All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

DSD

Sat May 10, 2003 3:05 am

I was not going to get these records! But, I came across two of them so cheap, I could not resist!
ELVIS '56 and GREAT COUNTRY SONGS! At first I didn't find them any special! So I made some tests! The only thing, in my ears, I can find different, is that they sound "much tighter". Especially on the seventies tracks, the sound is "tight"! I don't know how to describe it!
Tight, separate but less, what shall I say: "Room"!
What about you folks! Anyone?

Sat May 10, 2003 7:33 am

i have all 4 of these cds
to me i think they sound better to me imo.

Sat May 10, 2003 8:00 am

The only difference is in the mastering.

And every masterer has their own way to handle the infinite number of EQ and Limiters that can be applied. Whether to create a louder (tighter) CD and sacrafice Dynamic range of not.

It is subjective... one mans preference for "tightness" is another mans preference for "looseness".

Like ... how do you want your women? :D :D :D

Sat May 10, 2003 12:43 pm

Any which way but loose. :oops:





:twisted:

Mon May 12, 2003 9:51 pm

I have to agree with KiwiAlan on this one. There's no enhanced fidelity heard at all, just another of those remixed or reequlized releases.

They could at lease encoded them as HDCD releases, then we could have had some kind of release with a potential.

Tue May 13, 2003 5:54 am

Sacrifice Dynamic range? KIWIALAN maybe you should polish up a little on your knowledge. How is it going to lose when a sampling rate is higher! The truth is that range hasn't got much to do with it. It has to do with a closer likeness to the original sound curve. If it sounds "tighter" it is because more of the orginal sound is represented.

Tue May 13, 2003 6:08 am

p.s. HDCD is a whole different process. Some people baffle me with their knowledge of words but no idea what it means. Remember changing gain scaling is only truly benificial when there is a significant transfer. HDCD is based upon PCM encoding which most critics have found to be inferior to DSD. The dynamic range is actually much higer with a DSD encoding'

Here is a link that may help some people.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~webinc/cd-eng.htm

Tue May 13, 2003 7:35 pm

genesim wrote:Sacrifice Dynamic range? KIWIALAN maybe you should polish up a little on your knowledge. How is it going to lose when a sampling rate is higher! The truth is that range hasn't got much to do with it. It has to do with a closer likeness to the original sound curve. If it sounds "tighter" it is because more of the orginal sound is represented.


Not true at all. When using a limiter you actually decrease the dynamic range and makes the recording sound more tight.

Tue May 13, 2003 8:24 pm

genesim wrote:p.s. HDCD is a whole different process. Some people baffle me with their knowledge of words but no idea what it means. Remember changing gain scaling is only truly benificial when there is a significant transfer. HDCD is based upon PCM encoding which most critics have found to be inferior to DSD. The dynamic range is actually much higer with a DSD encoding'


genesim, sorry but you are wrong again. All CD's released are PCM modulated. A CD-DA is pr. defenition PCM. So the only way today to transfer as much information as possible to the CD-DA master is to use the HDCD standard when creating a CD-DA master. HDCD increases the resolution compared to a regular CD-DA release.

DSD do not increase the resolution on the final CD-DA master. DSD is only a better technology to transfer the analogue signal to digital, sorry but it doesn't help you much to use DSD when you have to encode using PCM/16bit anyhow. But by using HDCD encoding you will be able to add more information to CD-DA master than the CD-DA norm is designed for. You actually increases the resolution from 16bit to 20bit.

Maybe this is to techically for you but this is the facts. When using the best of both worlds, the conlusion is as easy as that a DSD transfer will sound better on HDCD encoded CD-DA than a normal CD-DA! You will actuallly have a true 20bit master on a 16bit CD-DA release. It is not only a knowledge of words but a well known and commonly used technology!!

Wed May 14, 2003 6:59 am

"Maybe this is to techically for you but this is the facts" Good one. lol

Ok I have argued at length about this very thing(maybe it was you). Doesn't matter. Sorry, but you are only as good as the transfer. Sticking more pits and having smoother calculations based on a PCM transfer is not going to cut it. It reminds me of the Sega 32x. It was still based on a inferior Genesis Machine. You like HCCD. That's okay by me.

Please don't give me this crap that the Dynamic Range is lowered. Downsampling to 16 bit only loses part of the original info. The PCM transfer is the "limited" part on HCCD.

I agree that the DSD to 16 bit is a little out there. But at the same time, I can hear a difference. I was rather impressed with Heart And Soul(and I own the original). Maybe it was just a test..who knows.

Only thing I can say is HCCD cannot really be appreciated unless one has a decoder. Not to say NOTHING is gained, but one would have to admit the full profit is having the equipment. Too bad that HCCD is a lame duck. SACD and DVDAUDIO are the only true considerations right now. With Hybrid SACD encoded using full DSD technology seems to be the way to go now. Sony has a strangle hold on the cd market and they are slowly closing in. DVDAUDIO is even negotiating paying royalties. Have you heard the new Dark Side Of The Moon. 13 bucks at Best Buy. What a Steal!! Guess what, it was put right there up front for all to see. Where is HCCD and DVDAUDIO. Either hidden with a little label on the bottom or on some bottom shelf collecting dust. When Jacko sells his Beatles rights to Sony, then that is all she wrote!!

I could argue specifics, but it comes down to your ears. I prefer SACD's and if DSD mastering produces Heart And Soul, then I am for that as well. Increasing dynamic range is only part of the story. It is still based off of a sampling rate of 44.1 khz/revoultion(or 46, I can't remember)


"the conlusion is as easy as that a DSD transfer will sound better on HDCD encoded CD-DA than a normal CD-DA"

How is this possible? Are you going to have a decoder for HCCD used in conjuction with DSD technology. This is news to me. If both can work at the same time, then that sounds cool. I guess in a way it does make sense. Still I would prefer having a straight SACD. Doing away with PCM all together!

Ok this is a Elvis message board. Happy to argue audio someplace else. Believe me, I am truly grounded in this whole thing, just don't feel like starting up another war.....just yet!!

Wed May 14, 2003 12:11 pm

DEL
Last edited by vinyljunkie on Fri Jan 23, 2004 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed May 14, 2003 12:58 pm

"Lady, I don't know what the hell you' talkin' about!"

(Elvis Presley, Jailhouse Rock, 1957)

Wed May 14, 2003 2:43 pm

DEL
Last edited by vinyljunkie on Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thu May 15, 2003 1:10 am

vinyljunkie wrote:I fully support the statements of Kiwi and vinylman that it's more likely that the producers are a more significant part regarding the soundquality than the DSD technology. So what you hear is a better producer.


Thanks for putting this straight.

Thu May 15, 2003 5:20 am

I love how he puts words in my mouth. Half of what he said, I didn't even say!!

I never implied anyone was a fool, though he used the words quite often when talking about me. 75db is the limiting range on Elvis music. Ha. As I understand Elvis recorded with a orchestra many many times. Now it is true that certain strings can get above 100db. Until you know about the microphones and equipment, then I wouldn't GUESS on that one.

Look, i am not going to argue symantacs(actually I wrote a book to respond then I got logged out..damn!).

Lets just say this. Do I think a 16 bit using DSD technology(over 100khz) is superior to 16 bit of a 44.1khz of a pcm transfer. You bet. Now on to other things. I am quite disgusted by my answer being erased and I hate typing. It wouldn't make a difference anyway. I am actually retyping what I have argued in the past.

It is all moot anyway. HDCD's are all but dead. Most people don't even care about the decoders. For you to imply that RCA should go with a inferior dead product is rediculous. Sony has a stranglehold and HDCD's are not likely to survive much longer.

These new cd's were just a test run anyway. I could argue the merits of the DSD transfers till the cows come home, but actually, I would rather have SACD. No doubt cd's are limited. That is not to say nothing was gained. I don't think it was all just mastering. That is my opinion. You can personal attack all you want. I do find it childish though. I never called you a fool or even implied it.

Thu May 15, 2003 12:15 pm

DEL
Last edited by vinyljunkie on Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thu May 15, 2003 12:49 pm

8)

Thu May 15, 2003 2:06 pm

I may not know a lot about this... but I'll make it simple, since that's my range of knowledge on this topic.

If you really listen to the new "Heart And Soul" and the other DSD CDs, you'll hear a clarity difference, as well as, just as DSD is described, "a more true sound"... in some cases, it's because they have a better tape source now, but it's not true in all cases. "Old Shep" is a great example.

I was very impressed wth how much better they sound, and so was everyone I did an "A/B" test with.

It's more than just a better mix. I may not be able to say exactly how, but this goes beyond that. The sound is fresher, crisper, like the difference between a decent and a hi-quality MP3...

You all are very welcome to have your opinions, but if BMG can produce these results every time, I'm more than happy to get future releases in DSD.

Thu May 15, 2003 6:12 pm

Ok Vinyljunkie again you have the personal attacks.

It is you that seems to have limited knowledge. 16 bit of a 100khz TRANSFER!!! Am I getting through here?

You being a vinyl junkie should know this!!! THe more captured from the original analog source the better, or do you just collect the artwork on records? Even when downsampled(which again is a snap shot of the ORIGINAL TRANSFER), is still better then a lower sampled TRANSFER!!!

Your DYNAMIC range is the neglible part. Can you really hear a difference between 96 db and say 105db? WHich is what HDCD offers! In a battle of standard resolution from a superior source transfer as opposed to increased dynamics from a inferior source. I would take the former. DSD offers this.

I work with computers all the time with my job. IF you only knew how much I have first hand examples of this in my Chemistry job. To put it down to simple simple ways(not calling you simple by the way) IT is like this. Lets say you take a picture of DNA. Ok what will give you the better picture. Replicating the ORIGINAL sample with more coverage(12x or 24x as compared to 6x) and taking a picture OR adjusting the camera to include more of the picture(say like the borders! this is comparable to what is being gained from 96-100db). I can tell you RIGHT NOW. WHat is lost from less coverage is way more important then what is lost from shortening the scope of the picture. THough some elements of the original is missing one STILL GETS THE BEST PICTURE from more coverage. If only half of each end is present, the rest of the sample can still be determined by what is there.

You can only take a picture of what was produced initially, I don't care how much you increase the resolution.

Would it be better if I just said you won? You keep saying the same thing over and over again and mixing terminology. For once I am actually frustrated!!

It all comes down to what is between your ears. I hear a difference. I have spoken about the technical issues, but again it comes down to how your brain processes it, that matters.

Please somebody help me on this. I can't think of a better way to explain this!!! Does anybody UNDERSTAND!!
Last edited by genesim on Thu May 15, 2003 6:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Thu May 15, 2003 6:17 pm

By the way, I am again am not arguing 24 bit HDCD vs DSD.

THE WHOLE REASON FOR THIS DISCUSSION IS THIS:

A 16 bit of a standard 44.1khz pcm TRANSFER

Compared to a 16bit of a standard 100khz+ DSD transfer

I think the Heart And Sould does sound better, and I don't think it just has to do with mastering. The one thing that supposedly changed is the way it was transferred. Can this be proven...no I am not a sound engineer and I wasn't there at the time. Can I have theories on why it sounds better..yes I have stated mine. It all comes down to opinions really.

Vinyljunkie you have proved nothing. Experts have agreed that DSD technology can benefit NON SACD medium. I have laid out the reasons why. There have been extensive articles on this, which is why I am defending it in the first place. Look around on the net, I just found one last night, comparing the exact thing. DSD tech. on CD 44.khz!!!

Now can I prove 100% that it is not the mastering, NO(though evidence supports this). Again, you can't prove that it isn't!!

Sorry but I think there is a difference. If DSD is not the reason, then who cares. They still sound better and they can put DSD TECHNOLOGY stickers on every release and that would be fine with me. lol


Lets get back to Elvis. If you want to post a answer fine, but lets move it to the OFF TOPIC!!

Thu May 15, 2003 8:13 pm

genesim wrote:It is you that seems to have limited knowledge. 16 bit of a 100khz TRANSFER!!! Am I getting through here?


I feel the need to say a few words here in your discussion with the junkie.

