIM recording of the Yamamoto Trio that I did in both DSD and DXD was ultimately released on CD. Though as good as the CD sounded, it paled in comparison to the original files. We tried all kinds of Linear phase, Minimal phase and Apodizing filters and 4-5 dither algorithms to bring the files down to 16/44.1 , but nothing was as good as the original.
Sorry, Bruce, you didn't get my drift. I meant that both the original and filtered version were on exactly equivalent DSD formats and media: they are "identical" files, except that that spectrum for the filtered version will show no content above 20kHz.
Frank
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |