SACD News
- Thread starter proufo
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Here is a link to a very authoritative sounding comparison between DVD-A and SACD. It is as long as a freakin' book but I read most of it. It's a pretty good read, actually. I'm not sure of it's merit, but it takes more than a few swipes at the hornet's nest:
www.iar-80.com/page38.html
Skip to the last paragraph if you just want to find out what the hell kind of point the guy is trying to make with all his rambling:
www.iar-80.com/page43.html
I have to say that it is heartening to learn that the observations and conclusions drawn from these experiments mirror my own juvenile attempts at comparing the two formats, although I could never hope to articulate it as well as the gentleman who wrote the article did. I simply enjoy the sound of DVD-A over SACD.
www.iar-80.com/page38.html
Skip to the last paragraph if you just want to find out what the hell kind of point the guy is trying to make with all his rambling:
www.iar-80.com/page43.html
I have to say that it is heartening to learn that the observations and conclusions drawn from these experiments mirror my own juvenile attempts at comparing the two formats, although I could never hope to articulate it as well as the gentleman who wrote the article did. I simply enjoy the sound of DVD-A over SACD.
You might want to take a look at the article on DSD vs PCM at www.merging.com/2002/html/pyradsd.htm The graphs say it all I think.
Another good one to check is the interview with Ed Meitner of EMM Labs re: DSD, SACD and PCM at www.positive-feedback.com...v.8n2.html
Personally, I prefer listening to the formats through an analog bypass. When you do on my system, SACD and DSD are the clear winners by a lot shot!
Another good one to check is the interview with Ed Meitner of EMM Labs re: DSD, SACD and PCM at www.positive-feedback.com...v.8n2.html
Personally, I prefer listening to the formats through an analog bypass. When you do on my system, SACD and DSD are the clear winners by a lot shot!
That's all well and good, but neither of those articles address the topic sufficiently from a listener's perspective. You can throw around the technical jargon and what that might mean until you're blue in the face, but what really matters (to me, anyway) is which format sounds closest to the source. That is why I liked the comparison offered by www.iar-80.com over anything else I've read thus far. Different arguments might work better for other folks, but this one just happened to strike a chord with me.
I listen to both DVD-A and SACD in "analog bypass" mode as well (straight through analog with only analog volume control between the source and amplification). For me, DVD-A is the winner (although I wouldn't say "clear winner"). Both formats are exceptional, but something about SACD has always bothered me a little bit, but I could never put my finger on it. The article I mention presents arguments in such a way that it jives with my own subjective notions about which format I prefer. We all seek justification at some level and this just happened to work for me.
The argument has been made elsewhere that folks have a preference to PCM versus DSD simply because they are so used to PCM (via standard CD's) that DSD sounds different enough that they feel something is wrong. Well, this is certainly not the case with myself. I listen almost solely to analog recordings and I have drawn the conclusion that DVD-A sounds closer to analog than SACD. If there is a coloration (and I'm certain there is a fair amount with either format) then I believe that SACD's coloration is of a more heavy-handed nature than DVD-A. The article to which I refer supports this notion in a big way. However, some folks may actually prefer the "more colored" version. The real question is, which is closer to the source?
As for the graph you refer to from PYRAMIX DSD/SACD Production, I don't think it "says it all" by any stretch of the imagination. All you see is a collection of very small waveforms offered by a company with a vested interest in DSD. There are so many questions to ask about such a presentation that I don't know where to begin.
Anyway, I see myself heading down the path towards a rant, and I really don't want to go there. Also, I'll be the first to admit that I'm virtually clueless about the technologies and all the psycho-acoustic variables at play. All I know is what MY ears tell me. Yours may tell you a different story, and that's fine. I'm not out trying to convert anyone, but simply share my own experience and bring to light an article which I found mighty compelling on a variety of levels.
I listen to both DVD-A and SACD in "analog bypass" mode as well (straight through analog with only analog volume control between the source and amplification). For me, DVD-A is the winner (although I wouldn't say "clear winner"). Both formats are exceptional, but something about SACD has always bothered me a little bit, but I could never put my finger on it. The article I mention presents arguments in such a way that it jives with my own subjective notions about which format I prefer. We all seek justification at some level and this just happened to work for me.
The argument has been made elsewhere that folks have a preference to PCM versus DSD simply because they are so used to PCM (via standard CD's) that DSD sounds different enough that they feel something is wrong. Well, this is certainly not the case with myself. I listen almost solely to analog recordings and I have drawn the conclusion that DVD-A sounds closer to analog than SACD. If there is a coloration (and I'm certain there is a fair amount with either format) then I believe that SACD's coloration is of a more heavy-handed nature than DVD-A. The article to which I refer supports this notion in a big way. However, some folks may actually prefer the "more colored" version. The real question is, which is closer to the source?
As for the graph you refer to from PYRAMIX DSD/SACD Production, I don't think it "says it all" by any stretch of the imagination. All you see is a collection of very small waveforms offered by a company with a vested interest in DSD. There are so many questions to ask about such a presentation that I don't know where to begin.
Anyway, I see myself heading down the path towards a rant, and I really don't want to go there. Also, I'll be the first to admit that I'm virtually clueless about the technologies and all the psycho-acoustic variables at play. All I know is what MY ears tell me. Yours may tell you a different story, and that's fine. I'm not out trying to convert anyone, but simply share my own experience and bring to light an article which I found mighty compelling on a variety of levels.
It's nice to know that the format I have sunk the most money in is the winner in what appears to be a somewhat scientific evaluation. Of course, it would have been better if the one doing the judging didn't know which one he was picking, except by the sound. It would also have been a good idea for the musician who had done the recording to play the performance again with the same miking and conditions. Such a comparison has validity, because even when you switch between two synchronized sources, you are not comparing the same notes. you are actually comparing the previous notes to the next ones. The instrument will have the same sonic characteristics the second time it's played. Still, any thing judged by ear in a close race will be subjective, since everyone's ears are slightly different from each other's. It would have been better to have the live source instead of relying on remembering how an instrument actually sounds.
The Quadfather
The Quadfather
It all comes down to your ears!
There will always be debate about pressings and versions and formats, geez, you should read some of the posts over at the Steve Hoffman site. They rank on the MFSL versions, then talk about how there may be 5 versions of a commercial CD title, and the sound will vary FROM physical DISC TO DISC of the same pressing!!
GOOD GRIEF! GMAFB!
If it sounds good, it's good!!!!
:-jon
There will always be debate about pressings and versions and formats, geez, you should read some of the posts over at the Steve Hoffman site. They rank on the MFSL versions, then talk about how there may be 5 versions of a commercial CD title, and the sound will vary FROM physical DISC TO DISC of the same pressing!!
GOOD GRIEF! GMAFB!
If it sounds good, it's good!!!!
:-jon
Yeah, I reckon I agree with that. That's why when I buy a player, it will support both formats, unless, of course, one of them goes away.
The Quadfather
The Quadfather
Similar threads
