Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
Eric Seaberg;313698 Wrote: > It was really dependent on the gap in the poles of the record head. > Smaller gap gave you more hi-freq. It really varied from > machine-to-machine and manufacturer-to-manufacturer. I was happy just > to get 22k out of the A800, but the roll-off was quite drastic above > that. > > And the S/N of this model was 7-10dB better than most anything else on > the market, approaching 72dB in some cases (16-track/2-inch head stack) > because the first pre-amp stage was literally inches below the heads. > > The studio I built back in '83 still has that machine. I've offered to > buy it from them but they won't sell it. Many studio multi-track machines employed pre-distotion circuits in their recording chains. The idea was that the type of distortion produced by magnetic tape was entirely predictable therefore an anti-signal could be generated at record time and the recording process would cancel this out and the distortion was reduced considerably. Easily by a factor of in excess of 10 times. Since this type of distortion isn't actually that audiable, most engineers actually aligned the machines to a higher recording level restoring some of the recording distortion but improving the overall signal to noise ratio. This process was also used on the Nagra portable 1/4 inch machines and these machines could achieve noise figures in the 60 - 70 db range while keeping the distortion below 0.5%. The only problem was that the distortion was predictable for a given batch of tape stock. This meant that the machines distortion circuitry had to be realigned for each new batch of tape and this wasn't an easy setup. Not too bad in a studio but I was responsible for keeping over a 100 of these machines on the road and when a new batch of tapes was delivered to stores, life could get hectic. Especially in the mid 70's when the dreeded tape oxide shed happened. Something went wrong with the glue that stuck the oxide to the tape and the oxide was literaly stripped off by the heads and it clogged up the gaps. Nothing for it but to reject the whole batch of tape which was hundreds of rolls and change it which meant re-aligning all those machines again. This tape binding glue was used by a number of companies and many tape masters from that period have lost their high frequency sparkle and sound quite dull. When they are re-mastered onto CD you can easily hear the difference if you compare them to the old vinyl recordings. Digitally re-mastered doesn't always mean better! I wonder sometimes why they don't return to the vinyl masters and process out the noise. Actually the recording process is more complex than usually assumed and the high frequency response is only dependent upon the head gap width during playback. Something very strange happens when you record and most recording heads have actually got quite a wide gap as this inversly effects the linearity or distortion of the record head. If it's narrow you can't generate enough magnetic field to fully magnetise the tape without overloading the head. The recording actually appears to take place slightly outside of the head gap area and as far as I could detect the high frequency response was dependent upon the straightness of the trailing edge of the recording gap. If you put the gap under a microscope and imagine two lines bordering the trailing edge of the gap the distance between these lines appeared to determine the high frequency response and not the gap itself. The position of the recording relative to the gap appeared to be dependent on the recording bias applied. As the edge of a head was likely to be straighter than the gap itself, most recordings were actually much better than the resultant playback therefore old recordings often sounded better when played on a new machine as head technology improved. We had many recordings made on old EMI machines and they sounded a lot beeter when replayed on a Studer. Although you measured a roll off on the machine around 22k the recording was probably a lot better. I made a recording on a semi-pro machine which rolled off around 15k at 7.5 inches but playing it back on the test tape making machine (which just happened to be a modified Studer) producd a result that was actually pretty flat up to 20k and that was about the limit of the Studer playback. If you have a machine with a combined recording head then it looks like it is impossible to have a head doing both jobs but in fact a second gap was made in the rear of the head and as far as the recording was concerned it appeared to use the total of the two gaps giving it good linearity whereas for playback it depended on only the front gap although the back gap did provide a little loss in sensitivity. Analogue alignment was so much more challenging than digital and producing the alignment tapes to align the machines in the first place was a real challenge. How do you align a machine to make an alignment tape if you haven't made an alignment t
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
Eric Seaberg;313567 Wrote: > BTW, Dolby 'A' or 'SR', which was designed for professional use, is > TOTALLY inaudible when setup properly. Dolby 'B', the consumer > 'cassette' noise reduction scheme, is VERY audible because the > record/playback levels were never matched for proper compansion. The > 'other' system you may have been thinking of was DBX, which didn't have > the 'level-setting' requirements that Dolby did. > > Sorry Eric, I'm with Pat here. There hasn't been a Dolby NR recording of a Female choir that I haven't heard the Dolby pumping in and out on the trebles producing a kind of modulation over the voices. I used to think it was the microphones until one day I had the opportunity to do a recording myself with and without Dolby A. Switch off the Dolby and the effect disappeared. It's very slight but audiable and the same effect is there but much more exagerated with Dolby B. If you really want to hear it try Dolby C. Actually you can measure it. Effectively the Dolby adjusts the high frequency response of the recording and playback according to the content of the recording. If there are no treble sounds present then you can turn down the frequency response of the recording chain to loose the noise, as soon as high frequency appears you restore the equalisation using the recorded sound to mask the noise. Unfortunately the spectrum of the noise doesn't exactly match the spectrum of the material and with some material it appears to cause some type of intermodulation which is audiable. Put a frequency analyser on the output and it is possible to just see it. The only advantage of Dolby A was to split the audio spectrum into 3 bands and deal with each band seperately which made it essential to align the equipment properly before recording. But is was still annoying once you noticed it was there. Fortunately this particular problem disappeared when we entered the era of digital mastering. Strangely enough I have heard a similar effect happen during demonstrations of "Audio Watermarking." This time it seemed to produce an extra "edginess" to the Brass instruments. Enough to be able to do a blind test as long as there was some brass content in the recording. That was a few years ago, they may have fixed it by now as I haven't heard it on any broadcasts. -- MrStan MrStan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1771 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
pfarrell;313570 Wrote: > > OK, so I was off a bit on the high end. Did you measure the fall off > over 25kHz? I assume it kept falling off at 6 or maybe 12 dB/octave > It was really dependent on the gap in the poles of the record head. Smaller gap gave you more hi-freq. It really varied from machine-to-machine and manufacturer-to-manufacturer. I was happy just to get 22k out of the A800, but the roll-off was quite drastic above that. And the S/N of this model was 7-10dB better than most anything else on the market, approaching 72dB in some cases (16-track/2-inch head stack) because the first pre-amp stage was literally inches below the heads. The studio I built back in '83 still has that machine. I've offered to buy it from them but they won't sell it. -- Eric Seaberg Eric Seaberg - San Diego - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eric Seaberg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7896 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
You will always find De-correlated noise far less obtrusive. Its much like taking a pic of a blue sky and seeing red clumps , they are obtrusive , if you spread the red clumps evenly in the blue sky , the sky will look more purplish but it wont be anywhere as noticeable as the red clumps. I dont think the loudness wars or compression will ever dissapear ,apart from the radio station reason , the loudness thing is cos most ppl have really lousy hifi's compared to us audiophiles and they need a high average level and anything more than a handful of DB's dynamic range will make loud distort and soft too soft for a decent average level , same goes for compression , imagine the 1810 with cannons if the peak level at 0 dbfs is the loudest canon shot , the rest would be 20 or more DB down from there..so the average level will be recorded at -20dbfs and would lose resolution. -- Rodney_Gold Sb3/Z-sys RDP1/meridian DSP5500's TP/X-cans v3/Senns 650's TP/TACT 2.0/SCM 50a's TP/Meridian DSP5000's "The nicest thing about smacking your head against the wall is...the feeling you get when you stop" Rodney_Gold's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14618 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
