The Elliot Scheiner Thread
- Thread starter tlake6659
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Almen
500 Club - QQ All-Star
Yeah, I was kind of counting the DSD conversion as part of the SACD format. I guess you start out with the complete mix in 24/96 PCM, which, incidentically is the master for the DVD-A. This needs to be converted to DSD for SACD, but since nothing is (or should be) changed in the mix, if DSD is transparent, then this should be the same as the DVD-A.
This seller has sold a few SACDs of this title in the last month or so, very reliable and the lowest price I could find. They also have it in DVD-Audio as of now. If this link shows it being sold, check this seller's store to see if another one is up for sale:
STEELY DAN**GAUCHO (RM)**SACD $14.95
http://cgi.ebay.com/STEELY-DAN-GAUCHO-RM-SACD_W0QQitemZ300380866638QQcmdZViewItemQQptZMusic_CDs?
hash=item45f018484e#ht_1958wt_909
STEELY DAN SACD eBay search:
http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=ST...Other_Formats&_dmd=1&_odkw=Dan+SACD&_osacat=0
STEELY DAN DVD-AUDIO eBay search:
http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=ST...c_Audio_DVDs&_dmd=1&_odkw=DVD-AUDIO&_osacat=0
neil wilkes
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Not Elliot's mix, it isn't.
The SACD release version has the surround mix by Mick Guzauski, and it is bloody awful.
neil wilkes
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
DSD is far from transparent when applied to SACD.
Check this out.....
You will immediately notice the massive amounts of Ultrasonic garbage & noise on the SACD plot, against the correct plot on the DTS9624 one.
Zoom in to look at the actual analysis, and you'll see that the dynamic range of the DTS is also far superior to the SACD.
This is because DSD was developed not as a consumer format but as an archival one. It's 1-bit nature makes it unlistenable without massive noise shaping.
Transparent?
not even close to it.
Neil,
I appreciate your input on QQ. I, along with plenty of other consumers, find it interesting that there's no consensus amongst Sound Engineers on what is the best recording medium today with regard to PCM versus DSD. Below, is a piece by a Sound Engineer taken from the TAS Forum. This was discussion relating to a meeting that was conducted 12 years ago but he talks about the current recording mediums of today. The original Thread can be found here: http://www.avguide.com/forums/sacd-versus-blu-ray-hd-audio?src=Playback
Michael Bishop (not verified) -- Thu, 08/27/2009 - 18:49
I was one of the engineers on the above mentioned AES panel discussion. It's not likely one will ever get two engineers to completely agree how ANY program would be recorded, stereo or surround. That's just part of the creative process that is recording engineering/mixing.
Because I much prefer to record all of my sessions in DSD, I don't really see BD as a suitable successor to SACD. I would have to convert the DSD recording sources to PCM to be useful on BD. As far as I'm concerned, that would be a step back in quality from my master sources. I don't want to start another endless no-win DSD vs. PCM debate, but I have good reasons to keep using DSD as a recording master source that have nothing to do with the consumer release medium. For me, the SACD is the perfect home playback source (as reproduced on a good player!) because it represents closest what I recorded in-session.
It's very unfortunate that the Blu-Ray working group could never agree to allow DSD as an included audio program. IMO, that was very short-sighted planning for a format that has so many possibilities.
Personally, I''ll take either format to achieve high resolution sound because either one sounds good to my ears.
I appreciate your input on QQ. I, along with plenty of other consumers, find it interesting that there's no consensus amongst Sound Engineers on what is the best recording medium today with regard to PCM versus DSD. Below, is a piece by a Sound Engineer taken from the TAS Forum. This was discussion relating to a meeting that was conducted 12 years ago but he talks about the current recording mediums of today. The original Thread can be found here: http://www.avguide.com/forums/sacd-versus-blu-ray-hd-audio?src=Playback
Michael Bishop (not verified) -- Thu, 08/27/2009 - 18:49
I was one of the engineers on the above mentioned AES panel discussion. It's not likely one will ever get two engineers to completely agree how ANY program would be recorded, stereo or surround. That's just part of the creative process that is recording engineering/mixing.
Because I much prefer to record all of my sessions in DSD, I don't really see BD as a suitable successor to SACD. I would have to convert the DSD recording sources to PCM to be useful on BD. As far as I'm concerned, that would be a step back in quality from my master sources. I don't want to start another endless no-win DSD vs. PCM debate, but I have good reasons to keep using DSD as a recording master source that have nothing to do with the consumer release medium. For me, the SACD is the perfect home playback source (as reproduced on a good player!) because it represents closest what I recorded in-session.
It's very unfortunate that the Blu-Ray working group could never agree to allow DSD as an included audio program. IMO, that was very short-sighted planning for a format that has so many possibilities.
Personally, I''ll take either format to achieve high resolution sound because either one sounds good to my ears.
Thanks Neil for the graphic and info. I used to think SACD the better format because it could reproduce kHz above 96 kHz, but that "Ultrasonic garbage" is noticeable on some level. I do love my SACDs and own a couple hundred of them. But a great A/B between SACD and DVD-Audio is the "Diana Krall" SACD / DVD-A titles. The DVD-Audio's sound much better IMHO.
I'm curious.. What more does the recording engineer in the last post think they're going to get with DSD recording that one wouldn't get with PCM recording? Does recording in the DSD format introduce this "noise" while recording or does that happen later down the chain or during playback?
I'm curious.. What more does the recording engineer in the last post think they're going to get with DSD recording that one wouldn't get with PCM recording? Does recording in the DSD format introduce this "noise" while recording or does that happen later down the chain or during playback?
Sorry, I meant to add this Post too (about Michael Bishop) for those of you that don't have time to read the TAS Thread.
Repdetect (not verified) -- Thu, 08/27/2009 - 20:24
BTW- if you aren't familiar with Michael Bishops acknowledgments-
Michael Joseph Bishop, Recording Engineer and Producer. (b. 1951) Recipient of eight Grammy Awards (2008, 2007, 2006, 2004, 2002 and 1997) for Best-Engineered Classical Recording and Best Surround Album. He also received the award for Best Surround Mix – Orchestral, 2004 Surround Music Awards. Recording engineer at Cleveland Recording Company, 1972 – 1977 and at Suma Recording Studio, 1977 – 1988. Recording Engineer at Telarc International Corporation, 1988 – 2009, as Chief Recording Engineer 2004–2009. Co-Founder, engineer and producer at Five/Four Productions, Ltd in 2009, an independent audio production company.
Repdetect (not verified) -- Thu, 08/27/2009 - 20:24
BTW- if you aren't familiar with Michael Bishops acknowledgments-
Michael Joseph Bishop, Recording Engineer and Producer. (b. 1951) Recipient of eight Grammy Awards (2008, 2007, 2006, 2004, 2002 and 1997) for Best-Engineered Classical Recording and Best Surround Album. He also received the award for Best Surround Mix – Orchestral, 2004 Surround Music Awards. Recording engineer at Cleveland Recording Company, 1972 – 1977 and at Suma Recording Studio, 1977 – 1988. Recording Engineer at Telarc International Corporation, 1988 – 2009, as Chief Recording Engineer 2004–2009. Co-Founder, engineer and producer at Five/Four Productions, Ltd in 2009, an independent audio production company.
neil wilkes
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
DSD has it's fans, no doubt about it. And it can sound great - but usually from old U-Matic 16/44.1 archival material.
And as a strictly archival form, it has it's place.
That noise happens when the noise shaping is applied to the pure DSD stream to make it listenable on SACD.
If you drop me a PM, I have an article by John Watkinson (resident tech head & audio guru at Resolution Magazine (trade) and author of "The Art of Digital Audio"
as a PDF file. He is not a fan.
Very revealing.
And as a strictly archival form, it has it's place.
That noise happens when the noise shaping is applied to the pure DSD stream to make it listenable on SACD.
If you drop me a PM, I have an article by John Watkinson (resident tech head & audio guru at Resolution Magazine (trade) and author of "The Art of Digital Audio"
as a PDF file. He is not a fan.
Very revealing.
that's very serious argument. everybody, who's do work with sound, should imediately abandon PCM format and switch to DSD, because some guy, named Michael Bishop said so.
here is lil'bit statistic:
there about 4500± SACD titles were issued.
791 of them used DSD->DSD technology
nearly 4000 remaining titles were done by the way PCM->DSD
some of DSD to DSD was issued by Telarc but mainly by Sony as a marketing move to promote DSD technology. finaly Sony is a winner in the war BD vs. HD and might satisfy own greed for easy royalty profit and can abandon DSD but damage to all of us, who wanna music in best possible quality, Sony already did.
obviously higher frequency wouldn't hurt but actually quality/liveliness of the digital sound not so much depend on the hight's of captured frequencies but more on the bit depth which make the dynamic range of the sound. theoreticaly 24bit PCM consist up to 144dB of dinamic range.
for comparison the CD has 96dB and vynil record made with the best quality recording, material and pressing, only 60dB
Kazaam
701 Club - QQ All-Star
Personally, I'm not overly concerned about DSD vs PCM. Though, I am OK with Blu-Ray's decision to go the PCM-based audio route seeing as how my speaker setup utilizes bass management.
That said...
The only Diana Krall album that I have on both formats is "The Girl In The Other Room", but at least with that title I believe the SACD sounds noticeably better than the DualDisc w/DVD-Audio version. But in defense of DVD-Audio, I don't see this as evidence that SACD is the better-sounding format overall. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if there weren't a few DVD-Audios in my collection that would better their SACD counterparts, for whatever reason.
MyCuff
600 Club - QQ All-Star
I think the SACD version of Yellow Brick Road sounds better than the DVD-Audio.
You are not alone.
daved64
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Does the DVD-A have that high end that feels like you're chewing foil like the SACD does?
On a Pioneer 563 the DVD-A felt like chewing foil to me, not so much with the SACD. & yes I use a heavy treble trim to enjoy this in surround sound.
alk3997
500 Club - QQ All-Star
A good way to show this to anyone curious is to take your favorite, best-sounding SACD and use the analog outputs of the SACD player and patch to a computer audio input card. Record about 30 seconds at 24-bit, 96-kHz. The audio card must be able to handle 96kHz sampling. Take the output file and look at it with a standard wave editor that has a spectrum analyzer function. Even a simple bar graph spectrum analyzer will work as long as it goes above 30kHz.
Look at the frequency output at around or above 30kHz and you'll see what looks to be just noise. It will have no relation to the music.
On one hand, I look at that and say, "well I can't hear that, so that's OK." On the other hand I say, "Hey, my tweeters can reproduce that frequency - I wonder how much energy my speakers are generating that is just random fairly-loud noise?" It is fascinating to see on a graph, as you showed, just how much noise is actually being output.
Overall, however, I've decided to enjoy the available multichannel music in whatever format it comes out in. I'd still enjoy it even if it were a 78 RPM 5.1-channel record - hopefully they would use a laser stylus for that!
Big smile here.