Why do you need 100kHz sample rate to reproduce 18kHz (source vinyljunkie)?

From what I have learned the CD-DA format can reproduce frequencies up to 22.05kHz. In the early days when there was no oversampling this was not true as the filtering introduced distortion in the upper frequency range. But today with 4 times oversampling or more this isn't a problem anymore. I have heard far better CD releases from other artists than these new Elvis masters. Some are as old as 10 years or more.

Can you explain this if DSD is more significant than the engineer in charge?

It all comes down to what is between your ears. I hear a difference. I have spoken about the technical issues, but again it comes down to how your brain processes it, that matters.

It's not about your ears at all. Actually we all can agree that the new releases might sound better than the first pressings. But the discussion is about why, not if it sounds better! And I feel that KiwiAlan's explanation is more realistic than yours. It's down to the human factor and not the technology anymore. As the technology is far above the limitation of the original Elvis tapes.

Fri May 16, 2003 11:24 pm

18khz? The source in the later masters is supposed to be infinite..right? lol

For a vinyl junkie you should be well schooled in this, because that is a record collectors logic.

Analog has never been captured the way it should be till now right?

"Can you explain this if DSD is more significant than the engineer in charge?"

Again putting words in my mouth, I never said that or even implied it.

Do I think DSD technology has NOTHING to do with the improvemnet. NO! KIWIALAN says "the ONLY difference is the mastering." Well I disagree(explained in detail on earlier post).

I do think that later recordings beneifit more then earlier recordings. When you are talking about 24 track masters, the possibilities for improvement are extraordinary.

By the way 22khz some claim is too low to represent the dynamics of Analog sound wave. Again a vinyl junkie such as yourself should know this.

Sun May 18, 2003 3:14 am

hey! you guys reckon i could special order them releases as 8 track tapes?

Sun May 18, 2003 10:28 pm

genesim wrote:18khz? The source in the later masters is supposed to be infinite..right? lol

What do you try to say, that an Elvis master tape from 76 and back has an infinite frequency response?

For a vinyl junkie you should be well schooled in this, because that is a record collectors logic. Analog has never been captured the way it should be till now right?.

I'm sorry but please refer to me while answering my posting and not vinyljunkie.

"Can you explain this if DSD is more significant than the engineer in charge?"

Again putting words in my mouth, I never said that or even implied it.

Yes you have implied that as you do not see KiwiAlan's points as relevant at all. Only the DSD technology. And by overlooking the engineers importance at the desk you have taken a stand that makes it impossible to understand you otherwise.

By the way 22khz some claim is too low to represent the dynamics of Analog sound wave. Again a vinyl junkie such as yourself should know this.

22kHz is way above most people's perseptive range. I know in the early days of the CD this was an argument used by us vinyl collectors. But they refered to the frequency range. And we did hear a difference. But today this isn't a problem anymore. These days, I hear many CD releases that makes many of my LP's sound old fashioned.

Mon May 19, 2003 4:59 am

Sorry for calling you Vinyl Junkie.. Vinylman. As far as the analog master being infinite. I agree that is not right. There is the limitations of the microphone. I have read that some people can differentiate spacial separation at 25 khz. I have actually read that it could be as high as 40khz(that is bullcrap in my book!!)

Anyway, I am done arguing. I am a peacefull man now. I did enjoy it and after a couple of days I have cooled off. The volcano will erupt again, mark my words. I do still feel there is a benifit in having a high quality transfer that is downsampled to 16 bit. It is tough to write out and it does take special cirucumstances. It all comes down to where the samples are hitting. If completely aligned with the original..no, but if mastered to recognize different points then YES. There are more samples...so there are more samples to be had.

This doesn't make sense, cause as you can see from the posts, I am not good at describing. I am actually better at drawing it out.

Let me say this in my defense. I don't think you understand my view of KIWIALAN"S post.

Kiwi said "the ONLY difference was the mastering" That I disagree with. I am not saying that MASTERING had NOTHING to do with it!!! I don't think I ever said that. If I did, then I am wrong. Mastering does have SOMETHING to do with it. Ok

Anyway, take care. All of you I consider my friends. Good arguing with you.