DVD-A output question

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 22:15:43 +0930, "nowater" <nowater@grantsellek.com>
wrote:

>Is it possible to downsample the DVD-A output as stereo for acceptance by a
>24/96 stereo DAC? If the answer is Yes, is some outboard converter needed,
>or can it be done with settings in the DVD-A player?

It can be and is done by most DVD-A players.

Kal

>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Glassman" <dominik@audiopraise.com> wrote in message
newsaglii$dhu$1@ns.felk.cvut.cz
> nowater wrote:
>> Is it possible to downsample the DVD-A output as stereo
for
>> acceptance by a 24/96 stereo DAC? If the answer is Yes,
is
>> some outboard converter needed, or can it be done with
>> settings in the DVD-A player?
>>
>>
> first off, DVD-A player won't let you output in hi-res
over
> digital, it will get downsampled to 16/48 unless the disc
> lacks copy protection, in which case it may output either
96
> or 192kHz, most likely selectable in menu.. the players
know
> how to downsample, they all have to do that with protected
> discs..

The irony is that the downsampling of the copy-protected
discs is supposed to reduce the fidelity of the music so
that copies are audibly inferior to origionals. But in fact
the downsampling doesn't reduce audible fidelity at all.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Glassman" <dominik@audiopraise.com> wrote in message
newsagrpo$hc4$1@ns.felk.cvut.cz...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> The irony is that the downsampling of the copy-protected
>> discs is supposed to reduce the fidelity of the music so
>> that copies are audibly inferior to origionals. But in fact
>> the downsampling doesn't reduce audible fidelity at all.
>>
>>
> arguable, at least

No it's not !!!

geoff

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In message <jKWdnQNe0Yb4flbfRVn-uA@comcast.com>, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
> "Glassman" <dominik@audiopraise.com> wrote in message
> newsaglii$dhu$1@ns.felk.cvut.cz
> > nowater wrote:
> >> Is it possible to downsample the DVD-A output as stereo
> for
> >> acceptance by a 24/96 stereo DAC? If the answer is Yes,
> is
> >> some outboard converter needed, or can it be done with
> >> settings in the DVD-A player?
> >>
> >>
> > first off, DVD-A player won't let you output in hi-res
> over
> > digital, it will get downsampled to 16/48 unless the disc
> > lacks copy protection, in which case it may output either
> 96
> > or 192kHz, most likely selectable in menu.. the players
> know
> > how to downsample, they all have to do that with protected
> > discs..
>
> The irony is that the downsampling of the copy-protected
> discs is supposed to reduce the fidelity of the music so
> that copies are audibly inferior to origionals. But in fact
> the downsampling doesn't reduce audible fidelity at all.

Well try do downsample DVD-A quality music, to a 5 kHz
sample rate and play this again.
That must be audible even on the system that gave you
the impression that it is not audible.
If that is still not convince you try to find any sound
above 2.5 kHz in a spectrum analyzer.
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In message <42d0af79$0$20023$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, "Mr.T" wrote:
>
> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> newsaof1i$qpr$1@azure.qinip.net...
> > In message <jKWdnQNe0Yb4flbfRVn-uA@comcast.com>, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
> > > "Glassman" <dominik@audiopraise.com> wrote in message
> > > newsaglii$dhu$1@ns.felk.cvut.cz
> > > > nowater wrote:
> > > >> Is it possible to downsample the DVD-A output as stereo
> > > for
> > > >> acceptance by a 24/96 stereo DAC? If the answer is Yes,
> > > is
> > > >> some outboard converter needed, or can it be done with
> > > >> settings in the DVD-A player?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > first off, DVD-A player won't let you output in hi-res
> > > over
> > > > digital, it will get downsampled to 16/48 unless the disc
> > > > lacks copy protection, in which case it may output either
> > > 96
> > > > or 192kHz, most likely selectable in menu.. the players
> > > know
> > > > how to downsample, they all have to do that with protected
> > > > discs..
> > >
> > > The irony is that the downsampling of the copy-protected
> > > discs is supposed to reduce the fidelity of the music so
> > > that copies are audibly inferior to origionals. But in fact
> > > the downsampling doesn't reduce audible fidelity at all.
> >
> > Well try do downsample DVD-A quality music, to a 5 kHz
> > sample rate and play this again.
> > That must be audible even on the system that gave you
> > the impression that it is not audible.
> > If that is still not convince you try to find any sound
> > above 2.5 kHz in a spectrum analyzer.
>
>
> Are you trying to be obtuse or does it come naturally? :-)

It comes naturally.
> 16/48 (16 bit 48 kHz) was SPECIFICALLY mentioned, NOT 5 kHz.

Fine, since Arny did not hear any difference between DVD-A
quality and CD quality, I suggested to make one more step
in downsampling. Just to make it very clear what will happen
and make it audible even with a pour sterio set.
BTW are you sure it must be 48 kHz because that is the prof.
sample rate, CD sample rate is 44.4 kHz.

>
> You of course are welcome to use whatever sample rate you like. But good
> luck finding a DVDA player that downsamples to 5 kHz.

Where did I say that you must downsample with a DVD-A player?
>
> MrT.
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsarshv$e4k$1@azure.qinip.net...
> Fine, since Arny did not hear any difference between DVD-A
> quality and CD quality, I suggested to make one more step
> in downsampling. Just to make it very clear what will happen
> and make it audible even with a pour sterio set.

What is the point, we all know that a sample rate lower than 40kHz will
result in loss of audible frequencies.
The whole point is whether frequencies above 22 kHz will make any audible
difference.

> BTW are you sure it must be 48 kHz because that is the prof.
> sample rate, CD sample rate is 44.4 kHz.

We were talking DVDA, not CD.

> Where did I say that you must downsample with a DVD-A player?

You didn't, so what you suggest has absolutely no relevance to the present
discussion.

MrT.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsatev6$5ms$2@azure.qinip.net
> In message <84mdnTv2KOq4TUzfRVn-3A@comcast.com>, "Arny
> Krueger" wrote:
>> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> newsarshv$e4k$1@azure.qinip.net
>>
>>
>> Been there, done that. Please see:
>>
>> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm
>>
>> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm
>
> I took a peep at this site, very nice and informative,
> but all I could find in a short time show that DVD-A even
> in the "half mode" (96kHz instead of 196kHz!!) is superior
to CD.

I take it that you skipped over the part where I recommend
that you do some bias-controlled listening tests.

> All sound samples have plenty frequencies above 22 kHz.

Indeed.

> My experience in comparing CD to the new formats is
limited
> to the SACD.
> The difference between CD and SACD is not subtile it is
> a big difference. ( many SACD's are hybrid and have a
> normal CD layer on it too, we compared this two by
listening )

In many cases the SACD layer was remastered from the same
original source recording as the CD. When something is
remastered it almost always sounds different, as this is the
usual goal of remastering.

When you compare the SACD and CD layers of a SACD you might
be comparing two different artistic works.

> I wonder why you conclude that the difference
> between CD and SACD is not audible?

Blind tests based on comparing recordings that were produced
as much alike as possible, except for the sample size and
rate.

> Of course you need a decent audio set, but when I see your
site
> I assume you have used that.

Indeed. Not only that, my files have been listened to by
thousands of people with good systems.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In message <N7ednUhK74aZ90_fRVn-oA@comcast.com>, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> newsatev6$5ms$2@azure.qinip.net
> > In message <84mdnTv2KOq4TUzfRVn-3A@comcast.com>, "Arny
> > Krueger" wrote:
> >> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> newsarshv$e4k$1@azure.qinip.net
> >>
> >>
> >> Been there, done that. Please see:
> >>
> >> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm
> >>
> >> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm
> >
> > I took a peep at this site, very nice and informative,
> > but all I could find in a short time show that DVD-A even
> > in the "half mode" (96kHz instead of 196kHz!!) is superior
> to CD.
>
> I take it that you skipped over the part where I recommend
> that you do some bias-controlled listening tests.

More or less but I am aware of it.
First time my wife and I were invited to listen to the SACD
we (especially me) were wondering if we could here the difference
between CD and SACD. We expected a little difference and we are
not trained to notice minor differences. However with the first
switch from A to B it was so obvious for both of us there was no
need for much discussion about it.
My wife asked me something like "what is this, is he switching on
the tweeters now?"
>
> > All sound samples have plenty frequencies above 22 kHz.
>
> Indeed.

So at least that is no point for discussion, however a friend of my
says, it is not the very high frequencies that make all the difference, it
is the reconstruction and anti alias filter that is doing the most harm.
Brick wall filters are the worst in terms of fase.
>
> > My experience in comparing CD to the new formats is
> limited
> > to the SACD.
> > The difference between CD and SACD is not subtile it is
> > a big difference. ( many SACD's are hybrid and have a
> > normal CD layer on it too, we compared this two by
> listening )
>
> In many cases the SACD layer was remastered from the same
> original source recording as the CD. When something is
> remastered it almost always sounds different, as this is the
> usual goal of remastering.
> When you compare the SACD and CD layers of a SACD you might
> be comparing two different artistic works.

I understand remastering can be done to create/mix a different
sound but I suppose the hybrid SACD's are not mixed different
for the SACD and the CD track. That would be a form of fraud IMH.
Besides I have read a whole article about the SACD recording and
how the sample rates were chosen especially for the simplicity to
convert it simple and without loss ( besides the sample rate
in the CD ) for the CD format.

I did think of converting the SACD signal to CD but that is not
so easy for me. I don't quite understand that SACD format.
Should be a nice tool to have, recalculating the SACD format
in CD format.

> > I wonder why you conclude that the difference
> > between CD and SACD is not audible?
>
> Blind tests based on comparing recordings that were produced
> as much alike as possible, except for the sample size and
> rate.
>
> > Of course you need a decent audio set, but when I see your
> site
> > I assume you have used that.
>
> Indeed. Not only that, my files have been listened to by
> thousands of people with good systems.

mmmm, I wonder what is wrong here.
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsatu1t$i0j$1@azure.qinip.net
> In message <N7ednUhK74aZ90_fRVn-oA@comcast.com>, "Arny
> Krueger" wrote:
>> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> newsatev6$5ms$2@azure.qinip.net
>>> In message <84mdnTv2KOq4TUzfRVn-3A@comcast.com>, "Arny
>>> Krueger" wrote:
>>>> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> newsarshv$e4k$1@azure.qinip.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Been there, done that. Please see:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm

>>> I took a peep at this site, very nice and informative,
>>> but all I could find in a short time show that DVD-A
even
>>> in the "half mode" (96kHz instead of 196kHz!!) is
superior
>> to CD.

>> I take it that you skipped over the part where I
recommend
>> that you do some bias-controlled listening tests.

> More or less but I am aware of it.

Well, I took the horse to the water but he refused to drink.
Not the least bit uncommon.

> First time my wife and I were invited to listen to the
SACD
> we (especially me) were wondering if we could here the
> difference
> between CD and SACD. We expected a little difference and
we are
> not trained to notice minor differences. However with the
first
> switch from A to B it was so obvious for both of us there
was no
> need for much discussion about it.

OK, so you want to be true believers. Your little evaluation
falls very short of being a fair comparison.

> My wife asked me something like "what is this, is he
switching on
> the tweeters now?"

I'm not here to make you unhappy by forcing the truth down
your throat.

>>> All sound samples have plenty frequencies above 22 kHz.
>>
>> Indeed.
>
> So at least that is no point for discussion,

Right, there's no question that natural sounds including
music have considerable content above the point where the
human ear stops hearing differences in a fair comparison.

> however a friend of my
> says, it is not the very high frequencies that make all
the
> difference, it is the reconstruction and anti alias filter
> that is doing the most harm. Brick wall filters are the
worst
> in terms of fase.

Hence

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm

It's all about brick wall filters, as is

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm

Brick wall filters aren't the evil that some ignorant people
make them out to be.

>>> My experience in comparing CD to the new formats is
>> limited
>>> to the SACD.
>>> The difference between CD and SACD is not subtile it is
>>> a big difference. ( many SACD's are hybrid and have a
>>> normal CD layer on it too, we compared this two by
>> listening )

>> In many cases the SACD layer was remastered from the same
>> original source recording as the CD. When something is
>> remastered it almost always sounds different, as this is
the
>> usual goal of remastering.
>> When you compare the SACD and CD layers of a SACD you
might
>> be comparing two different artistic works.

> I understand remastering can be done to create/mix a
different
> sound but I suppose the hybrid SACD's are not mixed
different
> for the SACD and the CD track.

In many cases you suppose very wrong.

>That would be a form of fraud IMH.

SACD is all about fraudulent claims.

> Besides I have read a whole article about the SACD
recording and
> how the sample rates were chosen especially for the
simplicity to
> convert it simple and without loss ( besides the sample
rate
> in the CD ) for the CD format.

They are just bragging about solving a problem that was
already solved.

> I did think of converting the SACD signal to CD but that
is not
> so easy for me. I don't quite understand that SACD format.

I do understand SACD technology, and its all about hype.

> Should be a nice tool to have, recalculating the SACD
format
> in CD format.

Been there, done that.

>>> I wonder why you conclude that the difference
>>> between CD and SACD is not audible?

>> Blind tests based on comparing recordings that were
produced
>> as much alike as possible, except for the sample size and
>> rate.

>>> Of course you need a decent audio set, but when I see
your site
>>> I assume you have used that.

>> Indeed. Not only that, my files have been listened to by
>> thousands of people with good systems.

> mmmm, I wonder what is wrong here.

Probably, its your listening evaluations - they are probably
way short of being fair tests. Check my home page for more
information about what it *really* takes to do a fair
listening test:

http://www.pcabx.com/index.htm

particularly the sidebar about "10 requirements"

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In message <pJqdnWEAtaRrHU_fRVn-pw@comcast.com>, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> newsatu1t$i0j$1@azure.qinip.net
> > In message <N7ednUhK74aZ90_fRVn-oA@comcast.com>, "Arny
> > Krueger" wrote:
> >> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> newsatev6$5ms$2@azure.qinip.net
> >>> In message <84mdnTv2KOq4TUzfRVn-3A@comcast.com>, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" wrote:
> >>>> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>> newsarshv$e4k$1@azure.qinip.net
> >>>>

>
> > however a friend of my
> > says, it is not the very high frequencies that make all
> the
> > difference, it is the reconstruction and anti alias filter
> > that is doing the most harm. Brick wall filters are the
> worst
> > in terms of fase.
>
> Hence
>
> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm
>
> It's all about brick wall filters, as is
>
> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm
>
> Brick wall filters aren't the evil that some ignorant people
> make them out to be.

Well there are publication about that, it mathematically proofs
that a signal trough brick wall filter never is the same as
the input.
There is afaik no way to use brick wall filters in audio
in a way that the sum of the outputs is equal to
the input.
I spoke to people from Philips research about that and
they too admitted that the filtering from the CD was
not perfect. ( in time )


> I do understand SACD technology, and its all about hype.
>
> > Should be a nice tool to have, recalculating the SACD
> format
> > in CD format.
>
> Been there, done that.

Well I like to have an recalculation from a real SACD
to CD. You say that will be indistinctable from each other
by listening, I have a hard time believing that.
If I give you a title from some SACD, can you convert
one track for me to CD so that I/we cannot hear the difference?
Would be an interesting test.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On 11 Jul 2005 06:44:52 -0700, "andy" <andy19191@fsmail.net> wrote:

>> When you compare the SACD and CD layers of a SACD you might
>> be comparing two different artistic works.
>
>Call me a cynic but if I was a manufacturer of SACD discs would I try
>to:
>
>(a) make the CD and SACD versions sound as similar as possible
>
>(b) make the CD and SACD versions sound different
>
>given the likely consequences of (a) on sales of SACDs.

You're a cynic! :-)

You are of course also commercially astute..............

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:54:48 +0200, Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In message <N7ednUhK74aZ90_fRVn-oA@comcast.com>, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

>> In many cases the SACD layer was remastered from the same
>> original source recording as the CD. When something is
>> remastered it almost always sounds different, as this is the
>> usual goal of remastering.
>> When you compare the SACD and CD layers of a SACD you might
>> be comparing two different artistic works.
>
>I understand remastering can be done to create/mix a different
>sound but I suppose the hybrid SACD's are not mixed different
>for the SACD and the CD track.

Why would you suppose that, given the tens (possibly hundreds if you
include the R&D) of millions of dollars tied up in promoting SACD?

> That would be a form of fraud IMH.

Yes. And your point is? :-)

>Besides I have read a whole article about the SACD recording and
>how the sample rates were chosen especially for the simplicity to
>convert it simple and without loss ( besides the sample rate
>in the CD ) for the CD format.

Unfortunately, Sony had to abandon that 'simple' concept when it was
found to have a fatal flaw.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible - but no simpler."
Albert Einstein

Despite the brayings of Frankie da Frog, all current Sony 'DSD'
recordings are actually made with 'DSD Wide', which is a hybrid system
very comparable to the dCS 'RingDAC' system. IOW, it's just hybrid
PCM, with no special 'purity' to recommend it, despite what the Sony
PR machine (including Frankie) may suggest.

>I did think of converting the SACD signal to CD but that is not
>so easy for me. I don't quite understand that SACD format.
>Should be a nice tool to have, recalculating the SACD format
>in CD format.

It's not so easy for anyone, as Sony have included lots of encryption.
Given the highly arguable quality difference, this also smacks of PR
rather than reality.

>> > I wonder why you conclude that the difference
>> > between CD and SACD is not audible?
>>
>> Blind tests based on comparing recordings that were produced
>> as much alike as possible, except for the sample size and
>> rate.
>>
>> > Of course you need a decent audio set, but when I see your site
>> > I assume you have used that.
>>
>> Indeed. Not only that, my files have been listened to by
>> thousands of people with good systems.
>
>mmmm, I wonder what is wrong here.

There's nothing *wrong*, it's simply the case that SACD has little or
no audible advantage to offer. Indeed, if your chosen amplifier is
sensitive to high levels of RF, you may well find SACD to be inferior
to CD, as it generates *horrific* RF noise levels - and inevitable
corollary of the 1-bit noise-shaped system it uses. Compare and
contrast with the ubiquitous 24\96 PCM, the current studio standard
which can be distributed *directly* via multi-channel DVD-A.

Yes Virginia, you *can* have studio master tape quality at home, with
full surround sound!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:03:03 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
<patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>Despite the brayings of Frankie da Frog, all current Sony 'DSD'
>recordings are actually made with 'DSD Wide'

Nope. I've corrected you too many times on this and won't waste my time
bitch slapping you again, bigoted drunkard.

Anyone can check Google's archives in order to set the matter straiight :
SA-CD's can be derived from a number of masters, 1-bit DSD (as used mainly
for simple direct to disk recordings with very little editing), DSD Wide
(8-bit Sigma Delta, allowing for far easier éditing and manipulation of
bitstreams), LPCM or even good old analog.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsau3l6$ogb$1@azure.qinip.net
> In message <pJqdnWEAtaRrHU_fRVn-pw@comcast.com>, "Arny
> Krueger" wrote:
>> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> newsatu1t$i0j$1@azure.qinip.net
>>> In message <N7ednUhK74aZ90_fRVn-oA@comcast.com>, "Arny
>>> Krueger" wrote:
>>>> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> newsatev6$5ms$2@azure.qinip.net
>>>>> In message <84mdnTv2KOq4TUzfRVn-3A@comcast.com>, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" wrote:
>>>>>> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> newsarshv$e4k$1@azure.qinip.net
>>>>>>
>
>>
>>> however a friend of my
>>> says, it is not the very high frequencies that make all
>> the
>>> difference, it is the reconstruction and anti alias
filter
>>> that is doing the most harm. Brick wall filters are the
>> worst
>>> in terms of fase.
>>
>> Hence
>>
>> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm
>>
>> It's all about brick wall filters, as is
>>
>> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm
>>
>> Brick wall filters aren't the evil that some ignorant
people
>> make them out to be.
>
> Well there are publication about that, it mathematically
proofs
> that a signal trough brick wall filter never is the same
as
> the input.

So what? You do know that human hearing is highly inexact,
right?

> There is afaik no way to use brick wall filters in audio
> in a way that the sum of the outputs is equal to
> the input.

There's no need for the sum of the outputs to be equal to
the input. All they have to do is be indistinguishable in
proper listening tests.

> I spoke to people from Philips research about that and
> they too admitted that the filtering from the CD was
> not perfect. ( in time )

See former comments about the lack of any proven or even
suggested need for perfection.

>> I do understand SACD technology, and its all about hype.

>>> Should be a nice tool to have, recalculating the SACD
>> format
>>> in CD format.

>> Been there, done that.

> Well I like to have an recalculation from a real SACD
> to CD. You say that will be indistinctable from each other
> by listening, I have a hard time believing that.

If you actually paid proper attention to the evidence that I
have already provided you'd probably sing a different song.
Since you have been so cavalier about dismissing the
evidence that I've offered you I have zero incentive to do
anything else for you.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsaulos$gor$1@azure.qinip.net
> In message <BsGdnUZLpdM5TE_fRVn-iw@comcast.com>, "Arny
> Krueger" wrote:
>> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> newsau3l6$ogb$1@azure.qinip.net
>>> In message <pJqdnWEAtaRrHU_fRVn-pw@comcast.com>, "Arny
>>> Krueger" wrote:
>>>> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> newsatu1t$i0j$1@azure.qinip.net
>>>>> In message <N7ednUhK74aZ90_fRVn-oA@comcast.com>, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" wrote:
>>>>>> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> newsatev6$5ms$2@azure.qinip.net
>>>>>>> In message <84mdnTv2KOq4TUzfRVn-3A@comcast.com>,
"Arny
>>>>>>> Krueger" wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> newsarshv$e4k$1@azure.qinip.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>>
>>>>> Should be a nice tool to have, recalculating the SACD
>>>> format
>>>>> in CD format.
>>
>>>> Been there, done that.
>>
>>> Well I like to have an recalculation from a real SACD
>>> to CD. You say that will be indistinctable from each
other
>>> by listening, I have a hard time believing that.
>>
>> If you actually paid proper attention to the evidence
that I
>> have already provided you'd probably sing a different
song.
>> Since you have been so cavalier about dismissing the
>> evidence that I've offered you I have zero incentive to
do
>> anything else for you.
>
> No need to get angry here,

I'm not angry just getting bored with the usual wishful
thinking from people who really don't want to get it.

If 24/96 doesn't sound any different than 16/44 why would
you expect that 24/192 would? Both have grossly more treble
extension and dynamic range than 16/44. If grossly more
treble extension and dynamic has no audible benefits how is
it reasonable to expect that twice as gross added treble
extension and dynamic range would make an audible
difference?

IOW if you can't taste me putting two teaspoons of sugar in
your iced tea, what would be proved by putting in 4
teaspoons? In either case you would obviously be incapable
of tasting the addition of goodly amounts of sugar.

>I have not found (yet) any 192kHz
> sampled music on your site and all I wanna do is play some
> music from the best possible source and compare that to
the
> best way in can be copied to CD.

Are you familiar the concept of begging the question? That's
what demanding 192 KHz sampled evidence is.

> I have no DVD burner here and I prefer a whole music track
> for testing.

I would prefer that Publisher's Clearing house or the
lottery make me a millionaire.

> It would be nice for people to know if you or
> somebody else could derive a CD from a SACD which sounds
> better then the CD track on a SACD hybrid!

There's nothing magic about SACD - any medium with equal or
better dynamic range and response extension will be at least
as good. In the case of the 24/96 samples I provided, they
have a little less extension but a whole lot more dynamic
range than SACD. They have grossly more treble extension
than an ordinary CD.

> I like to do a blind test with some listeners and see if
they
> can tell the difference.

See former comments about me being made a millionaire.

> We did not test DVD-A yet.

Another waste of time.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:j5Wdnfn4DrvFeU_fRVn-gg@comcast.com...

>snip<

>
> There's nothing magic about SACD - any medium with equal or
> better dynamic range and response extension will be at least
> as good. In the case of the 24/96 samples I provided, they
> have a little less extension but a whole lot more dynamic
> range than SACD. They have grossly more treble extension
> than an ordinary CD.
>

The SACD has equal dynamic range in the bass and in the critical
(ear-most-sensitive) midrange. It only has inferior dynamic range in the
treble above about 10khz.

What you fail to note is that SACD has a much "cleaner" (e.g. much closer
approximation) impulse response and resembles 30ips tape in this regard.
That is not speculation; it was evident in the comparative graphics being
passed out in the Isomike Suite at HE2005 as I have mentioned to you before.
It is why (IMO) one of the sonic signatures of SACD is a sort of effortless
dynamic "punch" of bass percussion, even at low volumes, as well as liquid,
natural sounding high-frequency transients (cymbals, trianges, etc.) when
compared to 96/24 PCM ( and especially to 41.1/16 pcm).

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HMadnR8ywO5TbU_fRVn-3g@comcast.com...
> Or perhaps his ears are better.
>
> Or perhaps he is listening over more revealing equipment.
>
> There is an improvement in impulse respnse; perhaps he is sensitive to it
> and you are not.

Or perhaps you are more impressed by bullshit than Arny?