Eric Seaberg;313567 Wrote: > Most of the time we didn't use Dolby Noise Reduction on the multi-track > tape since the console had dynamic automation. This allowed us to turn > tracks off, or volume down, when nothing was playing on that track. > With some 'smart' mixing, you could all but lose the tape hiss. Eric, thanks for these insights from someone in the business. As someone who *isn't* in the business, I may have misunderstood what you're saying here, but it sounds like you're saying that during mixdown you tended to fade out tracks during the times when there was no signal present. As a music *consumer*, I think I detect some consequences of that which I personally feel are undesirable. As an example, take the track "Private Investigations" from Dire Straits' "Love Over Gold". (My understanding is that this album was recorded at 30ips without noise reduction). During the introduction, there is a nice low background hiss level, except that when a pair of isolated piano chords are played, the hiss level increases very noticably. I presume this may be because they were doing precisely what you describe: only fading in the piano track when it was playing something. The effect wasn't that noticable on vinyl, but as soon as it was released on CD it became painfully obvious. My feeling is that this variable background noise level is pretty intrusive: worse than just leaving a higher but consistent level of hiss throughout. Any comments? -- cliveb Transporter -> ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
Eric Seaberg wrote: > Gothca there, Pat. I had a 2" Studer A800 24-track and consistently > measured its response at ±2dB 42Hz-23kHz. It would be about -6dB @ > 25kHz. OK, so I was off a bit on the high end. Did you measure the fall off over 25kHz? I assume it kept falling off at 6 or maybe 12 dB/octave > The reason for the weird low-end @ 42Hz was due to the AES > curve for 30-inches-per-second tape speed. Vinyl wasn't real keen on a > lot of activity below 50Hz, so the AES (Audio Engineering Society) > decided to roll it off slowly below that. You had to, or the needle would literally jump out of the groove. And the mastering folks would EQ it again at least per the RIAA specs. Often they'd do more. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
pfarrell;311377 Wrote: > > None of the 2" machine had much frequency response above 20kHz. Most > didn't have any, but it hard to generalize. Most used Dolby or > something like it, long before Dolby became popular in the mass > market. > > If the tracking was done on a typical Struder 2" machine with Dolby, > there isn't much pure signal about the 20kHz that red book can cover. > And Dolby processing is audible if you pay attention and have good > gear. Gothca there, Pat. I had a 2" Studer A800 24-track and consistently measured its response at ±2dB 42Hz-23kHz. It would be about -6dB @ 25kHz. The reason for the weird low-end @ 42Hz was due to the AES curve for 30-inches-per-second tape speed. Vinyl wasn't real keen on a lot of activity below 50Hz, so the AES (Audio Engineering Society) decided to roll it off slowly below that. Most of the time we didn't use Dolby Noise Reduction on the multi-track tape since the console had dynamic automation. This allowed us to turn tracks off, or volume down, when nothing was playing on that track. With some 'smart' mixing, you could all but lose the tape hiss. Also, at 30IPS the octave of the tape hiss 'shifted' upwards in the spectrum as opposed to 15IPS, making it not so obvious to hear. We would use Dolby SR on our 1/2" 2-track mixdown masters since you didn't have the option of 'losing the hiss with a fade-out' like you did on the multi-track. I did a LOT of vinyl (lacquer) mastering in the late 70s and early 80s. It was an INCREDIBLE time for the music industry back then. - sorry for the extended history lesson, guys. -- Eric Seaberg Eric Seaberg - San Diego - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eric Seaberg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7896 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
pfarrell;310902 Wrote: > darrenyeats wrote: > > Music companies should focus on mastering all their music better > rather > > than putting effort into quality only for the unadmirable reason of > > pushing unnecessary DRM-ridden new formats. > > But that would be hard. The PHB at the labels would have to tell the > Mastering Engineer: "Make it sound as great as you can, screw loudness > > wars" And the Mastering Engineer would say "Thank you, thank you" and > do so. > > But it will never happen until all the labels replace their idiot > lawyers/bosses > > > -- > Pat Farrell > http://www.pfarrell.com/ Amen to that! -- sfraser 2 Chan. System SB3->Benchmark DAC-1-> Bryston(BP-25,3B)->PMC TB2 Home Theater System SB2-> Bryston(SP1,4B,4B,2B,2B)-> PSB Stratus Goldi Basement System SB2-> Parasound Preamp (carver M1.0t) ->Klipsch La Scala's Bedroom System SB2-> Sony BoomBox Rear Deck/Patio Duet-> Yamaha Reciever-> PSB Mini's, sfraser's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2026 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
I think everything is converted to basically single bit DSDish quasi Delta-Sigma format by the AKM and just about any other non-R2R ladder based DAC on the market these days. This seems to be the modern approach. D/A conversion of such 1 bit non PCM streams has some linearity advantages over the older and sometimes preferred approaches of the earlier DACs (venerable BB PCM1704 and other much more expensive chips).There are trade-offs as well. Numerous posts have been on this subject to learn much more. So when we listen to PCM sources through most modern chips, we are really listening through a streaming quai 1-bit conversion anyways through the SB and TP. -- jt25741 SB3->AR Masters Coax -> PS Audio DLIII (Cullen L3) -> Cardas Golden Reference XLR -> Sim Audio P-5 -> Cardas Golden Reference XLR -> Sim Audio W-5 -> Cardas Golden Reference Hi-Mid,PS Audio Xstream Plus Low-> Magnepan 3.6R jt25741's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8645 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
Reads like promotional stuff, not more. For example the fact DSD uses 4x the amount of data than CD. Nothing special i think, PCM 24/96 does also. -- Wombat Transporter -> Avantgarde based monoblocks -> self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
DCtoDaylight;311525 Wrote: > They're not making much money, which is why it's in the death spiral, > but it was Sony's hope that they would make the kind of money CD's > earned them > > Interesting idea that DSD was invented as an archival format. Both > your links seem to originate from the same source (or one copied from > the other), it would be interesting to find what that original source > was, probably a Sony press release. > > Cheers, Dave Dave, there is a Sony/Philips *Introduction to SACD* document in PDF format http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/consumer/dsd/dsd.pdf -- siriuslycold > *'DVD-A Registry' (http://dvd-a.info/)* for hirez/surround audio Bluray, DVD-Audio, DAD/HDAD, DualDisc, MVI < siriuslycold's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18081 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
They're not making much money, which is why it's in the death spiral, but it was Sony's hope that they would make the kind of money CD's earned them Interesting idea that DSD was invented as an archival format. Both your links seem to originate from the same source (or one copied from the other), it would be interesting to find what that original source was, probably a Sony press release. Cheers, Dave -- DCtoDaylight Audiophile wish list: Zero Distortion, Infinite Signal to Noise Ratio, and a Bandwidth from DC to Daylight DCtoDaylight's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7284 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
DCtoDaylight;311340 Wrote: > a good system for protecting copywrites, and preventing piracy. Not to > mention selling unique recording & playback gear, with the associated > royalties they're not making that much money on this, compared to redbook CD sales and now downloads. it's also an expensive medium to work in DCtoDaylight;311340 Wrote: > Can you point out any links or sources to support this? http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dvd-audio-vs-sacd-vs-cd/dvd-audio-vs-sacd-vs-cd-page-2 "Audioholics" Wrote: > The potential for abuse further down the line is a real possibility and > a very questionable practice to many of us with extensive analog > backgrounds. SACD uses an entirely different way of moving data through > the digital domain, which Sony has called DSD. This was invented by Sony > as an archival format because just about any of the present sampling > rates used can be ãmovedä out of DSD and into a PCM format. -- siriuslycold > *'DVD-A Registry' (http://dvd-a.info/)* for hirez/surround audio Bluray, DVD-Audio, DAD/HDAD, DualDisc, MVI < siriuslycold's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18081 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
atrocity;311245 Wrote: > It's too bad most (all?) of the hybrid SACDs from old analog masters > (Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd) contain DSD to PCM conversions > on their redbook CD layer. RedBook is PCM. To get PCM, you have to convert it. Whether or not there was anything there to being with. Old masters were typically either 2" 24 track or 1/2" stereo. The terms get misused a bunch. The tracking tapes were nearly always 2" 24 track, unless you go back to pre-Sargent Peppers days. (Some of the early Beatles stuff was recorded in mono.). The 24 tracks are then mixed down to stereo and put on two track 1/2" tapes sent to the mastering engineer. For Vinyl, mastering was an art. So the mater tape in was really the 'mix down' tape, and the output of the mastering engineer was stereo sent to the pressing plant. None of the 2" machine had much frequency response above 20kHz. Most didn't have any, but it hard to generalize. Most used Dolby or something like it, long before Dolby became popular in the mass market. If the tracking was done on a typical Struder 2" machine with Dolby, there isn't much pure signal about the 20kHz that red book can cover. And Dolby processing is audible if you pay attention and have good gear. -- pfarrell Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html pfarrell's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=200 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
siriuslycold;311257 Wrote: > historically, the development of DSD was originally intended as an > archival format that could easily be converted to PCM I've never heard this claim before, and frankly, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. PCM is a much easier format to work with. DSD seems to be developed with the intent to make it as difficult as possible to archive, copy and otherwise use. In other words, a good system for protecting copywrites, and preventing piracy. Not to mention selling unique recording & playback gear, with the associated royalties Can you point out any links or sources to support this? -- DCtoDaylight Audiophile wish list: Zero Distortion, Infinite Signal to Noise Ratio, and a Bandwidth from DC to Daylight DCtoDaylight's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7284 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
atrocity;311245 Wrote: > It's too bad most (all?) of the hybrid SACDs from old analog masters > (Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd) contain DSD to PCM conversions > on their redbook CD layer. It might have been useful/instructive to > master each layer in its respective realm. historically, the development of DSD was originally intended as an archival format that could easily be converted to PCM; so its use in analog -> DSD (so called archive) -> PCM on redbook was as intended and I guess on those discs were supposed to "demo" the process atrocity;311245 Wrote: > Confession: I love SACD because I love surround sound. ditto!! ;D -- siriuslycold > *'DVD-A Registry' (http://dvd-a.info/)* for hirez/surround audio Bluray, DVD-Audio, DAD/HDAD, DualDisc, MVI < siriuslycold's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18081 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
pfarrell;311021 Wrote: > I have never seen a serious attempt to compare high-wide PCM with DSD. > Lots of comparisons of redbook to SACD, but that's not fair, its apples > to oranges. It's too bad most (all?) of the hybrid SACDs from old analog masters (Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd) contain DSD to PCM conversions on their redbook CD layer. It might have been useful/instructive to master each layer in its respective realm. Confession: I love SACD because I love surround sound. But for normal stereo, I've never been particularly blown away by SACD. I remember getting several of the Rolling Stones titles when they first appeared...I popped in "Let it Bleed" and was amazed at how great it sounded...then switched to the redbook layer and thought it sounded just as good. Even fully *expecting* the SACD to sound dramatically better, it just didn't to my ears. -- atrocity atrocity's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16009 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
BigTony;310697 Wrote: > There is always an option to upgrade my CD to SACD, which I might do if > SACD keep rolling, but its a difficult time to decide if the format is > dead/stalled That depends largely on what genres of music you're into. If you're into pop/rock it's looking grim. If you're into classical music, don't think twice and hop. SACD is alive and kicking in the classical scene. For the last three years, the number of releases per month has remained very constant at an average 60-70 titles per month, now well exceeding 5,000 -- more than one can aspire to collect. For more discussion about SACD (and BD for music) on PS3 you may want to check 'PS3SACD.com' (http://www.ps3sacd.com). -- The Seventh Taylor The Seventh Taylor's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18075 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
It'd be interesting to see who is using the dff files and how (the
plugin that converts to PCM is a bit of a waste of time - I mean, just
download hirez PCM in the first place and save a conversion step)
Burning the dff files to disc is not an option either - afaik, there is
no PC drive that supports reading SACD much less a write capability..
(in fact, lets ask 2L)
The way I see it, a few things need to happen -
1. a computer sound card with HDMI ('like this one'
(http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=3324))
2. that supports DSD output via HDMI (not mentioned)
3. a receiver that decodes DSD via HDMI (a few available) or
3. HDMI input and DSD decoder in the Transporter
but it doesn't look likely to
--
siriuslycold
>
*'DVD-A Registry' (http://dvd-a.info/)* for hirez/surround audio
Bluray, DVD-Audio, DAD/HDAD, DualDisc, MVI
<
siriuslycold's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18081
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
DCtoDaylight wrote: > lost the ability to compare them to native PCM. What's needed is a way > to listen to them in their native DSD format, by burning them to an > SACD DVD disc for example. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any easy > way to do this Sony didn't want this. While a lot of SACDs were recorded with PCM (sometimes even high + wide), the design decisions that Sony made were to make all of the digital recording investment that studios had made into ProTools, ADC, etc. be obsolete. To sing the SACD song, you were supposed to get all new digital gear, all new software. Some studios did convert. But most (all?) sessions were either recorded PCM or recorded DSD. So if the masters are one or the other, there is really no way to compare them without some conversion. If you tried to track the session with both PCM and DSD, there is no way you could be sure that the levels, phase, etc were all identical. In practice, a lot of SACD and DVD-D releases were not really high-wide PCM, there were a lot done on 48kHz ADAT. I have never seen a serious attempt to compare high-wide PCM with DSD. Lots of comparisons of redbook to SACD, but that's not fair, its apples to oranges. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
Wombat;311011 Wrote: > They also offer "dff" DSD files. My bad! Didn't notice the .dff's between the .wav's... Unfortunately, for most of us, those files really aren't much use. If we need to transcode them to PCM in order to listen to them, then we've lost the ability to compare them to native PCM. What's needed is a way to listen to them in their native DSD format, by burning them to an SACD DVD disc for example. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any easy way to do this Dave -- DCtoDaylight Audiophile wish list: Zero Distortion, Infinite Signal to Noise Ratio, and a Bandwidth from DC to Daylight DCtoDaylight's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7284 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
DCtoDaylight;311003 Wrote: > Unless I'm misreading something, the downloads aren't DSD, they're PCM, > but sourced from an SACD original release. The downloads are all > .wav, or .flac, or.wma, which are all PCM formats. > > Dave They also offer "dff" DSD files. There is even a plugin for Windows Media Player to listen these at your PC. It converts to PCM then. -- Wombat Transporter -> Avantgarde based monoblocks -> self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
siriuslycold;311002 Wrote: > that's interesting. There is someone doing DSD downlaods, so perhaps > someone with a Transporter can try this out Unless I'm misreading something, the downloads aren't DSD, they're PCM, but sourced from an SACD original release. The downloads are all .wav, or .flac, or.wma, which are all PCM formats. Dave -- DCtoDaylight Audiophile wish list: Zero Distortion, Infinite Signal to Noise Ratio, and a Bandwidth from DC to Daylight DCtoDaylight's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7284 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
seanadams;310820 Wrote: > Factoid: The DAC in Transporter actually supports SACD. However, because > there is no easy way to rip an SACD, and there essentially no SACD > material that you can obtain that isn't on an SACD disc, it's not a > very useful capability to have. As such we never added the software > support to handle SACD data. that's interesting. There is someone doing DSD downlaods, so perhaps someone with a Transporter can try this out http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html -- siriuslycold siriuslycold's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18081 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
darrenyeats wrote: > Music companies should focus on mastering all their music better rather > than putting effort into quality only for the unadmirable reason of > pushing unnecessary DRM-ridden new formats. But that would be hard. The PHB at the labels would have to tell the Mastering Engineer: "Make it sound as great as you can, screw loudness wars" And the Mastering Engineer would say "Thank you, thank you" and do so. But it will never happen until all the labels replace their idiot lawyers/bosses -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
When you hear the SACD sounding better it makes it easy to conclude that SACD is a better quality format than red book. In fact no such conclusion can be arrived at. Sean said it all when he explained that SACDs and their CD equivalent are mastered differently in many cases. Music companies should focus on mastering all their music better rather than putting effort into quality only for the unadmirable reason of pushing unnecessary DRM-ridden new formats. Darren -- darrenyeats SB3 / Inguz -> Krell KAV-300i (pre bypass) -> PMC AB-1 Dell laptop -> JVC UX-C30 mini system darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
I would not waste money on buying a dedicated machine to play DVD-A or SACD disks. I can't remember the last time an album has come out in either format that I wanted to own. It's been probably two years. If you are into classical you may have more options, but I'm not. However, there is reportedly an easy way to rip two-channel 24/96 DVD-A files and play them back on the Transporter. This could be a good solution for enjoying hi-res music until downloadable hi-res files or Blu-ray music disks become available. -- gregeas gregeas's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5877 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
iPhone;310868 Wrote: > Hey Tony. Comparing Apples to Oranges, it just can't be done. SACD is > its own thing and that is probably why it is dead. Sony who created it > is not even supporting it anymore. I would not make a switch to SACD > because it would be just like going out and buying a HD DVD player > instead of Blu-Ray. The SACD format is dead and in 10 years we will > probably not even be able to buy Red Book CDs. > > Now on the Transporter front there are some things to think about. Sure > one can use and SB3 with a $1000 DAC and save $700 over a Transporter, > BUT the SB3 will not play HD Digital Files unless they are down > converted so why even go there. The future of Music is going to be > files. Not CDs or SACDs, but files in some type of format. Most here > are hoping it will be some HD format. If that ends up happening, the > SB3 with the DAC will most likely then be out dated. > > If it were me, I would keep listening to the SB3 and start saving money > for a Transporter or whatever future Slim Devices product might come our > way to play HD FLAC files. That's what I meant to say but iPhone has done it much more clearly. iPhone, you hit the nail regarding the future of music, however, one could just as easily say "media" instead of "music" and still be correct. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
BigTony;310697 Wrote: > Another reason for thinking about the Transporter is 24 bit flacs, which > I am sure will become more common in the future (I want to think of this > purchase as a 10 year plan, that way its £10 a month - and thats really > nothing! - the price of a DVD). > > Being in the UK its not easy to even find a Transporter to listen to, > never mind bring it home and try it out for a week (but if anyone would > lend me their's while they are on holiday perhaps :-) ), so it is an > expensive purchase which has to go mainly on reccomendation. > > Does anyone out there have much listening experience of SACD and a > Transporter? There is always an option to upgrade my CD to SACD, which > I might do if SACD keep rolling, but its a difficult time to decide if > the format is dead/stalled - Bluray Audio anyone? > > Many thanks for all your help and comments. > > Cheers > > BT Hey Tony. Comparing Apples to Oranges, it just can't be done. SACD is its own thing and that is probably why it is dead. Sony who created it is not even supporting it anymore. I would not make a switch to SACD because it would be just like going out and buying a HD DVD player instead of Blu-Ray. The SACD format is dead and in 10 years we will probably not even be able to buy Red Book CDs. Now on the Transporter front there are some things to think about. Sure one can use and SB3 with a $1000 DAC and save $700 over a Transporter, BUT the SB3 will not play HD Digital Files unless they are down converted so why even go there. The future of Music is going to be files. Not CDs or SACDs, but files in some type of format. Most here are hoping it will be some HD format. If that ends up happening, the SB3 with the DAC will most likely then be out dated. If it were me, I would keep listening to the SB3 and start saving money for a Transporter or whatever future Slim Devices product might come our way to play HD FLAC files. -- iPhone *iPhone* 'Last.FM' (http://www.last.fm/user/mephone) Media Room: Transporter, VTL TL-6.5 Signature Pre-Amp, Ayre MX-R Mono Blocks, Vandersteen Quatro, VeraStarr 6.4SE 6-channel Amp, VCC-5 Reference Center, four VSM-1 Signatures, Runco RS 900 CineWide AutoScope 2.35:1 Living Room: Duet, ADCOM GTP-870HD, Cinepro 3K6SE III Gold, Vandersteen Model 3A Signature, Two 2Wq subs, VCC-2, Two VSM-1 Bedroom: SB3, NAD C370, Thiel 2.3 Home Office: SB3, Parasound Vamp v.3, VSM-1 Sigs Mobile: SB3, Audioengine A5 iPhone's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13622 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
Factoid: The DAC in Transporter actually supports SACD. However, because there is no easy way to rip an SACD, and there essentially no SACD material that you can obtain that isn't on an SACD disc, it's not a very useful capability to have. As such we never added the software support to handle SACD data. Side by side comparisons of PCM and SACD are very difficult to do for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that most SACD material out there is actually derived from a higher resolution PCM file to begin with. It's difficult to make a meaningful comparison even playing them through the same DAC, much less two completely different systems. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
BT, There are several issues with your post: 1) I find it hard to believe that you can't find a very decent external DAC for well under the price of a new Transporter. 2) While the Transporter's internal DAC is quite good, on normal red book audio, i.e. 16 bit/44.1 kHz, it doesn't match the sound of an SACD. High resolution files, 24bit/48kHz or in the case of the Transporter up to 24bit/96kHz, also sound "better" than red book audio. 3) Unfortunately, SACD is slowly dying at very quiet death. On the other hand, I'm hopeful that more and more high resolution audio files will become available for purchase (mostly via direct downloads), in which case having a Transporter handy to play these files would be very useful. To summarize - SACDs usually sound better (the sound is very dependent on the SACD player) than the Transporter playing red book audio files. High resolution audio files also sound better than red book audio files. While the Transporter is a big step up from a SqueezeBox, since you already have a SqueezeBox I would spend a little more time researching external DACs before I purchased a Transporter. Of course, if you do end up getting a Transporter you can always use the SqueezeBox in another room. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
In terms of performance , the transporter does not outperform a SACD recording with the same normal 16/44 file. In fact , in my opionin , the transporter does not outperform some CDP's playing a CD. In the digital domain , there seems to be no difference between a Transporter and a Dedicated transports output or your SB3 , but in the Analog domain , I and some others have found the Transporters Dac to be less than ideal for our tastes. I feel it is over analytical and lacks in low bassbut yours and other's mileage may vary in this regard I would rather stick with your SB3 and audition a few DAC's. I dont beleive you should make the $2k jump just for the transporters DAC and strongly reccomend you audition one before taking the chance. -- Rodney_Gold Sb3/Z-sys RDP1/meridian DSP5500's TP/X-cans v3/Senns 650's TP/TACT 2.0/SCM 50a's TP/Meridian DSP5000's "The nicest thing about smacking your head against the wall is...the feeling you get when you stop" Rodney_Gold's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14618 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Does the Transporter outperform SACD (2ch)?
I've been mucking about with SACD for a few days and I must say I'm very impressed - and this has been achieved using a PS3 and an Onkyo 805 amp via HDMI. In 5.1 the sound can be very rich and full, but not all music is suitable for 5.1 (unlike War of the Worlds for example, which sounds like it was made for 5.1.). However, even in 2ch mode the sound is mighty impressive, I played Richard and Linda Thompson Shoot out the Lights in both CD (via my SB3 and Beresford DAC) and SACD via PS3 and the PS3 wins. I have been listening to my hifi alot due to illness, and I can't help but think that it might be time to upgrade from the SB3. I have thought about better DAC, but by the time I've added a decent DAC I've spent almost as much as a Transporter (in a wierd illogical way). So, the 1,000,000 $ question (while a million $ is still worth something) - will the Transporter match SACD audio? I don't mind the having to play SACD or LP's, as they always have the feel of 'Sunday Best' but for 95% of my listening I just want to stream from my NAS. Another reason for thinking about the Transporter is 24 bit flacs, which I am sure will become more common in the future (I want to think of this purchase as a 10 year plan, that way its £10 a month - and thats really nothing! - the price of a DVD). Being in the UK its not easy to even find a Transporter to listen to, never mind bring it home and try it out for a week (but if anyone would lend me their's while they are on holiday perhaps :-) ), so it is an expensive purchase which has to go mainly on reccomendation. Does anyone out there have much listening experience of SACD and a Transporter? There is always an option to upgrade my CD to SACD, which I might do if SACD keep rolling, but its a difficult time to decide if the format is dead/stalled - Bluray Audio anyone? Many thanks for all your help and comments. Cheers BT -- BigTony We're Only In It For The Music! www.zappateers.com BigTony's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10638 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48748 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
