Jump to content

DVD-Audio from LP


Guest

Recommended Posts

Oh one more thing, I had nothing to do with your less than red carpet welcome here...I'm sorry people jumped on you but that wasn't me, I was fine with having you here and enjoying the discussion until you got sarcastic and baited me.

Well, like I say, I'm not here to troll or bait so I hope you'll accept my apologies for my sense of humour. I'm not 'passing it off as humour' it really honestly was meant to be humourous. However, just because you don't see where I'm coming from doesn't mean that you're free to misinterpret it :P

I believe there is something being lost in the translation as the words travel across the Atlantic. I like poking fun but if it isn't being understood then I can only stand warned.

Anyways...

Wolff raises a lot of valid points:

Re: I'm baffled why more people don't dig it.

Are you really? Where are the SACD/DVD-A Blue Note titles? laugh.gif

Let's be clear here, I'm talking about making your own DVD-A discs. The new format isn't exactly being trumpeted worldwide by the major labels and commercial titles are thin on the ground. They all seem to have stuck with SACD for reasons of digital rights management. It's the same old story with the record industry. I don't assume for one second that if DVD-A could be copy-protected in the same way as SACD, they wouldn't be releasing stuff.

I can't predict whether SACD will remain uncopy-able (sp?) but that's what they all seem to love about it. The fact that it has (at least to some ears) a better sound quality is only a happy coincidence. The music industry only ever really cared about itself (with a few 'blue' notable exceptions).

Remember the 'music' CD-R? Exactly the same as a data CD-R except it has a copy-protect code written onto it and a levy surcharge that goes straight to the CPRS. This means that you can only make one copy of any CD and it doesn'tt even matter if it's your own material. It also means that you are paying into the CPRS coffers even if you record your own material.

Those of you with an interest in law will know that this represents a hitherto unheadr of restriction on the use of consumer goods. The Music industry fought hard for this stuff.

With a sc*** you attitude like that, I am not at all surprised that the music industry has embraced the uncopy-able SACD. Plus ca change...

So, those of us with an interest in hi-res and a will to do it at home are left with very few choices:

1. Make your own hi-res recordings and play back straight from the hard drive (or .wav stored on disc), or 2. make your own DVD-A discs. (I know of one guy who records at hi-res and then dumps onto reel-to-reel butlet's be honest, that will remain very unusual!)

What I have been trying to impress upon people is that DVD-A at home is now becoming very affordable and so therefore is worth investigating - even if you decide in the end that there are no real benefits to you.

I've already said how I like the sound quality of DVD-A but one thing I may not have stressed in all this is that others have agreed - strongly. It has been put to the test.

The headiest moment for me was when I once took my DVD-A discs, two DVD-A players and DJ'ed with them! (jazz-dance, rare groove and funk/soul). That was when I really knew there was a difference because, though I've DJ'd with home-made CD-R before, made in the same click-removing careful way that I do, this was clearly a whole new experience. And people noticed.

I've DJ'd many times with vinyl and with CDs (I prefer vinyl) or both and the comparison with the same material on DVD-A was a real eye-opener.

I was actually approached by customers and asked where I'd got the recordings from because they were immediately impressed by the sound quality and frankly, that has never happened before when I've DJ'd. There must be something good going on for dancers to stop what they are doing and ask why it sounds so good. However it's worth noting that we have to be context specific here - the folks present were fairly knowledgable dance music fans and all the stuff I was playing was quite familiar from previous vinyl replays. Some of this stuff is very well known. They knew the tunes, some available on CD commercially, most not, but they will not have encountered them on DVD-A before.

So they approached with curiosity. Why? I can only speculate but they obviously heard something that aroused their curiosity...

Theorizing: One thing I could never contemplate is taking my audiophile TT and DJ'ing with it - but the recordings I made were done on the audiophile deck so at least here we're able to get a substantial improvement in sound quality over a Technics 1200 and a 'scratch' stylus; what's happening with my curious customers is probably that they are hearing a major improvement in groove tracking from my home T/T being adequately replayed via the DVD-A disc. Not to mention that I take the offending clicks out. They are hearing what my Helikon Lyra can do, not a Stanton 500! It doesn't explain why people didn't assume it was coming from CD though... must be something to do with a difference in the sound quality on DVD-A ;_)

Warning - there is intended humour in the above post.

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, just to add my unqualified two to three cents here.

a) I'm sorry the welcome wasn't as warm as it usually is around here ( ;) ) but SeeWhyAudio sounds like the guy who can get over that in a flash.

b) I find this thread fascinating. I've been toying with the idea of hi-res player and recorder, but I just haven't had the money yet to blow on a format which seems to be on the endangered species list (SACD would be the way for me to go, adding DVD Audio as well, depending on developments in either camp). I still might jump on board because even if the horse is being/has been pronounced dead, we can still flog it for a couple of years (DAT tape, anyone? Been around for ages and still being used by a whole bunch of people).

c) Last point: I enjoy the in-depth and very knowledgable posts here. Keep 'em coming. There's been tons of stuff to learn here and I for one am hoping for more.

Edited by neveronfriday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, and I also had nothing to do with that poor greeting (quick, delete past entries)...

but all seriousness aside, as Steve Allen used to say, via your challenge:

"And Allen... I'm still waiting for you to recommend a Cd, made with Cedar, from a vinyl transfer, that sounds good - and since you haven't answered, I'll up the ante: The CD has to be a full range recording of 'modern' material recorded in a 'modern' way. That is wildly open to interpretation of course but I welcome your suggestions"

actually I was thinking of historical material that had been issued on vinyl and than CD - as for contemporary or other full-range recordings, I don't really know as I don't listen to much and most of what I have is from original sources and not vinyl - my point in that challenege was that there's tons of beautifully mastered historical material on CD that has used CEDAR, which is indispensible for such things -

one other thing I'll add, relative to older recordings, and I hope this does not make me seem like a Luddite - as long as the mastering is clean and straightforward, I do not worry about high resolution on old (maybe pre-1980) recordings, and I'll tell you why - I listen to the music as both a fan and as a historian, and I prefer to listen to it in much the same way that people were listening to it at the time it was issued - this is impossible, I know, but I like to get as close as is remotely possible - it gives me more of the original experience - and I like that - (particularly with rock and jazz lps) -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, just to add my unqualified two to three cents here.

a) I'm sorry the welcome wasn't as warm as it usually is around here ( ;) ) but SeeWhyAudio sounds like the guy who can get over that in a flash.

b) I find this thread fascinating. I've been toying with the idea of hi-res player and recorder, but I just haven't had the money yet to blow on a format which seems to be on the endangered species list  <snip>

c) Last point: I enjoy the in-depth and very knowledgable posts here. Keep 'em coming.  There's been tons of stuff to learn here and I for one am hoping for more.

Heh, 'course I'll get over it - I guess even I can be a grump in the road sometimes.

AS for 'blowing money' on hi-res, I guess that's always going to be a relative term. For those who can't afford to eat properly then it's just pie-in-the-sky.

For those with unlimited budgets it's still a question of 'is it worth the time' or other concerns.

Me? I am just trying to find something to do with all these hi-res .wav files I have lying around. (and of course it's very useful for my restoration work - especially if I want to listen to the hi-res files on DVD-A with that darn noisy computer switched off)

At a conservative estimate I have approx. 180 GB of 96Khz/24bit .wav yet to clean up and commit to disc. Once I have them on a DVD-A disc, it's as easy as using a CD player - hell I even have a remote control with volume! Bliss. (for me that is - not the neighbours)

As a stand alone technology I'm not all that well qualified to comment on hi-res, especially the recorders, all the work I do is centered on the computer. Most people would probably find the process surprisingly cheap in cash terms - the real expense is taking the time to get on with it.

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, and I also had nothing to do with that poor greeting (quick, delete past entries)...

Re:  waiting for you to recommend a Cd, made with Cedar, from a vinyl transfer, that sounds good - and since you haven't answered, I'll up the ante: The CD has to be a full range recording of 'modern' material recorded in a 'modern' way. That is wildly open to interpretation of course but I welcome your suggestions"

<snip>

one other thing I'll add, relative to older recordings, and I hope this does not make me seem like a Luddite - as long as the mastering is clean and straightforward, I do not worry about high resolution on old (maybe pre-1980) recordings, and I'll tell you why - I listen to the music as both a fan and as a historian, and I prefer to listen to it in much the same way that people were listening to it at the time it was issued - this is impossible, I know, but I like to get as close as is remotely possible - it gives me more of the original experience - and I like that - (particularly with rock and jazz lps) -

Very interesting point,

I used to go to reggae 'dances' which were really just an excuse to show off the biggest valve amplifiers ever built, the bass was truly ground-shaking but you would never accuse the sound systems of being 'hi-fi' despite what they were all named and of course there is no kind of domestic audio, hi-res or other, that will ever replicate that sheer excitement of being there.

