DVD audio player

Forum for all multichannel discussions (SACD, AV etc) and Movie discussions.
_D_S_J_R_
Posts: 4185
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:53 am
Location: The end of the road in Suffolk Coastal.
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 6 times
Wales

Re: DVD audio player

Unread post by _D_S_J_R_ »

Classicrock wrote:
Macca wrote:
Classicrock wrote:Macca you are on the wrong forum - this is hi-fi subjectivist not objectivist. Numbers don't equate to what we hear. If it sounds better it is better. Some people appear to have dialed out the flaws in CD which have not been completely eradicated with better Dacs. Vinyl still sounds superior to me than any digital format. Closer to real music.
Numbers do equate to what we hear, sorry to break that to you ;)

I don't understand why anyone would not be interested in why we hear what we hear. But each to his own.
Problem is the way you interpret the numbers in this case conflicts with what a lot of people hear. Studios don't use hi-res purely to get increased dynamic range. I can't think of any recording that makes use of the theoretical dynamic range of CD let alone hi-res. In practice vinyl masterings often have more apparent dynamic range. I just choose to use my ears. Of course you need an SACD player that actually outperforms a very good CD player for the advantages to be apparent. I'm sure some of the budget units have been underwhelming. They are certainly more than just audible if not as great as a substantial turntable or phono stage upgrade. Just shows there is a lot more contained on ye old black vinyl disc than quoted measurements would suggest.
It's been known for a while that most if not all SA-CD releases of older material anyway, have been further tweaked to sound different or better than the CD - easily heard AND measured, so no disparity there.

Anyway, I gave up listening for micro-details years ago - it's the music that matters to me, however it's stored/whatever it's stored on...
Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way...The time has gone, The song is over, Thought I'd something more to say...

User avatar
Progmeister
Posts: 531
Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 10:47 pm
Location: Teesside
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 155 times
Contact:
Great Britain

Re: DVD audio player

Unread post by Progmeister »

The thing is i asked the same question on AOS and got two sensible concise answers without the huge debate about digital matters.
Daniel Quinn wrote:Prog you need to up your game this isn't aos ;)
People turn to poison quick as lager turns to piss,,,J.C. Clarke.

joe
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:48 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: DVD audio player

Unread post by joe »

Progmeister wrote:The thing is i asked the same question on AOS and got two sensible concise answers without the huge debate about digital matters.
In 'three words daily'?

User avatar
Progmeister
Posts: 531
Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 10:47 pm
Location: Teesside
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 155 times
Contact:
Great Britain

Re: DVD audio player

Unread post by Progmeister »

Eh?
joe wrote:
Progmeister wrote:The thing is i asked the same question on AOS and got two sensible concise answers without the huge debate about digital matters.
In 'three words daily'?
People turn to poison quick as lager turns to piss,,,J.C. Clarke.

Daniel Quinn
Posts: 8586
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:16 am
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 399 times

Re: DVD audio player

Unread post by Daniel Quinn »

Progmeister wrote:The thing is i asked the same question on AOS and got two sensible concise answers without the huge debate about digital matters.
Daniel Quinn wrote:Prog you need to up your game this isn't aos ;)

I was about to say you are being disingenuous but it as suddenly struck we are ,mis-communicating .

I took your "bollocks" post to be retort to contents of classic's posts on measurements , when [ in view of your subsequent posts ] it was probably meant as a general comment upon the continued derailing of your thread .

my comment on upping your game was aimed at the unsavoury nature of responding to the content of a post by simply saying bollocks

I apologize for not appreciating the point of your post was not an attack on classic . ;)
Last edited by Daniel Quinn on Wed Aug 05, 2015 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Progmeister
Posts: 531
Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 10:47 pm
Location: Teesside
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 155 times
Contact:
Great Britain

Re: DVD audio player

Unread post by Progmeister »

Daniel Quinn wrote:
Progmeister wrote:The thing is i asked the same question on AOS and got two sensible concise answers without the huge debate about digital matters.
Daniel Quinn wrote:Prog you need to up your game this isn't aos ;)

I was about to say you are being disingenuous , but it a suddenly struck we are ,mis-communicating .

Yea Daniel. You are correct. It was my frustration about asking a simple question and my thread being hijacked not the elaborate answers. Hence the bollocks answer. Glad we cleared that up.I took your "bollocks" post to be retort to classic posts on measurements , when [ in view of your subsequent posts ] it was probably meant as a comment on the continued derailing of your thread .

my comment on upping your game was aimed at the unsavoury nature of responding to a post by simply saying bollocks ;)

I apologize for not appreciating the point of your post was not an attack on classic . ;)
People turn to poison quick as lager turns to piss,,,J.C. Clarke.

User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Posts: 30758
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:26 pm
Location: Muppet Labs
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: DVD audio player

Unread post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew »

Progmeister wrote:The thing is i asked the same question on AOS and got two sensible concise answers without the huge debate about digital matters.
Which is best two concise answer or 5 pages of fun and bollocks to enjoy. Threads will always have side shoots and sometime even malignant growths. AoS normally does it as well. IMO it is part of the fun of forums.

Daniel Quinn
Posts: 8586
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:16 am
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 399 times

Re: DVD audio player

Unread post by Daniel Quinn »

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I have just read the thread , you only got two replies and one of them was the oppo .

give me h/s any day .

User avatar
Macca
Posts: 1551
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:30 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: DVD audio player

Unread post by Macca »

[quote="Classicrock Studios don't use hi-res purely to get increased dynamic range. I can't think of any recording that makes use of the theoretical dynamic range of CD let alone hi-res. In practice vinyl masterings often have more apparent dynamic range. I just choose to use my ears. Of course you need an SACD player that actually outperforms a very good CD player for the advantages to be apparent. I'm sure some of the budget units have been underwhelming. They are certainly more than just audible if not as great as a substantial turntable or phono stage upgrade. Just shows there is a lot more contained on ye old black vinyl disc than quoted measurements would suggest.[/quote]

So why so studios use 24 bit recording if not for dynamic range?
You are correct that no completed, mastered recording uses even the dynamic range of redbook. So what are those extra bits for?
So I can't hear a difference because my SACD player is not good enough? Or those of my friends that I have also tried? Yes that must be it, that's a far more logical explanation than there is no diference because there is no reason why there should be a difference. Not.

And what vinyl has got to do with this debate I have no idea. Yes, it can sound very good indeed, I completely agree.

_D_S_J_R_
Posts: 4185
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:53 am
Location: The end of the road in Suffolk Coastal.
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 6 times
Wales

Re: DVD audio player

Unread post by _D_S_J_R_ »

They use 24 bit so they can manipulate/edit/eq/compress/gain-ride/filter/MIX away to their hearts content, leaving the main 16 bits un-corrupted. In the early days, digital editors were not good sounding and messed up the last bit or two of the 16 bits (told by a Decca engineer and Linn confirmed it too later on - Decca made their own digital editors for years until Sony to start with got it right in the early 90's or so).
Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way...The time has gone, The song is over, Thought I'd something more to say...

Post Reply