Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

universal player opinion

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 10:11:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Hi guys
any opinions on universal player sources < $700
as point of ref, i'm currently using cambridge audio CDP and i'm thrilled
with it.

thanks
bm
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 7:43:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"brunoman" <brunoman2@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:04Kgc.168440$JO3.99565@attbi_s04...
> Hi guys
> any opinions on universal player sources < $700
> as point of ref, i'm currently using cambridge audio CDP and i'm thrilled
> with it.
>
> thanks
> bm
>

The Pioneer 563 and Denon 2200 have good reputations as low priced units.
There is a new Marantz 6400 that may show promise. Reviews of the Denon
2900 have been mixed. And the reviews of Panasonics older, mid-priced units
generally negative.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 12:04:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"brunoman" <brunoman2@rediffmail.com> wrote in news:04Kgc.168440$JO3.99565
@attbi_s04:

> Hi guys
> any opinions on universal player sources < $700
> as point of ref, i'm currently using cambridge audio CDP and i'm thrilled
> with it.
>
> thanks
> bm

Try to get a dealer demo Denon DV-2900 from Audiogon.com, I got one of this
for $600 and the quality is stunning (good of course)! :) 

Hope that help!

Panzzi
Related resources
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 6:09:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
> "brunoman" <brunoman2@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
> news:04Kgc.168440$JO3.99565@attbi_s04...
>> any opinions on universal player sources < $700

There is a (recent, I think) list of available models at:
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/211200...

> The Pioneer 563 and Denon 2200 have good reputations as low priced units.

I have been looking at the Pioneer 565A (European model) which seems to
be in the same place in their range (looking at the model numbers, one
would expect the differences to be mainly the SCART connectors on the
european model, but at least the front buttons are also different). One thing
I found was the review of the Pioneer 563A at the Sound & Vision web site:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id...
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/113200...

A disturbing thing they found was that the crossover is set to 200 Hz
when playing DVD-Audio:

"Subwoofer low-pass frequency response 12 dB/octave rolloff above
100 Hz (DVD, CD), 200 Hz (DVD-Audio), or 120 Hz (SACD)

Main-channel high-pass frequency response 12 dB/octave rolloff
below 100 Hz (DVD-Video, CD), 200 Hz (DVD-Audio), or 120 Hz (SACD)"

Since usually subwoofers don't go above 140 Hz or so (for instance
the Klipsch RW-10 * is 39 Hz to 95 Hz ±2.2 dB) this will leave an
hole in the frequency range.

* it was the first subwoofer test I found:
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/129200...

BTW, does anybody know from where I can download an AOB file with
test sounds ? If I decide to buy the 565A, I would like to test
this before actually buying it.

Other reviews of the Pioneer 563A (which I found at:
http://www.ecoustics.com/Editorial/Reviews/DVD_Player/A...

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/cgi-bin/shootout.cgi?fun...
Denon DVD-5900 / DVD-910 / DVM-2815, Pioneer Elite DVR-57H, Sony
DVP-NC555ES, Pioneer DV-563A, Marantz DV-8400 and Philips DVDR-75
DVD Players - Secrets of Home Theater & High Fidelity (2003-12)

http://www.hometheaterspot.com/html/reviews/techreview....
Pioneer DV-563A DVD-Audio/Video/SACD Player - Home Theater Spot (2003-08)

http://ecoustics-cnet.com.com/4505-6473_7-30470421.html...
Pioneer DV-563A DVD-Audio/Video/SACD Player - CNET (2003-08)

http://www.goodsound.com/equipment/pioneer_dv563a.htm
Pioneer DV-563A Universal DVD-Audio/Video/SACD Player - GoodSound (2004-02)

http://www.hometheatermag.com/dvdplayers/1203pioneer
Pioneer DV-563A Universal DVD-Audio/Video/SACD Player - Home Theater Magazine (2003-12)

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id...
Pioneer DV-563A Universal DVD-Audio/Video/SACD Player - Sound & Vision (2003-11)

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 7:06:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/19/04 4:04 PM, in article WgWgc.29099$yD1.73725@attbi_s54, "Panzzi"
<panzzi1968@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "brunoman" <brunoman2@rediffmail.com> wrote in news:04Kgc.168440$JO3.99565
> @attbi_s04:
>
>> Hi guys
>> any opinions on universal player sources < $700
>> as point of ref, i'm currently using cambridge audio CDP and i'm thrilled
>> with it.
>>
>> thanks
>> bm
>
> Try to get a dealer demo Denon DV-2900 from Audiogon.com, I got one of this
> for $600 and the quality is stunning (good of course)! :) 

The Latest Issue of _The Absolute Sound_ rated the DV-2200 [retails for
~US$500-600] *higher* than the DV-2900 for the sound - the reviewer's only
explanation was that the 2900 reviewed must have been broken or something.

It sounds that the Denon universal players have a lot of praise - and might
be worth a consideration.

From what I understand, though, the SACD and DVD-A are where CD's were circa
1985 or so - the players are getting better and better and record catalogs
are expanding - waiting as long a syou can might be worth it!

For me, I am planning on upgrading my CD player with upsampling rather than
do the SACD thing -
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 8:31:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On 4/19/04 4:04 PM, in article WgWgc.29099$yD1.73725@attbi_s54, "Panzzi"
> <panzzi1968@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > "brunoman" <brunoman2@rediffmail.com> wrote in news:04Kgc.168440$JO3.99565
> > @attbi_s04:
> >
> >> Hi guys
> >> any opinions on universal player sources < $700
> >> as point of ref, i'm currently using cambridge audio CDP and i'm thrilled
> >> with it.
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> bm
> >
> > Try to get a dealer demo Denon DV-2900 from Audiogon.com, I got one of this
> > for $600 and the quality is stunning (good of course)! :) 

> The Latest Issue of _The Absolute Sound_ rated the DV-2200 [retails for
> ~US$500-600] *higher* than the DV-2900 for the sound - the reviewer's only
> explanation was that the 2900 reviewed must have been broken or something.

> It sounds that the Denon universal players have a lot of praise - and might
> be worth a consideration.

> From what I understand, though, the SACD and DVD-A are where CD's were circa
> 1985 or so - the players are getting better and better and record catalogs
> are expanding - waiting as long a syou can might be worth it!

> For me, I am planning on upgrading my CD player with upsampling rather than
> do the SACD thing -

'Upsampling's audible effects are entirely speculative, whereas with SACD
you at least get a reasonable chance of it sounding different, due to having
been remastered.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 10:36:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
news:clxhc.180828$K91.448733@attbi_s02...
> Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > On 4/19/04 4:04 PM, in article WgWgc.29099$yD1.73725@attbi_s54, "Panzzi"
> > <panzzi1968@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > "brunoman" <brunoman2@rediffmail.com> wrote in
news:04Kgc.168440$JO3.99565
> > > @attbi_s04:
> > >
> > >> Hi guys
> > >> any opinions on universal player sources < $700
> > >> as point of ref, i'm currently using cambridge audio CDP and i'm
thrilled
> > >> with it.
> > >>
> > >> thanks
> > >> bm
> > >
> > > Try to get a dealer demo Denon DV-2900 from Audiogon.com, I got one of
this
> > > for $600 and the quality is stunning (good of course)! :) 
>
> > The Latest Issue of _The Absolute Sound_ rated the DV-2200 [retails for
> > ~US$500-600] *higher* than the DV-2900 for the sound - the reviewer's
only
> > explanation was that the 2900 reviewed must have been broken or
something.
>
> > It sounds that the Denon universal players have a lot of praise - and
might
> > be worth a consideration.
>
> > From what I understand, though, the SACD and DVD-A are where CD's were
circa
> > 1985 or so - the players are getting better and better and record
catalogs
> > are expanding - waiting as long a syou can might be worth it!
>
> > For me, I am planning on upgrading my CD player with upsampling rather
than
> > do the SACD thing -
>
> 'Upsampling's audible effects are entirely speculative, whereas with SACD
> you at least get a reasonable chance of it sounding different, due to
having
> been remastered.
>

Speculative except to those of us who've actually heard it.
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 9:45:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:36:52 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com>
wrote:

>"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:clxhc.180828$K91.448733@attbi_s02...

>> 'Upsampling's audible effects are entirely speculative, whereas with SACD
>> you at least get a reasonable chance of it sounding different, due to having
>> been remastered.
>>
>Speculative except to those of us who've actually heard it.

Or *think* they have heard a difference...........

Besides, it's a plain fact that upsampling offeres *zero* extra
resolution. It simply makes filtering easier, and is just another spin
on oversampling, which has been a standard practice in most CD players
for fifteen years - more than 20 years for Philips-based players!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 3:49:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TwThc.3826$0u6.777517@attbi_s03...
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:36:52 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:clxhc.180828$K91.448733@attbi_s02...
>
> >> 'Upsampling's audible effects are entirely speculative, whereas with
SACD
> >> you at least get a reasonable chance of it sounding different, due to
having
> >> been remastered.
> >>
> >Speculative except to those of us who've actually heard it.
>
> Or *think* they have heard a difference...........
>
> Besides, it's a plain fact that upsampling offeres *zero* extra
> resolution. It simply makes filtering easier, and is just another spin
> on oversampling, which has been a standard practice in most CD players
> for fifteen years - more than 20 years for Philips-based players!

Nonetheless, you are welcome to come to Western Mass in the US of A and
audition my Panasonic S55 and its straight CD and three upsampling modes.
You can compare them sighted, blinded, or blinded standing on your head and
odds are you will hear some differences...not in resolution (who claimed
that?) but in the realism and smoothness of the treble (violins, cymbals)
and the forwardness of the presentation and subjective balance between
midrange and treble.

Panasonic claims that the 176.4 resolution also allows options in noise
shaping, which doesn't seem to factor into your calculations. Some
combination of the two does seem to make subtle but audible differences.
And note I said subtle...it is not earthshaking. But we are in a hobby were
we continually look for small improvements in realism, aren't we?
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 3:54:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/22/04 1:45 PM, in article TwThc.3826$0u6.777517@attbi_s03, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:36:52 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:clxhc.180828$K91.448733@attbi_s02...
>
>>> 'Upsampling's audible effects are entirely speculative, whereas with SACD
>>> you at least get a reasonable chance of it sounding different, due to having
>>> been remastered.
>>>
>> Speculative except to those of us who've actually heard it.
>
> Or *think* they have heard a difference...........
>
> Besides, it's a plain fact that upsampling offeres *zero* extra
> resolution. It simply makes filtering easier, and is just another spin
> on oversampling, which has been a standard practice in most CD players
> for fifteen years - more than 20 years for Philips-based players!

Depending upon the filtering used to upsample, oversample will make a
difference from what I have heard. I had an old Magnavx single disc player
from c. 1986, a NAD C541i and listened to the digital output put through a
bel canto DAC2. Each was a marked improvement above the other using the
same systems.
The interpolation algorithm to go from 16 to 24 bits in some of the
upsampling converters could affect the sound as well.

But, if someone wouldn't think that upsampling could improve the sound, SACD
shouldn't either.
April 23, 2004 7:58:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:TwThc.3826$0u6.777517@attbi_s03...
>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:36:52 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
>> >news:clxhc.180828$K91.448733@attbi_s02...
>>
>> >> 'Upsampling's audible effects are entirely speculative, whereas with
> SACD
>> >> you at least get a reasonable chance of it sounding different, due to
> having
>> >> been remastered.
>> >>
>> >Speculative except to those of us who've actually heard it.
>>
>> Or *think* they have heard a difference...........
>>
>> Besides, it's a plain fact that upsampling offeres *zero* extra
>> resolution. It simply makes filtering easier, and is just another spin
>> on oversampling, which has been a standard practice in most CD players
>> for fifteen years - more than 20 years for Philips-based players!
>
> Nonetheless, you are welcome to come to Western Mass in the US of A and
> audition my Panasonic S55 and its straight CD and three upsampling modes.
> You can compare them sighted, blinded, or blinded standing on your head and
> odds are you will hear some differences...not in resolution (who claimed
> that?) but in the realism and smoothness of the treble (violins, cymbals)
> and the forwardness of the presentation and subjective balance between
> midrange and treble.

You seem to be saying that there is a difference in frequency response
between Panasonic's upsampling approach and the standard oversampling
approach. If that's the case, I wonder which one of those approaches
introduced the errors, given that competent CD players all have ruler
flat frequency response?

>
> Panasonic claims that the 176.4 resolution also allows options in noise
> shaping, which doesn't seem to factor into your calculations.

Well, if you read carefully, Stewart did say "it simply makes filtering
easier, and is another spin on oversampling". Oversampling allows
options in noise shaping.

BTW, 176.4KHz sampling *is* oversampling, and has been oversampling for
almost twenty years. 176.4KHz is 4 times 44.1 KHz. And I notice that
somehow you imply that 176.4 has a different resolution, which you said
you did not claim in the last paragraph. Hmmm...

> Some
> combination of the two does seem to make subtle but audible differences.
> And note I said subtle...it is not earthshaking. But we are in a hobby were
> we continually look for small improvements in realism, aren't we?

There is at least one vocal subjectivist who says that there are
differences between amps that Hellen Keller could discern. I take it
that those are not small improvements, by any stretch of imagination.
Not to mention the ubiquitous anecdotes of someone's
partner/wife/off-spring immediately noticing differences after power
cords have been replaced, amps have been switched, etc.
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 5:34:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:

> Panasonic claims that the 176.4 resolution also allows options in noise
> shaping, which doesn't seem to factor into your calculations. Some
> combination of the two does seem to make subtle but audible differences.

Differences that are not reliably demonstrated. (read: unproven)

Noise shaping during mastering is <far> more important, and reliably shown.
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 5:39:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:Lv0ic.7132$_L6.774709@attbi_s53...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> > "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:TwThc.3826$0u6.777517@attbi_s03...
> >> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:36:52 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:clxhc.180828$K91.448733@attbi_s02...
> >>
> >> >> 'Upsampling's audible effects are entirely speculative, whereas with
> > SACD
> >> >> you at least get a reasonable chance of it sounding different, due
to
> > having
> >> >> been remastered.
> >> >>
> >> >Speculative except to those of us who've actually heard it.
> >>
> >> Or *think* they have heard a difference...........
> >>
> >> Besides, it's a plain fact that upsampling offeres *zero* extra
> >> resolution. It simply makes filtering easier, and is just another spin
> >> on oversampling, which has been a standard practice in most CD players
> >> for fifteen years - more than 20 years for Philips-based players!
> >
> > Nonetheless, you are welcome to come to Western Mass in the US of A and
> > audition my Panasonic S55 and its straight CD and three upsampling
modes.
> > You can compare them sighted, blinded, or blinded standing on your head
and
> > odds are you will hear some differences...not in resolution (who claimed
> > that?) but in the realism and smoothness of the treble (violins,
cymbals)
> > and the forwardness of the presentation and subjective balance between
> > midrange and treble.
>
> You seem to be saying that there is a difference in frequency response
> between Panasonic's upsampling approach and the standard oversampling
> approach. If that's the case, I wonder which one of those approaches
> introduced the errors, given that competent CD players all have ruler
> flat frequency response?
>

I have said no such thing. I have no idea what combination of frequency
response, 16 to 24 bit conversion, and noise shaping Panasonic uses. I am
only telling you the subjective effect I hear of their three upsampling
mode.

> >
> > Panasonic claims that the 176.4 resolution also allows options in noise
> > shaping, which doesn't seem to factor into your calculations.
>

The resolution increase, if any, I presume comes through noise shaping in 16
to 24 bit conversion.

The 176.4 4x upsampling is reported out by the machine in each of its three
upsampling modes. It doesn't change the upsampl multiplier between the
three modes.

> Well, if you read carefully, Stewart did say "it simply makes filtering
> easier, and is another spin on oversampling". Oversampling allows
> options in noise shaping.
>
> BTW, 176.4KHz sampling *is* oversampling, and has been oversampling for
> almost twenty years. 176.4KHz is 4 times 44.1 KHz. And I notice that
> somehow you imply that 176.4 has a different resolution, which you said
> you did not claim in the last paragraph. Hmmm...
>

Yep, just noticed my 1988 Phillips 880 is oversampled to 176.4 and used a
digital filter. Maybe that is why it sounded so good (and still does those
few times it tracks properly).

> > Some
> > combination of the two does seem to make subtle but audible differences.
> > And note I said subtle...it is not earthshaking. But we are in a hobby
were
> > we continually look for small improvements in realism, aren't we?
>

I should have added here that the difference between regular 16/44.1 redbook
and *any* of the upsampling modes is the largest difference....difference
between the upsampling modes themselves are pretty miniscule.

> There is at least one vocal subjectivist who says that there are
> differences between amps that Hellen Keller could discern. I take it
> that those are not small improvements, by any stretch of imagination.
> Not to mention the ubiquitous anecdotes of someone's
> partner/wife/off-spring immediately noticing differences after power
> cords have been replaced, amps have been switched, etc.
>

There, you've had you riff for the week. :-)
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 9:02:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 22 Apr 2004 23:54:44 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On 4/22/04 1:45 PM, in article TwThc.3826$0u6.777517@attbi_s03, "Stewart
>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:36:52 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
>>> news:clxhc.180828$K91.448733@attbi_s02...
>>
>>>> 'Upsampling's audible effects are entirely speculative, whereas with SACD
>>>> you at least get a reasonable chance of it sounding different, due to having
>>>> been remastered.
>>>>
>>> Speculative except to those of us who've actually heard it.
>>
>> Or *think* they have heard a difference...........
>>
>> Besides, it's a plain fact that upsampling offeres *zero* extra
>> resolution. It simply makes filtering easier, and is just another spin
>> on oversampling, which has been a standard practice in most CD players
>> for fifteen years - more than 20 years for Philips-based players!
>
>Depending upon the filtering used to upsample, oversample will make a
>difference from what I have heard. I had an old Magnavx single disc player
>from c. 1986, a NAD C541i and listened to the digital output put through a
>bel canto DAC2. Each was a marked improvement above the other using the
>same systems.
>The interpolation algorithm to go from 16 to 24 bits in some of the
>upsampling converters could affect the sound as well.

Indeed it could, but any audible changes due to any of the above would
be a *degradation* from the output of a well-designed conventional CD
player.

>But, if someone wouldn't think that upsampling could improve the sound, SACD
>shouldn't either.

Who says that it does? :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 9:03:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"But, if someone wouldn't think that upsampling could improve the sound,
SACD
shouldn't either."

I think you are fairly new here, many say exactly that, in fact, it is
held that is not yet demonstrated by controled listening tests to be
differentiated from the ordinary cd.
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 9:22:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
> "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:TwThc.3826$0u6.777517@attbi_s03...
> > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:36:52 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
> > >news:clxhc.180828$K91.448733@attbi_s02...
> >
> > >> 'Upsampling's audible effects are entirely speculative, whereas with
> SACD
> > >> you at least get a reasonable chance of it sounding different, due to
> having
> > >> been remastered.
> > >>
> > >Speculative except to those of us who've actually heard it.
> >
> > Or *think* they have heard a difference...........
> >
> > Besides, it's a plain fact that upsampling offeres *zero* extra
> > resolution. It simply makes filtering easier, and is just another spin
> > on oversampling, which has been a standard practice in most CD players
> > for fifteen years - more than 20 years for Philips-based players!

> Nonetheless, you are welcome to come to Western Mass in the US of A and
> audition my Panasonic S55 and its straight CD and three upsampling modes.
> You can compare them sighted, blinded, or blinded standing on your head and
> odds are you will hear some differences...not in resolution (who claimed
> that?) but in the realism and smoothness of the treble (violins, cymbals)
> and the forwardness of the presentation and subjective balance between
> midrange and treble.

> Panasonic claims that the 176.4 resolution also allows options in noise
> shaping, which doesn't seem to factor into your calculations. Some
> combination of the two does seem to make subtle but audible differences.
> And note I said subtle...it is not earthshaking. But we are in a hobby were
> we continually look for small improvements in realism, aren't we?


Wait a sec....one can listen sighted, blinded, or standing on my head and
still hear the difference in treble realism and smoothness, forwardness of
presentation, and subjective balance between mid and treblean....
yet at the same time the difference is *subtle* and 'not earthshaking'?




--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director
April 24, 2004 12:45:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:Lv0ic.7132$_L6.774709@attbi_s53...
>> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> > "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:TwThc.3826$0u6.777517@attbi_s03...
>> >> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:36:52 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:clxhc.180828$K91.448733@attbi_s02...
>> >>
>> >> >> 'Upsampling's audible effects are entirely speculative, whereas with
>> > SACD
>> >> >> you at least get a reasonable chance of it sounding different, due
> to
>> > having
>> >> >> been remastered.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Speculative except to those of us who've actually heard it.
>> >>
>> >> Or *think* they have heard a difference...........
>> >>
>> >> Besides, it's a plain fact that upsampling offeres *zero* extra
>> >> resolution. It simply makes filtering easier, and is just another spin
>> >> on oversampling, which has been a standard practice in most CD players
>> >> for fifteen years - more than 20 years for Philips-based players!
>> >
>> > Nonetheless, you are welcome to come to Western Mass in the US of A and
>> > audition my Panasonic S55 and its straight CD and three upsampling
> modes.
>> > You can compare them sighted, blinded, or blinded standing on your head
> and
>> > odds are you will hear some differences...not in resolution (who claimed
>> > that?) but in the realism and smoothness of the treble (violins,
> cymbals)
>> > and the forwardness of the presentation and subjective balance between
>> > midrange and treble.
>>
>> You seem to be saying that there is a difference in frequency response
>> between Panasonic's upsampling approach and the standard oversampling
>> approach. If that's the case, I wonder which one of those approaches
>> introduced the errors, given that competent CD players all have ruler
>> flat frequency response?
>>
>
> I have said no such thing.

Well, so all that articulation about treble, midrange and treble has
nothing to do with frequency response? :) 

> I have no idea what combination of frequency
> response, 16 to 24 bit conversion, and noise shaping Panasonic uses. I am
> only telling you the subjective effect I hear of their three upsampling
> mode.

If the subjective effect is that the freqeuncy response is different,
shouldn't there be measureable differences?

>
>> >
>> > Panasonic claims that the 176.4 resolution also allows options in noise
>> > shaping, which doesn't seem to factor into your calculations.
>>
>
> The resolution increase, if any, I presume comes through noise shaping in 16
> to 24 bit conversion.

Redbook CD has 16 bits of resolution. You can't improve resolution upon
the original. I suspect you are not using resolution in the conventional
sense. No matter how hard you try, you can't get redbook CD to have the
same resolution as DVD-A, for instance.