And no you're not a Luddite Allen, if that's what floats your boat then go for it!

Of course it's not the only way...

I like listening to older recordings on sound systems far superior to what contemporary listeners were used to. Hell, when I first heard all my favourite recordings I was the one who couldn't afford it. Now almost every record I put on the deck sounds fresh and new.

I have strong empathy for your position though Allen because although my set-up is pretty good now, I don't find it a hassle to be around 'bad' hi-fi's playing the same old material because it's kind of warm and familiar mmm... so I'm lucky that I'm not 'spoilt' by my new-found hi-res toys, I can still enjoy a good tune even on the radio.

It's highly doubtful that hi-res is going to be of any assistance to you Allen, given your taste in much older recordings but goodness me, there are about a billion pre-1980 recordings that might benefit. Like all the 60's and 70's!

So what made you choose 1980 Allen?

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

PS on a restoration note: that reggae I mentioned, famous for being 'scratched' and noisy.

If you think we have our disagreements on this forum, consider the reggae purists who want to strangle me for attempting to remove the clicks. Deadly. Not so much a difference of opinion as open warfare!

I enjoy removing the clicks from recordings because it allows me to contemplate and enjoy the music in a different way. To analogize I would suggest the viewing of a pattern on a piece of paper is disrupted by a single spilt drop of ink. There's no denying that it's a different thing to listen to a tune with no clicks. I suppose if I was being 'purist' about reggae I wouldn't restore it. I guess I'm not a purist then :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On that cassette>better>than>CD thing... and DVD-Audio too

I'd like to apologize again to DrJ and anyone else who was upset by my over-enthusiasm.

I get so convinced about things that I make errors in personal judgment and I guess I owe you all an apology for being too gung-ho. I humbly apologize.

I thought about how easy it seemed to be for people to disagree about such fundamental properties of recorded sound and, personal behaviour aside, I figured there had to be a better way of putting my ideas across. As a result I’ve been trying to put my beliefs into words once and for all to try explain the major argument in favour of hi-res digital audio. I think I’ve come up with a mathematical proof of sorts. Well, if not a proof then certainly a plausible theory! I’m not really that good at proving anything ...

The cassette reference I made (ironic and sarcastic I’ve been told) will hopefully become a little more understandable in the context of my theorizing below.

Please excuse the length of this, be warned this is a really lo-o-o-ong post and if there are bits you already know, I apologize but it’s all necessary because I have to set a fairly complex scene in order to get my point across. If you're not into theorizing on this level I won’t be offended if y’all ignore this post, I’ve been meaning to set this to words for a while anyway. By all means get technical with me in response. Err, baby!

If anything below is a little controversial then I apologize but it may help to explain why some people really enjoy DVD-A and hi-res digital audio where others really do not. In the process I won’t be able to avoid criticizing CD audio. A little.

To set the scene I'm going to discuss the timing of events in audio replay and their importance to the accurate replay of recorded music.

I've always been blessed/cursed with the ability to walk into a room and immediately hear if the loudspeakers are out of phase. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. If speakers are out of phase they sound very wrong to me. I feel a strong urge to correct it. Ever get that feeling?

Of course no audiophile would ever be caught with their phase wrong – you’d think – but I’ve seen it happen. Joe public is a little more likely not to notice though, and I’ve seen people live for years with an out-of-phase system and never notice. And don’t think that hi-fi experts are any different – I’ve met a few that need to check the polarity of the cabling and can’t trust their ears. (of course it’s also true that you need to check the polarity for ‘absolute’ phase which is a separate issue and not covered here.)

So with all that in mind I began to wonder if it were possible, indeed provable that some people just don't have the ability to detect these phase problems. Was I just born lucky?

Well no, I had to rule out luck eventually but only through a slow learning curve. What seems more likely to have happened is that over the years I have 'trained' my ears to pick up on these things. That's the only difference I've been able to come up with.

As I get older this 'training' is helping me more and more: My ears are not what they used to be, I now can't actually hear a great deal above 15Khz!!, yet I've had people with much better hearing than mine (able to detect 20+Khz) sitting with me when I do a manual declick of a tune and they are unable to hear clicks that appear to me as obvious as headlights in the dark. (clicks usually contain a wide range of frequencies)

There is nothing special about me or wrong with them - just years of training my ears.

