DVD-Audio from LP

[neveronfriday]

Try to be a good sport, mate.

You have your type of humour (which is certainly a matter of definition), I have mine.

Let's leave it at that, ok?

[AllenLowe]

agreed -

[neveronfriday]

- sorry -

I deleted my response as you have yours.

Peace (for now)?

Edited June 28, 2005 by neveronfriday

[AllenLowe]

that might work -

[neveronfriday]

Sounds cool to me.

Back to jazz ...

[wolff]

Let's back up a bit.

Why would I want to transfer my LP's to DVD-A? Please, I'd like to be convinced.

I can't play them in the car.

I can't play them at home unless I get a DVD-A player.

Does the DVD-A copy sound better than the LP it came from? I can see this being the case if the TT/phono stage used in the transfer was much better than what I use. I would love to borrow a Rockport Technologies System III Sirius turntable and tonearm to do a bunch of LP transfers. These transfers would have the potential, all things being equal, of sounding better than my LP's as they are played back on my current set-up.

None of my friends, who I make the occasional copy for, have the hardware to play them.

Who is interested in transferring their LP's to DVD-A?

People who are selling their LP's?

People who do not want to wear out their LP's?

People without a TT?

I just do not understand why I would want to transfer to DVD-A.

Edited June 28, 2005 by wolff

[DrJ]

Chiming in late to wholeheartedly agree with Wolff re: the most important factor being great turntable and great phono stage.

I make killer "needle drop" type burns with a very modest stand alone CD recorder (old, old Sony). They used to be just "fair" but when I substantially upgraded my analog front end and amp (Nottingham Spacedeck, Sumiko Blackbird cart, Audio Note Meishu integrated) the CD-Rs sound quality jumped accordingly. They routinely blow away manufactured CDs of the same material. While I do plan to upgrade to a "better" burner at some point this whole experience has made me realize that it's the analog front end that makes most of the difference, while the quality of the A/D converters in the burner are a (vanishingly?) smaller issue.

Worth noting that I am not compulsive about the needle drops...in fact I don't declick or manipulate them in any way. If the vinyl quality is solid VG+ or better, and your vinyl playback system is up to the task, you really shouldn't have to.

With this type of CD-R recording set up, and a real good digital front end for redbook CD playback (I prefer transport/tube DAC approch - again Audio Note- but there's also great all in one players like the Meridian) you don't need any "hi-res" format IMHO. The LPs burned to CD-R sound every bit as good or better.

I had an SACD/DVD-A player as part of my system briefly and sold it because once I had a proper digital front end for redbook CD - one that actually can extract all the music from the disc that's on there - I could scarcely detect a difference, and when I did I often found my ears preferring CD to "hi res" which sounded artificial on the low end and harsher on the high end ("hi res" doesn't mean "more music," it can also mean "more non-musical noise" especially up high).

Let me hasten to add that SACD and DVD-A do seem to me to be a real boon to "mid fi" - before my upgrade with a Denon AVR-3300 based home theater type set up SACD and DVD-A were a noticeable jump up from redbook CD. In that sense such players are a particularly cost-effective way to upgrade a mid-fi system.

[AllenLowe]

not to add a new wrinkle, but I thought I would mention one thing, as we discuss transferring our beloved vinyl to DVD or CD or CDr or whatever - the most reliable storage medium for sound that we know of is vinyl - easy to store safely, lasts for a LONG time, will play over and over if cared for properly - will last forever if we handle it right - there is no digital medium I would trust half as much - so just keep all this in mind -

Edited June 28, 2005 by AllenLowe

[Guest]

Let's back up a bit.

Why would I want to transfer my LP's to DVD-A?  Please, I'd like to be convinced.

I can't play them in the car.>snip<

Who is interested in transferring their LP's to DVD-A?

People who are selling their LP's?

People who do not want to wear out their LP's?

People without a TT?

I just do not understand why I would want to transfer to DVD-A.

←

Well there are a lot of potential reasons why somebody might want to make DVD-A discs - I can't invent them all for you - but I can give you mine;

1) I do audio restoration for a living. This format is very useful for previewing projects and demonstrating material that requires further mastering to either vinyl or CD. It's also a great way to keep a master copy of hi-res audio for ones own archives after the original material leaves the building. Which leads me to...

2) I do a lot of trading on ebay and sell vinyl on commission for others. Some items are very valuable and rare. Why pass up a chance to make a good hifi recording before selling? My library is growing whilst my wallet stays untouched.

3) I can hear many of my favourite recordings with the clicks removed - and the sound quality is pretty darn good so that's a good enough reason all on its own.

4) I can hear some of my favourite recordings over and over without risking wear to my daftly expensive stylus. This is important! I am sufficiently happy with my DVD-A discs that I may not feel the need to listen a specific LP ever again. Who knows what the future has in store...

There are many reasons why you might not want to as well:

Time consuming, expensive, maybe you prefer the look of a vinyl record revolving instead, etc. etc. All I mean to point out is that there are as many reasons to want to as not.

I love the fact that I can save stylus wear on favourite vinyl sources whilst still hearing hi-res sound. I love the versatility and user friendliness (yes) of DVD-A, I love the sound of it, I love the way I can make a recording of a really expensive record and then sell it - safe in the knowledge I can still listen to it in something approaching it's original sound.

In short - it has many uses. So don't knock it even if you may feel it's not for you.

Quote: ("hi res" doesn't mean "more music," it can also mean "more non-musical noise" especially up high).

What a weird analogy - using that logic, cassette tapes with dolby ON are the better format for all. Seriously, this is a such a common error but I still can't believe so many make it; look, it's simple:

The better the resolution of the system/format/listener, the more of EVERYTHING you hear. There may be more noticeable noises discernable but that's only because the system alows you to hear such things that would otherwise be hidden. There will also be more musical information and that's where the glories of hi-res are found. It can be scary territory - it can change the very nature of a recording, especially where noise reduction and click removal come into play. You might have a favourite record that is in mint condition except for that one scratch that you have come to know and love... what if it suddenly ain't there? It can be overpowering in the fidelity and it's a simple maitake to assume that it sounds wrong because you're suddenly hearing more than you're used to.

But this is where the DVD-A format excels because it allows you to manipulate files before committing them to disc.

Red book CD can never be as good for me because in my personal experience of listening to a/b comparisons, over many hundreds of recordings, there has not been ONE example where the CD sounded better. I fully accept that CD may be acceptable for some as a sound carrier, but not for me. As for where it actually sounds worse to be on hi-res? That's absurd. Give in to the force Luke...

If you're scared of what's in the music then you need a mono AM radio.

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

[Guest]

- the most reliable storage medium for sound that we know of is vinyl -  there is no digital medium I would trust half as much - so just keep all this in mind -

←

Yes, but vinyl has it's own longevity drawbacks. The argument for DVD-A that I am making is for reasons other than longevity. I don't suppose anything is ever really permanent, including vinyl.

Doing DVD-A allows you to proliferate as well as archive.

My brother informs me that research into organic self healing memory matrixes is well under way. I bet that when some bright spark finds a way to encode audio on this new miacle format, it will find it's detractors - as any and all formats have since the first cylinder wax recordings emerged.

I think I have already acknowledged that vinyl is where I am taking the source audio from to make DVD-A so therefore it follows that I have a lot of respect for vinyl. No?

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

[DrJ]

Sorry Colin but your impassioned argument means little to me without knowing what you have been listening to CDs on. Wait, it doesn't really matter...because I felt exactly the same way as you did, before and spent a lot of time comparing with MY OWN SACD/DVD-A player in my OWN SYSTEM - in case you missed that part, which evidently you did.

So hey, I DID at one point "give in to the force Luke" and I found that it was, for me, a major hoax, at least when one has a decent system in other ways. Thoroughly, unequivocally UNCONVINCED about hi res myself, so I sold the player. Particularly DVD-A which is quite frankly the vastly inferior of the two hi res formats, to my ears, by a long shot.

The "added noise/artifact" versus "added music" issue with digital hi res is anything but a bogus one...informed people have written a lot about this from a theoretical standpoint, but most importantly to me, I trust my ears. Again on the properly outstanding playback system, you hear precious little additional music and sometimes more distracting sonic byproducts. Perhaps these are less glaring with mid fi systems, in fact I'm certain of it.

I'm not talking about record clicks - those aren't a big deal. I'm talking about a glaring harshness introduced into the very margins of the audible music range that is there in ALL digital formats and is arguably even more apparent in hi res formats. And certainly DVD-A in particular suffers from "bloated bass" syndrome on the opposite end of the spectrum. It just don't sound natural, using vinyl (or better yet live performance) as the gold standard. CD isn't perfect either of course, but it comes closer to my ears if your playback system is up to the task.

And I fail to see what cassettes etc have to do with anything. First off, they're not digital...second, they have much LOWER resolution than the formats we're discussing. And third, they have a more compressed dynamic range. What a weird analogy! Or maybe you're just not familiar with the concept that the human ear is capable of hearing only a specific frequency range as pleasing/musical?

Anyway, I'm not trying to "convince" you to feel as I do - never said that anywhere, just had put in my personal insights - and so would appreciate it if you'd stop trying to descredit my views in a rather sarcastic and offhanded manner. AT least take the time to read my posts carefully before responding - it's clear you somehow missed that I had actually owned a hi res player and so am not one of the "dismiss it out of hand" camp, dude.

Edited June 29, 2005 by DrJ

[DrJ]

Interesting excerpt from an article by Richard Elen, full piece at http://www.ambisonic.net/sacdvdada.html

"Not everyone agrees about the theoretical technical superiority of DSD and the Super Audio CD. There have been many learned papers presented at successive Audio Engineering Society conventions recently in which the pros and cons have been hotly debated. One complaint is that the DSD process introduces a very high level of ultrasonic noise. Demonstrations of SACD often make special mention of the audio system’s wide frequency range, including, for example, tweeters that will handle up to 100 kHz. It is, of course, doubtful whether there is any "audio" information at such high frequencies (and if there was, it would be submerged under the noise, with a dynamic range of only 40 dB). The DSD process may produce such a high level of noise at such frequencies that if the replay system cannot handle it, it may fail. You are therefore left with two choices: either use more robust equipment that will handle absurdly high levels at absurdly high frequencies, or filter the input signal and thereby remove one of the main alleged benefits of DSD, namely an extended HF response, by "turning it down" to 96 kHz PCM levels.

There are also challenges with DSD when it comes to digital signal processing. To handle DSP operations – necessary in the process of making most records, where mixing, level changes, EQ and compression often take place in the digital domain – the DSD signal must be decimated (turned into something very much like PCM), processed and then returned to the bitstream format. There is arguably little point in using DSD if you are going to turn it into something like PCM on the way to the master.

It has also recently emerged that in the studio environment, DSD does not employ a "bitstream" at all, but rather a form of quasi-PCM, albeit at a very high sample rate, probably in order to allow DSP processing as described above. Some people have considered this a form of cheating.

As a result of all this, it has been suggested that the primary application for "pure" DSD is for recordings in which the technique is essentially to capture a live performance and then edit it without the use of digital signal processing. This may be particularly possible in the classical field, and for other types of music where there is an actual performance to capture, but this only applies to about five percent of recorded music. The rest is created in the studio, multitracked, and reliant on a great deal of mixing, processing and other digital operations. It may be that for these types of recordings – i.e. most of the recordings that are carried out – PCM is more appropriate. However, it may also have an application where analog recordings are being reissued."

[DrJ]

And an excerpt from a piece by David Hickford, SOUND ON SOUND magazine:

"(DSD) sounds a wonderfully elegant approach and a lot of people swear by the sound quality it delivers, but as with all things digital, it's actually a lot more complex and compromised than it first appears. For a start, it is not practical to perform any meaningful signal processing on a single-bit data stream, so the DSD signal has to be converted to a 4- or 5-bit signal for most signal processing, and that essentially involves the same decimation and oversampling processes that the scheme was trying to avoid in the first place! Secondly, I don't know of any DSD converters that actually generate a single-bit output directly. Most seem to generate a few bits with conventional delta-sigma stages, and then convert that to the required DSD output. Next is the issue of noise: DSD claims a bandwidth in excess of 100kHz and a huge dynamic range in the audible band, but the fact is that there is inherently an enormous amount of ultrasonic noise (created by the noise-shaping technique used to achieve a respectable dynamic range in the audible part of the band). This can affect amplifiers and cause intermodulation problems in a largely unpredictable way."

[DrJ]

Finally, here's something about Audio Note DACs and the "1x oversampling" approach - I honestly don't know if this technology is what makes their CD playback systems sound so good, but they do sound phenomenally musical compared with any other redbook CD playback I've heard, and maybe this explains why I'm so unimpressed with supposed advantages of hi res.

1x oversampling DAC technology

BTW I don't own that $30,000 DAC!!! But they use the same technology and overall build quality in their less pricey DACs, like the relatively "lowly" 2.1 Signature I have.

Edited June 29, 2005 by DrJ

[Guest]

Sorry Colin but your impassioned argument means little to me without knowing what you have been listening to CDs on. <snip>

←

Keep your hair on DrJ.

If you want to know what equipment I use just ask nicely for pete's sake.

For the record: DVD-A machine: Cambridge audio DVD77,

CD player: Cyrus 6 transport through a DAC X.

The DVD player cost about a third of the price.

LS: Mission 733, Amp: Denon PMA-850.

T/T: Heybrook TT2 with What HiFi power supply, Rega RB300, Helikon Lyra Cartridge.

It's not a very high end system but for the purposes of my arguments it will do.

I'm discussing the format DVD-A and it's potential benefits as well as actual. I'm sure a billion dollar CD set-up sounds nicer in many ways than my 200 dollar DVD-A player. Let's assume from now on that all my comparisons are made on a reasonable but not high end system. OK?

"The "added noise/artifact" versus "added music" <snip>, I trust my ears. Again on the properly outstanding playback system, you and sometimes more distracting sonic byproducts. Perhaps these are less glaring with mid fi systems, in fact I'm certain of it. "

Sure on a billion dollar set-up you're going to be noticing many things in a different light. But please, it is NOT right to state that there is "precious little additional music". That is a highly subjective opinion. I disagree with it but it's still just an opinion. Facts are hard to come by in this field. All we are doing is disagreeing subjectively and that's fine, isn't it? I hear more music - FAR more music on DVD-A than on CD as well as the extra levels of unwanted noises but that's the nature of the beast. I accept the extra levels of information across the board. However it would appear to be a problem for you and that's fine. We don't have to agree that it sounds good - just that it sounds different. You really are making very negative statements about DVD-A, and that's what I'm responding to.

My system might not be billion dollar but I have had the good fortune of comparing CD to DVD-A on many super high end systems through my acquaintance with, and occasional work for, a reputable high end Audio dealer in London and all I can say, at the risk of repeating myself is that CD never impressed me as much as DVD-A has done. Don't shoot me for saying so.

If you believe otherwise I'm not going to attack you for it. But what will continue to irk me is when people dismiss the format in the way that you have, i.e with disinformation.

I'm not talking about record clicks - those aren't a big deal.

For you maybe but they are a very big deal to me - big enough to mean that cleaned up DVD-A transfers are a real sonic and musical benefit to me. If you feel different about clicks that's fine but please respect the fact that they ARE a big deal for some.

>>>I'm talking about a glaring harshness introduced into the very margins of the audible music range that is there in ALL digital formats and is arguably even more apparent in hi res formats. And certainly DVD-A in particular suffers from "bloated bass" syndrome on the opposite end of the spectrum. It just don't sound natural, using vinyl (or better yet live performance) as the gold standard. CD isn't perfect either of course, but it comes closer to my ears if your playback system is up to the task.

I hear what you're saying but again I wish you wouldn't present it as fact. I have never encountered your 'bloated bass' syndrome, in fact I find that DVD-A and SACD both offer incredibly tight, well controlled bass, and I have never suffered any harshness from DVD-A whereas I have from CD. Many times. But again I stress that's just my opinion. However, even outside the realm of purely subjective opinions, your position is open to question if I may: Given that CD-Audio and DVD-Audio are two manifestations of the exact same technology: Pulse Code Modulation, then it might be argued that your position on this is all subjective and not a reflection of actual fidelity. If you feel that's a mistake on my part please be kind enough to reply without getting your knickers in a twist. Harumph.

Please note that I have already discussed two things that you seem to be worried about:

1) I agree SACD is by far the better of the two hi-res disc formats but for the purposes of this thread I only touch on it because you can't make your own SACD discs as yet. I am trying to help people who want to make their own DVD-A discs. Period.

2) I have already acknowledged that DVD-A replay can be very alarming in its differences - there is more information, so much more information in fact that yes, the experience is quite different from CD.

I take serious exception to the accusation that I suggested it was a 'bogus' argument that more info means more unwanted info as well. I know that because, well gee, I already wrote that. I certainly didn't use the word 'bogus'.

Anyway, if you prefer CD, you DO have to accept that you are allowing yourself to prefer a format that offers less in the way of pure information. For once I can claim that as fact. I am making the case for the DVD-A format (although I'd stop short of 'impassioned argument') and I do so in the face of MUCH disinformation - including what I see to be your disinformation.

Just accept that your decision to stick with CD, and your arguments in its favour mean that you are making a decision to go with less information.

I'm paraphrasing your own words so I don't expect you to disagree with that.

Other people are not so put off by the extra information on DVD-A, indeed like me they revel in it so there.

And I fail to see what cassettes etc have to do with anything. First off, they're not digital...second, they have much LOWER resolution than the formats we're discussing. And third, they have a more compressed dynamic range. What a weird analogy! Or maybe you're just not familiar with the concept that the human ear is capable of hearing only a specific frequency range as pleasing/musical?

My apologies, maybe I wasn't being clear enough, although I can think of nicer ways to phrase your confusion over what I was saying. I wasn't just typing words for no reason you know! I don't mind defending myself but I resent the suggestion that I did not read your posts carefully - you can't possibly know that so don't say it.

Look, we're just not on the same wavelength yet - I think we'll get to where we want to be by a little perseverance ;-)

Alright, my point in mentioning cassettes was that if you want to dismiss DVD-A on the grounds that its superior resolution introduces new levels of unwanted sonic artefacts, then it follows that cassettes are favourable because they don't have the same problems. Good grief where's your sense of humour? Anyway, a well set up cassette deck is perfectly capable of out-performing CD audio in many respects. Note I say many not all. In a seperate post I will attempt to explain why this is mathematically provable but until then, like you, I will trust my ears.

Anyway, I'm not trying to "convince" you to feel as I do - never said that anywhere, just had put in my personal insights - and so would appreciate it if you'd stop trying to descredit my views in a rather sarcastic and offhanded manner. AT least take the time to read my posts carefully before responding - it's clear you somehow missed that I had actually owned a hi res player and so am not one of the "dismiss it out of hand" camp, dude.

Argh! Dammit I read every word and it is your words I am responding to. I mean, come on! You said yourself that you threw out the hi-res players after careful auditioning over time, I missed nothing, surely your actions mean in some way that you 'dismissed' them as formats, I never suggested you dismissed the formats out of hand - you're putting words in my mouth and THAT is going to have to stop now. OK? but you DID dismiss the formats eventually otherwise you'd still own the machines, right?, right. So when you then go on a forum like this to attempt to undermine another persons obvious enthusiasm for the DVD-A format by presenting your opinions as facts you only serve to highlight your obvious dislike of the format and your unwillingness to accept other peoples conclusions. Behave yourself. I'm not having a personal go at you, I'm trying to put my case.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that my responses are a personal attack: I will attempt to discredit anything I see as disinformation and I make no apologies for doing so. If it comes across as personal, I do apologize. That's not my intention!

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

[AllenLowe]

this is why I use a boom box -

but seriously, the only way to resolve this is to have you both in the same room doing an a/b on the same sytem with the same recording - I'm neurotic myself when it comes to sound, but I understand the dilemma here. I would, agreeing with Seewhy, be cautious of any lab studies - that is, things in which sound is measured by looking at technical results, not listening to the actual source - I don't know if this is the case with these studies, but I wonder...

.

[DrJ]

Well Allen I agree, and in fact I only post the studies out of interest, just to show that even from a theoretical standpoint it's not a forgone conclusion that DSD in particular is necessarily going to be an audio improvement - it's been so ridiculously over-touted in that regard and I think some balance needs to be restored.

But ultimately it's ear testing that makes a difference, and I think CD on a decent playback system wins, that's what I base my buying decisions on...I basically NEVER read the specs on gear, except in the occasional instance when I've narrowed it down to maybe 1 or 2 that are real close listening wise and I'm trying to find little things to decide which might have the edge for purchase.

For example, if one looks at lab testing results on the Audio Note "1x oversampling" DACs, it often looks BAD...but I think one has to take a step back and ask why that might be? A big reason is that the testing itself has been geared toward discriminating among various over/upsampling CD players in regard to performance...so those "specs" may not even be applicable to non-over/upsampling DACs.

The other possibility is that the specs don't matter PERIOD, that the techies are barking up the wrong tree and our ears are way smarter than any lab test (that's my personal bias).

