Re: [ARSCLIST] Longevity

[Don Cox <doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 04/07/06, Tom Fine wrote:
> That's open to debate. Many people say all that needs to be captured
> is captured in the "low-resolution" CD format (which is actually very
> HIGH resolution compared the quickly-becoming-standard formats of
> iTunes/MP3). I think it's very debatable whether the majority of
> people could hear a difference in the same 2-channel mix in both
> formats in a true ABX test. I've never read of such a test, just a
> bunch of subjectivity on the topic.

It isn't a small or subtle difference. 

> 
> Also, Goran brought up an important point. Some or perhaps many SACD
> players do not output "pure" DSD digital but rather convert to PCM and
> then D-A. 

Maybe so long as the PCM is 24/96 or 24/192, that preserves the
advantages? I don't know.


> And, worse, many SACD's are made by converting a PCM file
> into DSD after all the workstation work is done. The reason being
> that, for instance in remixing a 24-track tape, the engineer is more
> likely to want to work in the Protools format he's used to. I think
> but do not know for a fact that companies like SADIE and Pyramix now
> make many-channel all-DSD workstations but I believe they are
> expensive and few studios will go that route for a sinking format. I
> think but do not know for a fact that most new (ie not reissue/remix)
> SACD's are made all-DSD from the start.

We don't know (or at least I don't) whether mastering in 24/192 PCM and
finally converting to DSD gives audibly lower quality than working in
DSD throughout. Of course Sony will say that it does, and it does seem
logical to avoid any kind of resampling when you can.



 
> Bottom line, if one wanted to shed some science light on this rather
> than the myriad opinions floating around the internet and this mailing
> list, set up a true ABX test with equally good playback equipment for
> each format using the same 2-channel source mastered directly to both
> formats. I am not sure the great majority of ears could tell any
> difference if the CD were done with as much care as the SACD and the
> CD playback equipment was equal to the quality of the SACD playback
> equipment. When you get to thinking about it, it's not the easiest
> test to set up, which is likely why no one's done it, beyond the fact
> that the emperor may well have no clothes.

My experience has been in comparing expensive CD player to
consumer-grade SACD player.

Comparing the two layers of the SACDs, there is no question about it.

As to what it is that makes such a difference, that is less certain. The
obvious candidates are the lower distortion at low levels, and the
better low-pass filter. More accurate reproduction of impulses is
crucial to good audio, and I think both of these will help.

Regards
-- 
Don Cox
doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx