Keir H
Second Unit
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2001
- Messages
- 462
I'll be sure to let you guys know how my Sony 900V DVD/SACD player will sound matched up with my equiptment. I hope it still sounds good although I am dealing a prepro with no passthrough.
PCM is transparent so if that's truly the case this shouldn't matter. Still, many people claim it does. Obviously these aren't consistent with one another.Perhaps what they mean is that changing into PCM from DSD is no worse than if the source were PCM in the first place. This would not be inconsistent with the belief that a sound stored in PCM is inherently worse than DSD.
Walt O
Do you suppose that the original price difference (US$1700 for the Sony C555 vs, about US$700 for the Panasonic RP-91) might lead to a better analog output on the SACD player in the first place?Again, putting words in my mouth. I never said that I thought that the Sony had a better analog output. I simply stated that the difference between the digitized Hi-res signal and the pure analog signal using the Sony was more perceptible than that of the Panasonic using my equipment. Nothing else.
Instead of going out and automatically trying to wreck someone's argument or opinion, why don't you practice a little civility and ask questions as to why a person came up with their opinion. It will help you out in the long run.
What he was saying was that no matter whether the output was from the Sony (SACD) or the Panasonic (DVD-A), it was an analog signal. Therefore, processing from the Rotel should be identical from either source (analog to digital in both cases). Therefore it would be hard to believe that there was a difference in one conversion, but not the other. Unless perhaps the analog signal from the DAC's in the Sony was a better source originally. It shouldn't arise from the original medium for recording (PCM or DSD).While both signals are analog after coming out of the players, the signal coming out of the DVD-A player was at one time encoded in PCM, so if PCM somehow corrupts or degrades the sound, then the degradation has already happened. The analog coming out of the SACD player was originally DSD, and if it had never been through a PCM stage up till that point, then it would not be affected...but taking that analog signal from the SACD player and then changing it into PCM would introduce the corruption/degradation, which is exactly what he is finding; the PCMed sound from the SACD player sounds worse than the PCMed sound from the DVD-A player. It seems that once something has been through a PCM stage, it's sound is damaged forever, but subsequent PCM stages may not harm as much.
Walt O
With said CD's, I burned copies of each disc using a CD writer and high quality Audio only cd's (which I do anyway, keeping the orig at home and the copy in my car) and alternated which CD player would have the original or the copyI have serious reservations about his methods, but it's also not something I'm going to clog this thread with, and will discuss it with him privately. Suffice it to say, that what he tested vs. what I'm discussing are two different matters.
It distresses me to read assertions on your part that PCM is in some way degraded in comparison to DSD. This is at best misguided and at worst completely erroneous. While I appreciate your opinion about sonic preferences, the term degraded is in no way accurate from a technical or sonic perspective.
Some companies that can choose whatever gear they want to for capture, mix and master use PCM equipment at high resolution (24/96K and higher). Other companies use DSD equipment. They choose based on the best sonics to their ears.
Take for example Mark Waldrep's material on AIX Records. It is considered by many to be some of the finest recorded material on the planet, regardless of format. I have never personally heard one complaint that Mark's recordings were anything less than reference class.
For that matter, look at the recording quality from Silverline (yes Silverline). There are about a half dozen titles from them that are simply stunning sonically. For these titles no one has ever mentioned any of the sonic degradations that (in your opinion) come from their PCM heritage. The critiques on their less than stellar titles (far too many) stem from (a) bad master tape quality and/or (b) terrible surround mixes.
Heck, let's talk about one that all the SACD fans rave about, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon in multi-channel. The analog multi-channel tracks were originally captured as 24/96K PCM for mixing and mastering before finally being converted to DSD for delivery as an SACD. I haven't heard anyone talk about degradation on this title for multi-channel by inserting intermediate PCM.
Perhaps you meant to use different words?
We'll leave the discussion of the various mixing solutions to another thread.
Regards,