The tech in sony speak is DSD (direct stream digital) - look at the table at the sampling rate and you'll get an idea of how different this technology is!
All the best,
Edwin
I recall being told by someone involved in the development that DSD sprang out of an already extant data stream format within Sony's earlier AD/DA developments for CD audio.... it makes sense, as in it's basic form, it's an awfully coincidental integer multiple of 44100.. (64) . recall the hoo haa about 64 times oversampling??
anyway.
let's have a bash at ordering the quality of replay of storage systems. with some side excursions into related things.
1) Original recorded material.
Nothing else is better.... nothing can be, after all, it's all just a method of storing , distributing, and reproducing, an edited copy of the original .... obviously very very few ever have access to this.,.. so it's impractical and almost pointless to mention it... but I do so to remind you all that ALL the discussed formats of distribution are , in reality NOT the original thing... and there can be significant differences in ALL formats.
actually this is what makes me laugh occasionally when audiophiles start raving about the latest snake oil product to make their Hifi sound so much "better"
if the general consuming public ever really saw , and understood , what goes on prior to their purchase of the Album of their choice...... I doubt any esoteric Hifi super duperness would ever be taken seriously again. and as for the prices some Hifi Nuts will pay for equipment..... it's criminal..... almost literally.
Okay , so properly designed and built professional studio equipment isn't exactly cheap, or crap.... but it's a SHED load more cost effective than most esoterica found in snobby hifi shops./.. it has to be.,.. there simply isn't enough money in the industry for it not to be.,
(as part of my job, I Design, build, and wire, recording studios and mastering suites.... i know to a penny how much most of these things cost... )
and as for comparing Hifi equipment to Studio .... the major difference... ??
The majority of consumer equipment is designed to make stuff "sound nice"
this does NOT mean accurate.... !! it means "toyed with" , whether "hyped" or "sweetened" or whatever...
sadly, the same can be said for many budget items of studio gear, and some not so budget items.... but for the most part , the replay components of studio technology are all about telling the truth.... accuracy and detail.... so the engineers and producers can make informed choices about the material at hand.
THEN there's the spaces people listen to music in.,....
In any decent studio, the equipment is only half the story... the mix room or mastering suite will have (one hopes) been designed with their purpose in mind, and their acoustic properties calculated and planned to give the engineer a spatially, and spectrally accurate, listening position...
I can promise you, that there's almost no such thing in a domestic setting. and , I've seen some of the "listening rooms" that have been used by Hifi Reviewers in the past.... and in some ways, they're possibly even worse than the average domestic environment........
So , with all that in mind.... you might want to take large pinches of salt with most of what you read the next time you come across a Hifi argument on line.... ....
2) The best you can reasonably manage?
listening in an acoustically treated, reasonably accurate room, on accurate equipment to a file sourced from DVD-A stereo ... NOT DVD-A multichannel....
How best to achieve that ?
Get a computer, with an appropriately equipped optical drive, and any halfway decent semi-professional (or better) audio interface ,
(see Focusrite , RME, MOTU , Apogee, Lavry , Benchmark, Digidesign, amongst others)
and some reference quality active speakers as defined NOT by the Hifi crowd, but the Pro-Audio engineering crowd.
( My usual recommendations for this go to ADAM, PMC, ATC, Klein&Hummel, and other similarly positioned brands )
use balanced connections and position equipment appropriately.... and listen in awe...
Best value for money solution.
offhand I'd say
Focusrite Saffire, or Saffire Pro interface and ADAM P33A speakers on decent solidly sand&lead filled stands.
stunning .
total System cost about £2600 inc computer , cable, stands , and VAT.
yeah i know, most people don't need such good quality Mic inputs, or many of the other features... but you want a decent sounding answer... this is it...
Acoustic treatment , probably about the same money if using ready made commercially sold designs, a lot less if you DIY it.
3) Next best? Almost the same as above but with SACD , although that's potentially trickier..... the DSD layer being unreadable by almost any PC or mac drive... so a standalone player is required... some allow you to pipe digital signal out of the player, possibly via iLink ,
for this reason, I don't see SACD winning the format war... people will generally choose the least restrictive and most flexible solution... at the moment that's DVD-A.... think VHS and Betamax all over again....
The daft thing? I have a standalone DSD recorder... (Tascam) which links to a computer as well....
it can't playback SACD discs... bloody stupid .
it's also more expensive to get sorted PROPERLY.... easy to do with cheap stuff, but the benefit of SACD is largely wasted by doing so.
SACD has a better low end response, the bass being smooth and natural and very engaging, by comparison to proper DVD-A 24/96 , it's Hf is a a little less clean and some detail clarity might be a tad less pristine than the DVD-A, there is very little in it though. The deciding factor in the long run will undoubtedly be the ease of use and flexibility+cost factors, which DVD-A has won hands down!
More Anon.
Author
Topic: DAB (Read 5444 times)