Those cassettes again:

You all know that Cassettes have a lower total frequency response than CD and most other popular formats plus there is the problem of slow tape speeds creating a relatively low dynamic range in comparison to faster, bigger tape formats.

However, being pure analog, they can perform one thing much better than CD resolution digital: The accurate and complex timing of events in spatial fields. By which I mean the actual time and the frequency over time at which events occur along a linear time scale.

I'm sorry to switch scenes like an MTV video but it's necessary to tie a lot of stuff together to make the main point.

I’m going to give a brief explanation of the crucial aspects of correct speaker phasing. Many of you can skip to the next paragraph.

Basically to obtain a correct stereo soundstage the polarity of a speaker system must match the output polarity of the amplifier. If one speaker is incorrectly connected you have a system that is out-of-phase. If you have both speakers incorrectly wired up, you actually have a system IN phase (there are other problems but they don’t really affect this argument). With out-of-phase systems, all the sound information emanating from the speakers is suffering a total timing error with regard to the stereo soundstage. Every impulse in the correctly phased channel, at all frequencies, is being accompanied by a negative impulse in the incorrectly phased channel. Mono recordings are affected worse than stereo because all the material is supposed to be coming from both channels at once.

The human hearing system (ears and brain) has evolved in such a way as to track and locate specific events in time and space. This is why blind people rarely walk into things. So much spatial information is available with one tap of a stick on the ground. But the type of spatial dislocation you hear from an out-of-phase speaker system is almost unknown in nature so we simply haven’t needed to evolve our hearing to accommodate such events.

So, phase is essential to spatially locating your audio correctly. Lack of phase is worse than you think!

It is impossible to locate thje 'sweet spot' with incorrect phase because it actively does not exist.

I hope at this stage that we all agree about what is happening with out-of- phase speakers. It's crucial to my argument. What I am going to try and prove here is that the human hearing system has the ability to detect real spatial cues in the audio environment way beyond the upper threshold of detectable frequencies 'heard'. The ability of any one person to detect these spatial cues is actual and provable but since the average audio listening environment is such an alien construct in terms of what our hearing is actually designed to react to, we have to accept a certain need for ‘training’ our ears (really our brains) if we are going to obtain the most ‘realistic’ results from listening to pre-recorded music. No matter how absurdly high-end your system might be, it will never be ‘the real thing’ and there will always be measurable reasons why this is so.

When I'm really getting into a piece of music, I try and find the ‘sweet spot’ as quickly as possible and stay there, but it can be quite a small place, sometimes as little as a few centimetres to either side and my 'lock' on the soundstage changes. Really intense listening can mean staying absolutely still - millimetres making the difference. It's a clearly audible effect to me. I hope you know what I'm describing here because everything to follow is moot if you don't.

Assuming you do, let's take that ‘sweet spot’ analogy to an actual measurable level.

For the sake of argument let's assume a stereo set-up with the left and right speakers 3 metres apart and exactly 5 metres from the corresponding ears, left spkr 5M to left ear, right spkr 5M to right ear. Let's also assume we are at sea level with a 0 barometer reading at 20 degrees C. (that last bit is only important if you’re going to check my maths!)

Provided you are in the ‘sweet spot’, the sound takes 0.01470588 seconds to arrive at your ears. Because your head has ears on either side of your head it is most likely that your head will be shielding the sound somewhat from the ‘wrong’ speaker. It’s not total shielding but it is a significant factor and part of what our ears are designed to do.

Now let's assume you have moved your head 10 Cm to the left (this is the amount I would normally say is enough to detect a change in the stereo soundstage).

In the new scenario the Left speaker is now 4.970915 Metres away from the Left ear and the sound from the Left speaker now takes 0.01462033 secs to reach your Left ear. (0.00008555 sec faster)

The Right Speaker is now 5.030904 Meters away from your right ear and the sound from the Right speaker now takes 0.01479677 seconds to reach your right ear (0.00009089 slower)

This represents a total time delay of 0.00017644 secs across the two channels caused by your head’s 10 Cm movement to the left. Your right ear is hearing the sound slightly later. Rotating your head alters the timing error a little but no amount of rotation can fix it so for the purposes of this test I’m assuming your head is staying in line with it’s first position.