MrT.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 05:47:45 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
<patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>Which part of "all current Sony 'DSD' *recordings* are actually made
>with 'DSD Wide'", did you fail to understand, Frankie?

Why don't you check the facts before publicly demonstrating that you're a
bigoted drunkard with less braincells than a dead slug, Pinkerton ?

And stop yapping while humping my leg like a pink poodle in heat, loser.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:KvudnYyRl7pCbk_fRVn-3g@comcast.com...
> What you fail to note is that SACD has a much "cleaner" (e.g. much closer
> approximation) impulse response and resembles 30ips tape in this regard.

I would prefer a digital system to have much less noise and distortion than
30ips tape.
Or maybe you just mean it has slightly more HF response than CD, and the
human auditory system for that matter.

> That is not speculation; it was evident in the comparative graphics being
> passed out in the Isomike Suite at HE2005 as I have mentioned to you
before.
> It is why (IMO) one of the sonic signatures of SACD is a sort of
effortless
> dynamic "punch" of bass percussion,

You are suggesting that "punch" in the bass region requires FR beyond 22 kHz
then?

> even at low volumes,

So we can rule out any DNR differences then.

>as well as liquid,
> natural sounding high-frequency transients (cymbals, trianges, etc.) when
> compared to 96/24 PCM

You are now suggesting SACD is audibly BETTER than 96/24 PCM?????????
Wow, I'd love to have YOUR ears, speakers, listening
environment......................

Which planet or parallel universe is that BTW?

MrT.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:42d380cb$0$11491$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
> "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:KvudnYyRl7pCbk_fRVn-3g@comcast.com...

>> What you fail to note is that SACD has a much "cleaner"
(e.g.
>> much closer approximation) impulse response and resembles
>> 30ips tape in this regard.

> I would prefer a digital system to have much less noise
and
> distortion than 30ips tape.

Harry also understated the high end bandpass of SACD which
is about 100 KHz compared to the approximate 45 KHz of 30
ips tape (on a good day).

Also, 30 ips tape has serious problems with head bumps in
the low frequency range:

http://www.digitalprosound.com/Htm [...] gTape2.htm

Note that the 15 ips tape has a roll-off commencing below 30
Hz while the 30 ips tape stars rolling off as high as 60 Hz.
In contrast, digital has perfect response to well below 10
Hz.

Given that Harry is a also a vinylphile, his main audio
system probably does not have much response below 60 Hz.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CMudnTXIG5HaWE7fRVn-3w@comcast.com
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> news:42d380cb$0$11491$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:KvudnYyRl7pCbk_fRVn-3g@comcast.com...

>> You are suggesting that "punch" in the bass region
requires
>> FR beyond 22 kHz
>> then?

>>> even at low volumes,

> I'm not talking about frequency response.

Shows how little you know about human hearing Harry. The
human ear works almost purely like a spectrum analyzer,
certainly above a few KHz.

About as close as the human ear gets to hearing transients
above a few KHz is perceiving the envelopes of high
frequency tone bursts.

>I'm talking about
> the abililty to reproduce transients withou time-smearing
> pre-echo.

Harry apparently wants us to forget about backwards masking.

It's quite amazing how Harry seems to have invented his own
science of human hearing, no? ;-)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BI6dnTP4mIUiWk7fRVn-2Q@comcast.com

> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:J9qdnXdnHPoPJk7fRVn-hg@comcast.com...

>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>> news:42d380cb$0$11491$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au

>>> "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:KvudnYyRl7pCbk_fRVn-3g@comcast.com...

>>>> What you fail to note is that SACD has a much "cleaner"
(e.g.
>>>> much closer approximation) impulse response and
resembles
>>>> 30ips tape in this regard.

>>> I would prefer a digital system to have much less noise
and
>>> distortion than 30ips tape.

> I would prefer it to sound as good as 30ips tape.

Note that Harry is on the record as stating that there have
been no useful innovations in the art of recording since the
late 60s or early 70s.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BI6dnTP4mIUiWk7fRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
> >> I would prefer a digital system to have much less noise
> > and
> >> distortion than 30ips tape.
>
> I would prefer it to sound as good as 30ips tape.

Why would you want to reduce the perfomance by that much?
It shouldn't be too hard though to reduce the LF response, add noise, add
distortion, and add wow and flutter if you really must!

MrT.