So specs really don't matter to me except to stimulate discussion - I know what I hear. I went in to listening to the Audio Note gear prepared to hate it...it just seemed so esoteric and even a little arrogant to use that approach, sounded like a gimmick, and their stuff is a little pricey even at the "lower" end, but damn they sound GOOD, the closest thing to analog from a digital source I've encountered (and there are probably other real good non-over/upsampling DACs too but I'm only familiar with AN).

Now to address Colin: look, for the record, YOU began the snippiness here with your original response to me, using flippant phrases from Star Wars etc. I responded in kind...so I apologize about that, but it irked me. I've been at this forum for much longer than you (1700+ posts versus 20 something...) and honestly feel my track record speaks for itself - you're the new guy, you need to be a little more polite IMHO and establish some credibility with those of us who've been here contributing for literally years.

So let's move on, OK?

Second, and more on point to the matter at hand, I feel like you're creating a major straw man argument with the idea that one has to have a "billion dollar" CD system to realize redbook CD's potential. When I say "good playback system" I don't mean "one that costs a lot of money." The system I have is VERY modestly priced compared with some of the CD rigs out there...roughly $2500, which I know is a lot compared to a Sony at Best Buy but trust me, you can drop a WHOLE lot more very quickly in the "audiophile" realm.

To me, even a $2500 investment up front a bargain if I can avoid having to rebuy the literally thousands of redbook CD titles in hi res over time (I have over 2000 standard CDs....at SACD/DVD-A prices, even if I only rebought 100-150 of those in hi res format I'd already have spent what it cost my for my CD playback gear - so again, it's really quite a bargain for the diehard collector to spend a bit up front and extract the best from the CDs one already has).

Finally, as one of the articles above points out:

"The DSD process may produce such a high level of noise at such frequencies that if the replay system cannot handle it, it may fail. You are therefore left with two choices: either use more robust equipment that will handle absurdly high levels at absurdly high frequencies, or filter the input signal and thereby remove one of the main alleged benefits of DSD, namely an extended HF response, by "turning it down" to 96 kHz PCM levels." Another article I saw talked about how at SACD demos at shows etc they always had unbelievably advanced and expensive tweeters hooked up that could handle the additional high frequency information - the type of gear that just isn't available to all but the most well-heeled music fans in their own homes. So purchasing the kinds of amps and speakers that will handle "absurdly high levels at absurdly high frequencies" produced by SACD is NOT going to come any cheaper than buying a decent CD playback system, emphasizing that extracting the full potential from hi res isn't going to come cheaply either.

Anyway, my main point is that you owe it to yourself to do some comparisions between SACD/DVD-A and CD with these reasonably priced but stellar performing CD playback systems. Comparing hi res with lousy CD is no comparison at all, and hi res is going to of course win that battle every time, which is why I believe for mid-fi gear it probably does make some sense. I just wish people would think more broadly about this "upgrade" as opposed to investing in a good redbook CD front end, particularly die hard collectors with a lot of money tied up in standard CD already.

Edited June 29, 2005 by DrJ

[AllenLowe]

interesting post...

the other thing to mention here, and I am ONLY speaking for myself - the majority of music I listen to these days is over 40 years old, so we should make the distinction between music recorded, say, from 1970 on and from 1970 before - with current mastering techniques, CD offers a lot of good sound for older music-

[Guest]

LOL! ...so I'm the new guy therefore I should be a little more polite?

Then maybe you guys should set a better example. My welcome committee wasn't exactly red-carpet here. And DrJ? Please take what I say in the manner it is meant - not what you think I'm saying.

I'm astonished that you thought I was being 'snippy' by quoting Star Wars - good grief no - I had my tongue planted firmly in my cheek! Apologies if I wasn't clear about it.

Ditto the 'cassette' comments - I'm sorry if our senses of humour do not match but you in turn shouldn't be so quick to assume that I am on the offensive.

As a, ahem, 'long standing member' of this forum you should know better than that ;-) Come on, get that sense of humour out...

look, I am not a DVD-A evangelist. I'll try one time again to get this thread going where I originally intended it to go.

Anyone is perfectly welcome to use and champion whatever format they like safe from attack from me. I am merely suggesting that making vinyl transfers to DVD-A is a good option. For some.

Possibly the most attractive way to go for many. That's what I want to discuss but, new boy or not, I won't let comments like 'DVD-A suffers from bloated bass' pass if you fail to make it clear that it's only your opinion.