>
> The 176.4 4x upsampling is reported out by the machine in each of its three
> upsampling modes. It doesn't change the upsampl multiplier between the
> three modes.

So which upsampling mode brings forth this perceived improvement, and
what exactly is the new sampling frequency?
>
>> Well, if you read carefully, Stewart did say "it simply makes filtering
>> easier, and is another spin on oversampling". Oversampling allows
>> options in noise shaping.
>>
>> BTW, 176.4KHz sampling *is* oversampling, and has been oversampling for
>> almost twenty years. 176.4KHz is 4 times 44.1 KHz. And I notice that
>> somehow you imply that 176.4 has a different resolution, which you said
>> you did not claim in the last paragraph. Hmmm...
>>
>
> Yep, just noticed my 1988 Phillips 880 is oversampled to 176.4 and used a
> digital filter. Maybe that is why it sounded so good (and still does those
> few times it tracks properly).
>

It's disappointing to me that I wrote about this in a post rebutting one
of yours on 3/13/04, and you did not read it or remember reading it :( .
So how about your previous claim that there was no listenable CD player
in the 1st decade?


>> > Some
>> > combination of the two does seem to make subtle but audible differences.
>> > And note I said subtle...it is not earthshaking. But we are in a hobby
> were
>> > we continually look for small improvements in realism, aren't we?
>>
>
> I should have added here that the difference between regular 16/44.1 redbook
> and *any* of the upsampling modes is the largest difference....difference
> between the upsampling modes themselves are pretty miniscule.

So are you saying that upsampling sounds the same as 4X oversampling, or
not? Which are the upsampling modes, and how is 176.4KHz involved?

>
>> There is at least one vocal subjectivist who says that there are
>> differences between amps that Hellen Keller could discern. I take it
>> that those are not small improvements, by any stretch of imagination.
>> Not to mention the ubiquitous anecdotes of someone's
>> partner/wife/off-spring immediately noticing differences after power
>> cords have been replaced, amps have been switched, etc.
>>
>
> There, you've had you riff for the week. :-)

Thanks for providing the opportunity for me to rant :) .
Anonymous
April 24, 2004 9:14:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 22 Apr 2004 23:49:17 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:TwThc.3826$0u6.777517@attbi_s03...
>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:36:52 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
>> >news:clxhc.180828$K91.448733@attbi_s02...
>>
>> >> 'Upsampling's audible effects are entirely speculative, whereas with
>SACD
>> >> you at least get a reasonable chance of it sounding different, due to
>having
>> >> been remastered.
>> >>
>> >Speculative except to those of us who've actually heard it.
>>
>> Or *think* they have heard a difference...........
>>
>> Besides, it's a plain fact that upsampling offeres *zero* extra
>> resolution. It simply makes filtering easier, and is just another spin
>> on oversampling, which has been a standard practice in most CD players
>> for fifteen years - more than 20 years for Philips-based players!
>
>Nonetheless, you are welcome to come to Western Mass in the US of A and
>audition my Panasonic S55 and its straight CD and three upsampling modes.
>You can compare them sighted, blinded, or blinded standing on your head and
>odds are you will hear some differences...not in resolution (who claimed
>that?) but in the realism and smoothness of the treble (violins, cymbals)
>and the forwardness of the presentation and subjective balance between
>midrange and treble.

*If* these effects are real, it sounds like they are fiddling with the
frequency response.

>Panasonic claims that the 176.4 resolution also allows options in noise
>shaping, which doesn't seem to factor into your calculations.

Sure it does - noise-shaping is an essential part of any oversampling
system - that's why '1-bit' converters can still have 20-bit
linearity.

> Some
>combination of the two does seem to make subtle but audible differences.
>And note I said subtle...it is not earthshaking. But we are in a hobby were
>we continually look for small improvements in realism, aren't we?

A done deal up to the speaker terminals, these days.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
!