Since one sample of a stereo waveform at 44.1Khz/16bit (CD) represents one ‘event’ of audio of 0.00004535 sec. duration, it follows that the timing error introduced by moving those 10Cm as described above is very roughly analogous to the time it takes for 4 samples of CD audio to be replayed.

If you then go down to the upper levels of normally detectable sound frequencies (13 -18Khz) then you have slightly less error of course, with audio at 13Khz being represented by roughly 15 times the time difference caused by the 10 Cm shift.

All this would seem to suggest that CD audio is more than capable of generating the necessary frequencies and ‘keep up’ with our ability to hear them – and beyond.

Indeed the designers of CD originally thought they had the problem licked.

On average peoples ears can detect up to around 16 Khz so it would appear that there is approx. 6Khz ‘redundancy’ above the ‘average' hearing threshold. Indeed the frequency element is taken care of by CD.

The real problem lies in understanding that frequencies are not the only thing that is being replayed. There is also the linear timing of events and the amplitude at which they occur. As demonstrated in the phasing test above, the human hearing system responds to spatial cues on a very minute scale. Since most humans respond to spatial cues in the frequency range of 1.5 Khz – 16 Khz we now need to inspect the audio carrier’s ability to recreate three things: the timing, frequency and amplitude of events. It becomes even more critical to recreate these things accurately with a ‘busy’ waveform incorporating many frequencies and events that overlap an amplitude with a frequency.

OK let’s take a musical example amidst all these numbers that still examines the problem thoroughly: Gyorgy Ligeti's ‘Lux Aeterna’ from the 2001 Space Odyssey soundtrack. There is a moment in the music where many flutes are trying to blow similar but slowly ascending notes. I can’t really count them all but I think there are as many as 5 flutes all blowing something in the 2-3Khz range – quite a racket!

On good vinyl replay there are many audible interference patterns generated and you need a very good stylus to track it without clipping or muddying the patterns. Incidentally, ‘interference patterns’ might sound like a bad thing but in reality they are part of the music and are caused where the waveforms of two or more instruments cross at zero with respect to each other but at an amplitude generated by all instruments. On CD replay the clipping that might occur on vinyl replay does not occur of course but, crucially, neither do the interference patterns. The patterns cannot be reproduced and this is mathematically provable. In the case of the flutes described above the sampling rate of 44.1 Khz is not high enough to accurately record the timing of those zero crossings. Add more instruments and you simply add more wrong zero crossings with respect to time.

The importance of bit depth also cannot be underestimated: 44.1 recorded at a 24 bit depth is far more likely to reach an accurate amplitude but still fundamentally it cannot be accurate enough in timing to fool the very same ears that are capable of making the distinctions found in our phase test.

Imagine the myriad timings of, say, a drum kit, tambourine, shaker and somebody whistling. A lot of high energy high frequency events. In such a scenario, the 44.1 replay will have to decide a lot of zero crossings by sheer guesswork. Who'd be a D/A?

It follows therefore that an increase in sample rate or bit depth means fewer zero crossing mistakes. Fewer zero crossing mistakes mean better representation of interference patterns. Accurate replay of the interference patterns means a more faithful replay of the original sound. Simple when you look at it that way ;-) Sampling at 192 Khz with 24 bit provides thousands of times more accuracy for each sample, both in amplitude and time so that zero crossings are hit accurately thousands of times more than on 44.1 Khz. 16 bit. It’s not just a small difference, mathematically speaking it’s enormous. For a more in depth analysis of exactly what is being sampled and how often and with what degree of accuracy go here However it’s probably easier to just look at the pictures:

sine_10k_44.jpg

Here’s a sine wave of 0.001 seconds duration at 10Khz sampled at 44.1 Khz

The audio is being sampled 4.41 times per oscillation. Pay special attention to the seemingly random distribution of amplitudes over time. It’s not really possible to call this an accurate representation of a sine wave. If a D/A convertor were simply asked to redraw the waveform from the available data then it would look like this:

sine_10k_44_red.jpg

It’s the job of increasingly sophisticated D/A converters to make sense of this scant information but they all share the same compromise of small amounts of data to work with. It all gets more difficult to get this stuff right when many frequencies are involved.

