2. digital
  3. 1391614689

why dsd

Until a few days ago, i had never heard of dsd. Apparently it was developed thru sony/philips and used as the foundation for super audio. Why is everyone so hyped on this. I have had a sony 9100es for several years and have a handful of discs. Big deal. I am selling the damn thing and will toss in the discs if anyone is interested. I get the waive stuff bla bla bla. Yes- digital can sometimes sound bad, but have you ever listened to a poorly engineered record. Ugh. Less to do with the medium and more to do with the recording

My MAc mini into my C2 sounds good and upgraded spotify is great.

We are so caught up in hype. We split hairs over everything and talk about stuff that only an electrical engineer gets. We call 4k budget gear! Are you kidding me???

Music is something that touches your soul, and we don't listen in a perfect room with a lab coat on. If my foot taps then I'm happy.

I am trying to buy a dac with pre and HT pass, not because I am going to squeeze an additional drop of shimmer out of my system, but because I need something easier for my family to use.

Stop buying into hype! Records sound great but digital is more convenient and has opened the door to a world of music that should blow you away. If you are more concerned with being sold than just enjoying the music then you are missing the point.

Any thoughts on a dac/pre combo with bypass :-)
128x128famoej
audioengr
3,282 posts
 
"many reviewers who praised SACD playback claim at the same time that CD layer playback performance of these players was substandard"

This is not so surprising. I believe it is actually easier to design a good DSD DAC/SACD player than a good CD player/DAC. As a result the quality of the SACD hardware will probably beat the CD hardware in most players.

When I made these comparisons it was with a top-end SACD player that I had highly modified, both SACD and CD sections. They were both terrific, but it really showed that the CD layer was more live and accurate than the SACD layer in most recordings. Particularly obvious in classical recordings.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
kijanki's avatar
kijanki
4,428 posts
 
Steve, do you think that recording music in pure DSD and mixing for SACD in mind could make a difference?

I wish they would stop compressing music. It might be necessary to allow playback on small speakers or boomboxes but when you select audiophile intended media like SACD it should allow full 120dB dynamic range of SACD to be utilized.
audioengr
3,282 posts
 
"Steve, do you think that recording music in pure DSD and mixing for SACD in mind could make a difference?"

Certainly, but the quality of the A/D, the master record clock and the mixing etc. all matters. I'm shocked most of the time when I find out how the average recording studio captures a digital track. They are not doing nearly as good as job as we are on the playback side and their equipment choices are disappointing IMO. Finding a recording engineer that is a believer in quality cables is almost impossible. They typically don't mix for the audiophile, they mix for the boom-box and car stereo.

Some of the best tracks I have heard were captured using multi-track analog tape and then mixed with analog mixers and then finally digital conversion to 24/192. They used a variety of audiophile cables too.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
tomcy6's avatar
tomcy6
2,589 posts
 
"They" can't make anyone buy anything. If you are happy with your 1980s vintage Lp or Cd or just don't want to buy an album more than once it is your inalienable right to not buy it again in another format.

There are many albums I won't buy again and others that I might. I'm glad that efforts to improve the sound quality of recordings continue.

I agree with Steve that much more needs to be done on the recording end of the process. That's probably where the biggest improvements could come from.
zd542
5,339 posts
 
Davt,

You need to stop doing what people tell you to do.
More to discover