It seems the original thread has become corrupted and un-openable, so I am posting my reply to the Sony post in this new thread:


There are many different ways to implement a DAC. Personally, I think that Sony is just using a "different" rather than "better" way of doing something that is not all that complicated in the first place. The mulit-level whatever sounds like marketing for marketing's sake.

Many if not most DACs these days use "1 bit" technology which is essentially converting the PCM bitstream to Delta-Sigma modulation for conversion to analog. Delta-Sigma technology has been around for decades. This is essentailly the same technology as used in SACD, except that the bitstream is stored in native format rathen than PCM on the disk.

This type of DAC has the advantage of simplicity, stable performance, and accuracy for relatively low cost. The traditional R/2R type of DAC is also very simple in concept, however it is expensive to make one with exceptional precision because the resistive ladder values must be very precise and stable - something that is extremely difficult to do when temperature changes are thrown into the mix.

So anyway, while I am sure that Sony's implementation is just fine and dandy, I also think that Sony as a company tends to do things their own way even if it means that their solution is more complicated and no better than a traditional soluton that's realized well. But then, there's no marketing value in that, is there?

Pretty to the point.

Soundhound,
Since you work in the recording industry, I have a question for you. Is the recording industry embracing the two "high definition" audio formats in the original recordings masters?

I ask because I hear a big improvement in the sounda of hybrid cds that are recorded in DSD even if played through a normal CD player. The latest from Alison Kraus and James Taylor in hybrid format certainly sound good through SACD player, but what really surprised me is their quality of sound even when they are played as a cd in a plain redbook cd player.

I work in the movie post production sound industry, with music scoring.

Anyway, most masters are recorded in 24 bit and usually 48K for the individual "tracks". The mixdowns are increasingly done at 96 or 192K sampling rate.

The advent of digital audio workstations like the ProTools that I use has made higher resolution recording as easy and painless as just clicking a button on the screen. It's no big deal to use higher resolutions, so there is no reason no to do so.

Just don't attribute the improved sound you are hearing with recent recordings and reissues completely to the higher resolution recording formats. The real reason you are hearing better sound is by better recording techniques (more purist oriented) and in the case of reissues, better mastering methods than were available even 5 years ago.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited April 07, 2004).]

I named those two sacd's because they are claimed to have been recorded as well as mixed with DSD equipment. There is a sound gap (much clearer) between these and remastered sacds of cd's and records of the past.

If you mix down in higher resolution, why wouldn't you record in higher resolution as well? Wouldn't the original masters, and thus the end product, benefit from being recorded as well as mixed at a higher resolution?

Generally, original tracks are reocorded at lower resolution (48K/24bit) because doing otherwise would require too much hard disk activity and possible loss of the data stream from the disks not being able to keep up. This could result in being able to utilize fewer active tracks than needed.

This is not a hard and fast rule, but generally the ability to have many (32-64) tracks is more important than the niggling resolution difference between 48K and 96K.

I've posted extensively about this subject, but in a nutshell, I would bet that if I presented you with a 24bit/96K original recording, and a 16bit/44.1K reduction of that same master (done carefully!), you would not be able to tell the difference.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited April 07, 2004).]

When SACD people say that this technology enables them to record new music with 1 bit representation of wave form at 2.8224 MHz sampling rate using 5th or 6th order error correction that preserves fidelity in the audible frequency range, are they just jiving with marketing lingo to impress the heck out of us gullible fools with disposable income? Or does this make better recording of music than previous methods? I thought I heard the difference, but I am also susuptible to market forces.

Like I posted earlier, a very large number if not most PCM systems use A/D and D/A converters using "1 bit" technology and megahertz sampling rates because it is a very reliable, stable and cost effective way to convert analog to digital and digital to analog. Sony just stores the data in the native Delta-Sigma bitstream, where the data is digitally converted to PCM for storage in conventional systems. So essentially both SACD and PCM are using the same core techonogy for the actual conversion. How the data is stored makes no difference in the final sound whatsoever.

So really, the answer to your quesion is that while the SACD system is very good, it is certainly no better than the PCM system (or vice versa). It's all marketing. If there were no marketing claims of superiority, how would they differentiate their products?

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited April 07, 2004).]

I just typed this long rant about why some of SH's conclusions in this thread are only right if you read them very carefully. I then related these thoughts to how they could bring down the whole music industry. Then, I realized that I was barking up the wrong tree by trying to do that. Instead, I now realize that I need to change my listening habits.

As of now, I'm selling all my SACDs and my player. I'm then going to convert all of my cd collection into MP3s. Any new music I need I'll buy off of iTunes. Why? Because, technically, its all been downconverted properly so its original resolution shouldn't bother me.

One more thing, if your ears tell you it sounds better, go for it. I, for one, find SACD a much more pleasant format to listen to no matter how technically the same it is compared to PCM. Why? Who knows?

Happy listening!

Uh, just what do you mean by all this?