Now here’s the same duration and frequency sampled at 192 Khz. While it is still not perfect it is a lot more information to be working with. The audio is being sampled at 19.2 times per oscillation. You can draw your own lines (and conclusions).

sine_10k_192.jpg

Even a cursory glance tells you that the 192Khz version is going to be a lot easier to decode with some degree of accuracy.

If you’ve got this far you’re a brave person! All this sounds very technical. What does it mean to the listener?

Well, if you’re the kind of ‘sweet spot’ hunter that I am, it means a hell of a lot.

If the original analog recording is made well enough to be able to distinguish the spatial locations of instruments, you need the corresponding accuracy in the digital domain. I’m talking about the ability to hear on which side a cymbal is being hit, if two are hit almost simultaneously I want to be able to hear them as two distinct events in time, space, tone, feel and the X factor. If both cymbals have rivets in them I want to be able to tell which rivets are on which cymbal! I don’t ask a lot do I?

I know that CD players have many tricks up their sleeves to make the smaller amount of information sound good. It doesn't really need to be pointed out that so far DVD-A players haven't had the same kind of attention - yet. SACD players probably are the better for now but as yet you can't make your ownn discs from your own, or anyone else's material.

Finally I want to relate a simple tale:

A friend of mine invited me around to dinner and we sat about afterwards listening to music and chatting. after a few CDs he put on an Elton John recording – unbeknownst to me it was a SACD. It took about 3 seconds for me to notice the incredible difference in quality. True story. Thank goodness I trained my ears ;-)

That’s it really.

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this fuss over copies/dubs that will, all things being equal, sound slighly worse than the original they were taken from. It's nice that you can make a better copy, but hardly revolutionary or of value to most people, given the state of DVD-A. Most people that are into sound, to the degree needed to appreciate what you are doing, do not want(or need) to listen to a copy. There are a few exceptions that have been mentioned.

You really need to be hounding the labels/artists/recording engineers/hardware manufacturers/etc. to start using this technology correctly, so we can enjoy new music to it's fullest. And even then, it will be so severly limited by many other factors that, nine times out of ten, the potential improvement will be lost. This is, IMO, one of the major reasons DVD-A never took off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this fuss over copies/dubs that will, all things being equal, sound slighly worse than the original they were taken from.  It's nice that you can make a better copy, but hardly revolutionary or of value to most people, given the state of DVD-A. Most people that are into sound, to the degree needed to appreciate what you are doing, do not want(or need) to listen to a copy.  There are a few exceptions that have been mentioned.

You really need to be hounding the labels/artists/recording engineers/hardware manufacturers/etc.

Believe me Wolff, I never pass up the opportunity to suggest either a DVD-A release or a vinyl release for the work I do at hi-res. Of course in terms of absolute sound quality no copy will ever be as good as the original but that hasn't stopped millions (billlions?) of tapes and CD-Rs being made over the years. I guess the main advantage is convenience. Copying music has many advantages:

You can listen in a different/more than one location,

You can give copies to friends etc.,

You can provide back-ups to precious material and save wear on expensive vinyl set-ups,

You can keep copies of rare or stupidly expensive recordings that you could never own in the 'flesh' and of course..

You can listen to some damaged material without some of or most of the damage if you clean it up first. More than enough reasons I would suggest.

As for the record companies, well I have a different take on it all. I think the more enlightened companies realize that the sound is a huge improvement in most cases but that's never been the biggest priority in the marketing department or the accountants. What little material is appearing in hi-res seems to me to have been treated with a lot of respect and attention to detail (unlike the vast majority of early CD re-issues) so you're going to have to justify the expense to a label boss. Not easily done I assure you!

So far three of my restoration jobs have been put back onto vinyl with the 4th in progress right now. In order to cut the vinyl, I provided the cutting rooms with DVD-A discs at hi-resolution. These are 'copies' of course in one sense, but in another sense they are entirely new constructs made from available material.

I have also had a few projects cut to vinyl from CD.

I don't need to tell you which ones sound better coming BACK off vinyl!

I can't disagree that this is all a fairly esoteric area with few devotees but I've never been too worried about size ;-)

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Nice unit. Should and could have been produced years ago. But, since I've been saying since the SACD seminar I went to 10 years ago, until I can author an SACD I ain't buying.

SACD/Sony/Phillips..what a shame!! Only ten years until their control ends.

I'll say it again. A format should not be owned.

So few are recording in DSD, that in 10 years SACD will be a footnote.

Edited by wolff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...