DrJ? I think you are rude and inconsiderate to present such opinions as facts because it immediately puts people on the defensive. I can't believe you're questioning my manners when all you've done is make assumptions on my meanings, misinterpret my words and worst of all put words in my mouth.

If that's the way you want to hold a discussion I am out of here.

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

[Guest]

interesting post...

the other thing to mention here, and I am ONLY speaking for myself - the majority of music I listen to these days is over 40 years old, so we should make the distinction between music recorded, say, from 1970 on and from 1970 before - with current mastering techniques, CD offers a lot of good sound for older music-

←

I'm with you half the way there Allen,

But it's not like there's a clear cut-off point of 40-odd years ago where music was suddenly all that differently recorded. I can point to recordings that were made 50 years ago that sound better than ones made today.

I mentioned before that I did a transfer of Terry Calliers 'New Folk Sound' LP, 1966 recording on Prestige.

My resulting CD, made via hi-res wav, from an LP made 40-odd years ago sounds appreciately different from the official version made from 40-odd year old master tapes. Well of course it doesn't sound the same, but I reckon it gives the official version a real fight in terms of dynamics, frequency response, ambience and attack. Again, I offer a copy to anyone interested - freeeee no money no guarantee. Anyone? No?

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 ;-)

And guys, I am not here to troll. OK?

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Colin, I tried warning you... this place just doesn't have a lot of people who dig high rez formats. They have great appreciation for the music, but the percentage that own a high rez player is probably down in the single digits. I think you're beating a dead horse.

Personally, I hear immense benefits when I listen to SACD. My favorites are the Analogue Productions titles. Great music with "you are there" sound. I'm baffled why more people here don't dig it (DrJ excluded... him & I have discussed this and his reasons are his reasons... we don't have to agree).

However, I am resigned to the fact that the lack of support for high rez, for whatever reason, have likely killed them for all but small, esoteric labels (just like LPs). I'll still buy 'em, but I expect the releases will stop. It'll be a sad day when it happens.

BTW, one thing I've noticed about your writings here is that you use irony & sarcasm. Neither of these is obvious in written word. You could avoid misunderstandings if you use those dreaded smiley faces. You might get a warmer welcome.

Later,

Kevin

[wolff]

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

←

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

That Tascam recorder sure likes nice, save for one thing. It does not burn an SACD.

Like I said before, I would have been all over SACD years ago, if the units output the signal and I could burn the occasional hi-rez copy. Oh well, Sony/Phillips and their infinate wisdom...

I would have bought a player and probably many SACD's

had this been the case years ago.

Maybe when my Denon dies, there will be a nice DVD-A/CD stand alone recorder available and I'll give it a try. I never see Sony/Phillips or the labels letting consumers do SACD's.

Frankly, I'm glad I never got into hi-rez digital. I just continued to buy nice vinyl and upgrade my TT occasionally. I really did not want to mess with a hi-rez analog and also, a hi-rez digital front end and software for both.

In addition, as many have stated, recording and mastering can be more important than the format.

Edited June 30, 2005 by wolff

[Jazzmoose]

And guys, I am not here to troll. OK?

←

Don't worry about it; you're just hitting a few grumps in the road...

[DrJ]

I honestly don't know what more I can say, so let me just recap:

1) Some guy comes and posts about how great DVD-A/hi res is. OK so far, everyone is entitled to an opinion, etc....

2) I have the "audacity" to make a reasoned, rational post that disagrees, explaining this is just based on MY EARS and that I tried hi res and wasn't impressed. Never, ever did I say that I don't "believe" in hi res...it just isn't for me. More power to you folks who enjoy it, hey, more used vinyl for me!

3) I get a snippy retort back from the new guy, the point at which the "argument" began...who then tries to pass off the rudeness in his retort as humor. If humor was the intention (which I doubt, but OK, I'll get past that), well, NOT FUNNY at any rate; I'd have laughed if it was. You want Star Wars humor, how about reading this in your best Yoda voice: "A fucking break give me!"

4) I respond in kind, yes a bit more snippy than I usually would be, but when you bait people, sometimes they descend to that level temporarily. I did apologize for that.

5) Somehow I'm one of the "grumps in the road."

Just so we're clear.

This may be the kind of thing that has me posting little to none around here these days.

BTW Jazzmoose your CD is in the mail.

Edited June 30, 2005 by DrJ

[DrJ]

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.