Simple SACD question!

[Woochifer]

Anyone can make recordings using a variety of modern low cost high quality recording devices available for the PC. A 24/96 khz A/D D/A breakout box of high quality can be had for just a few hundred dollars. Investiment of 100 in a high quality Rolls blanced line preamp, and you can rent a high quality microphone if you such a rental store is in your area. You can purchase or make a high quality microphone. I don't know how a consumer could make DSD recordings.

And I presume that you've actually done all this before? "A few hundred dollars" will buy me a decent universal player, and given a choice between that and a PC sound card, I'd rather go with something that will actually add to my norma listening enjoyment. If you can't make a DSD recording, then you have no basis for evaluating the actual format, because all other methods require a conversion from PCM or analog and therefore introduce other causal variables into the recording/playback chain.

My point is that no truly comparable comparison discs are available to consumers, so any comparisons based on the what's most readily available to consumers will have any number of known and unknown variables associated with it.

Actually, since this entire debate revolves around the transparency of RBCD...I and I bet most other people that are skeptical would accept much more practical test.

-Use the anologe output of the DSD or DVD/A, etc. and feed to a high quality professional 44.1khz PCM A-D-A. Compare the straight DSD converted signal to the A-D-Aed signal. If a difference is audible on a confirmed properly operating ADA with confirmed measurements, a valid scrutinized test methodology and tested amps/speakers that do not induce specific distortion themselves with the different bandwidths; then I(and i bet most others) would accept this as a valid test. If the properly operating/functioning A-D-A imposes a degradation in audibility, then the RBCD process may be inadequate -- at least that is the way I would see it.

-Chris

Again, you're not eliminating the signal conversion of the original source. If you want to isolate format/bandwidth as the causal variables, then you have to make sure that both sources are optimal.

And if you're talking about a "practical" test, I hardly regard the need to acquire a "high quality professional 44.1 PCM A/D/A" converter as practical.

[WmAx]

And I presume that you've actually done all this before? "A few hundred dollars" will buy me a decent universal player, and given a choice between that and a PC sound card, I'd rather go with something that will actually add to my norma listening enjoyment.

That's a given. But you are the one that claimed only a professional sound engineer had to access to any suitable equipment. That may be laregely true for DSD, but not hi res PCM.

If you can't make a DSD recording, then you have no basis for evaluating the actual format, because all other methods require a conversion from PCM or analog and therefore introduce other causal variables into the recording/playback chain.

I will address this in the proceding quote/response....

Again, you're not eliminating the signal conversion of the original source. If you want to isolate format/bandwidth as the causal variables, then you have to make sure that both sources are optimal.

It seems you missed the point. Digital sampling theory and known perceptual limits associated with the capabilities, confined to 44.1khz sample rate PCM, suggest that a properly operating A-D-A chain will take any signal that is audible, convert to digital, back to analog with no perceptible difference. If the ADA creates a percievable(in a proper blind test, protocol, scrutinized) difference then the ADA chain is not optimal. You have to convert the DSD to analogue to HEAR it. Take this analogue stream and feed it to the ADA......

Since the DSD is supposed to be so good according to many, then surely the ADA will make an audible difference, eh? This would prove that 44.1 is not optimal for playback, if adible degradation occurs in the process. If no audible degradation occurs, then why? The answer is obvious.

-Chris

[BillB]

Woochifer noted what is probably most important when comparing the DSOTM SACD/CD package with other DSOTM issues...it used different master tapes than ever before which could explain some of the difference you're hearing.

As far as true comparisons for SACD vs. CD, PCM vs. DSD, had anyone checked out the new Musical Fidelity Hybrid SACD produced by John Atkinson, K622??

It's a first of it's kind in that on the SACD layer tracks 1-3 are pure DSD and tracks 4-6 are the same tracks recorded with analog equipment and converted to DSD (similar to many of the SACD reissues).

On the CD layer, tracks 1-3 are recorded with DSD and downsampled to PCM. Tracks 4-6 are recorded with analog equipment again and converted to PCM.

They've even released it on 180g vinyl. More info can be found at the Stereophile website. If only they'd done a DVD-A version...

Bill

[Woochifer]

That's a given. But you are the one that claimed only a professional sound engineer had to access to any suitable equipment. That may be laregely true for DSD, but not hi res PCM.

And you're the one who claims that it's easy to do these kinds of comparisons, yet you're expecting a hobbyist to acquire professional level equipment. I assume that you've tried this for yourself? And the inquiry had to do with SACD, and the only way to properly compare that with high res PCM and downconverted PCM is to use original master sources that have been simultaneously encoded into both DSD and PCM. To my knowledge, no such sources are available to end users.

It seems you missed the point. Digital sampling theory and known perceptual limits associated with the capabilities, confined to 44.1khz sample rate PCM, suggest that a properly operating A-D-A chain will take any signal that is audible, convert to digital, back to analog with no perceptible difference. If the ADA creates a percievable(in a proper blind test, protocol, scrutinized) difference then the ADA chain is not optimal. You have to convert the DSD to analogue to HEAR it. Take this analogue stream and feed it to the ADA......

Since the DSD is supposed to be so good according to many, then surely the ADA will make an audible difference, eh? This would prove that 44.1 is not optimal for playback, if adible degradation occurs in the process. If no audible degradation occurs, then why? The answer is obvious.

-Chris

Your statements are theoretical, and since you're so into proposing practical approaches for testing the theory, I'm simply noting that your approach still leaves variables unaccounted for. If you use a DSD master source and convert it to 44.1/16, then you're introducing a new variable into the chain. If you use a PCM or analog source, how are you going to get it into the SACD format if the tools aren't available to consumers?

[WmAx]

And you're the one who claims that it's easy to do these kinds of comparisons, yet you're expecting a hobbyist to acquire professional level equipment. I assume that you've tried this for yourself?

I did not claim it was easy to do the actual tests(a proper perceptual test that will survive peer review is anything but easy). I was pointing out that some of the equipment(hi res pcm in this case) is not nescarrily an out of reach item. I am not a recording engineer, yet I have such equipment that could be used to do hi-res PCM recordings accurately --- my use though is for acoustics analysis/measurement in relation to loudspeaker design---not recording music.

And the inquiry had to do with SACD,

This is true -- I lost track of the specific scope of the original poster.

Your statements are theoretical, and since you're so into proposing practical approaches for testing the theory, I'm simply noting that your approach still leaves variables unaccounted for. If you use a DSD master source and convert it to 44.1/16, then you're introducing a new variable into the chain. If you use a PCM or analog source, how are you going to get it into the SACD format if the tools aren't available to consumers?

The issue is if 44.1 can retain the audibly relevant information that SACD can retain. THis does not entail converiting PCM to SACD, since SACD is the one that is being claimed as superior(not by you, but a general claim that is common and the premise of this conversation form my perspective). If a PCM 44.1 A-D-A process does not produce audibly decreased audio quality confirmable with controlled testing, then the SACD format is not audibly better. How SACD be audibly superior if a 44.1khz ADA process does not cause audible degradation?

-Chris