DSD versus PCM - Is DSD really better or is it a 'myth'

AJ Soundfield said:
No. That's an objective claim, easily falsified.
How about, you subjectively like the sound of tape better than _ ?
Anything wrong with not needed falsifiable "objective" reasons, to just like something better Mike?
Click to expand...

so AJ; tell us about all the tape you listen to on master recorders compared to other formats, where you heard something different? and where you heard the same mic feed with a hirez digital master and analog master and compared them directly.

we care about what you heard.

I don't apologize that my opinions are based on long term listening experiences. that is mostly what is relevant here.

and I did not state that my 'opinion' was based on science. where does it require that particular step? or even that it was a fact.

if you want that; here is a wonderful spot for you to be among similar minded folk.

check out item #8 and feel right at home.
 
Mike Lavigne said:
so AJ; tell us about all the tape you listen to on master recorders compared to other formats
Click to expand...
Like at this studio where I been and know the engineers?
That would serve only to Red Herring your claim, which is quite specific, there being "denser data" on tape. That is an objective claim you made to bolster your subjective opinion, but it has no objective basis and is thus easily falsified.
What you "heard" long term is not "data", it's your subjective opinion.
I get it, you like tape. I do too, under some circumstances. But I don't need an "objective" BS claims as verification for my purely subjective preferences. Tape is not more "data dense". That's nonsense, unless you mean added noise and distortion over digital as "data".
How about you just like the sound better?
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Like at this studio where I been and know the engineers?
That would serve only to Red Herring your claim, which is quite specific, there being "denser data" on tape. That is an objective claim you made to bolster your subjective opinion, but it has no objective basis and is thus easily falsified.
What you "heard" long term is not "data", it's your subjective opinion.
I get it, you like tape. I do too, under some circumstances. But I don't need an "objective" BS claims as verification for my purely subjective preferences. Tape is not more "data dense". That's nonsense, unless you mean added noise and distortion over digital as "data".
How about you just like the sound better?
Click to expand...

so you've 'been at a studio' and you 'know engineers'. last week I was at a hospital, but I don't claim....oh, forget it.

but you know that tape is not more 'data dense'. and how do you know this....opinion?....or.....fact? or is it just that the burden is on me to prove my 'opinion'?

I'm not interested in 'proof'. 'proof' makes me want to go out and cut the lawn, or go to the dentist.

I like to talk about what I hear, or what you hear.

if you desire objective proof, or insist we all qualify our statements, then go visit Hydrogen Audio and have at it.

to be fair; when we speak about things, it is reasonable that we have something to back up what we say. but typically that would be experience. and it's proper to ask about experience when faced with opinions and then we all decide how credible those opinions might be.

but required proof, or always qualified....not what I look for in a high end audio forum. but maybe that is just me.
 
Mike Lavigne said:
so you've 'been at a studio' and you 'know engineers'.
Click to expand...
Yes, that studio and those engineers who use both tape and digital recording. And you? What studio mastering are you attending and comparing?

Mike Lavigne said:
I like to talk about what I hear, or what you hear.
Click to expand...
Right, because your "denser data" claim is falsifiable, i.e., you don't have any "density" data, just what you "heard".
No one is arguing what you "heard". But your "denser data" claim is specious...and unnecessary.
You like tape. Great. Your subjective choice and opinion. Why is that never enough?
 
Geardaddy said:
What is your frame of reference? System? Room?
Click to expand...
For you preferring tape? This thread. Didn't say anything about my preferences, just responding to yours about tape here:
Geardaddy said:
Tape does sound better. I think its not necessarily about "data" but data processing and how the brain responds to digital data reconstruction. Our brains appear to have a high degree of sensitivity to discontinuity.
Click to expand...
You're giving false objective reasons for your subjective preferences and stating them as absolute. I have absolutely no doubt tape sounds better...to you.

Geardaddy said:
Why do you choose the drivers you use in your speakers?
Click to expand...
Not because of tape.:)
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Yes, that studio and those engineers who use both tape and digital recording. And you? What studio mastering are you attending and comparing?
Click to expand...

ok, i'll play.

I have a Reference Recording, the Arnold Overtures, that was recorded with one mic feed into both a ADC at 176/24 and a Tape Machine. I have the HRx master file at 176/24, the 44.1/16 CD, the Tape Project master dub, and the Lp from the master dub. all these recordings were mastered by the same guy, Paul Stubblebine.

I know Paul, he has been to my home.

the tape is more 'dense' sounding than the HRx master file.

now your turn. be specific.

Right, because your "denser data" claim is falsifiable, i.e., you don't have any "density" data, just what you "heard".
No one is arguing what you "heard". But you "denser data" claim is specious...and unnecessary.
You like tape. Great. Your subjective choice and opinion. Why is that never enough?
Click to expand...

I guess having someone telling me I need to qualify my comments would drive me from that environment. so I don't like it much.
 
I enjoy the irony that some people who love to bash analog in general and sometimes tape in particular proclaim how their digital music sounds so much better and more pure than analog when the reality is that many of their digital recordings were probably sourced from analog tape (unless they strictly listen to music that was originally recorded digitally).
 
Mike Lavigne said:
ok, i'll play.

I have a Reference Recording, the Arnold Overtures, that was recorded with one mic feed into both a ADC at 176/24 and a Tape Machine. I have the HRx master file at 176/24, the 44.1/16 CD, the Tape Project master dub, and the Lp from the master dub. all these recordings were mastered by the same guy, Paul Stubblebine.

I know Paul, he has been to my home.
Click to expand...
Ok, so you have no first hand studio experience.

Mike Lavigne said:
the tape is more 'dense' sounding than the HRx master file.
Click to expand...
Right. Subjectively to you. So your "data" density objective claim has rescinded to a purely subjective one.
Ok, we're on the same page now...and had that subjective only claim been your original claim, we would not be having this conversation.

Mike Lavigne said:
now your turn. be specific.
Click to expand...
I've heard tape sound better than digital and vice versa...to me. I've heard DSD sound better than CD and vice versa...to me. Sorry, no absolute fanaticism for formats and widgets that are mere conveyances of music....to me.

cheers,

AJ
 
mep said:
I enjoy the irony that some people who love to bash analog in general and sometimes tape in particular proclaim how their digital music sounds so much better and more pure than analog when the reality is that many of their digital recordings were probably sourced from analog tape (unless they strictly listen to music that was originally recorded digitally).
Click to expand...
Reminds me of all those golden ear folks swooning for years about the greatness of SACD....only to later find most were upsampled Redbook.:lol:
The mind makes it real...
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Ok, so you have no first hand studio experience.


Right. Subjectively to you. So your "data" density objective claim has rescinded to a purely subjective one.
Ok, we're on the same page now...and had that subjective only claim been your original claim, we would not be having this conversation.


I've hear tape sound better than digital and vice versa...to me. I've heard DSD sound better than CD and vice versa...to me. Sorry, no absolute fanaticism for formats and widgets that are mere conveyances of music....to me.

cheers,

AJ
Click to expand...

well AJ, I did get a 'cheers' from you at the end.

you do get points for that.:D
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Reminds me of all those golden ear folks swooning for years about the greatness of SACD....only to later find most were upsampled Redbook.:lol:
The mind makes it real...
Click to expand...

Yeah, but these were probably the same early CD adopters that thought digital audio was born perfect because Sony told them it was and then took the next leap of faith with SACDs. :D
 
Geardaddy said:
Tape does sound better. I think its not necessarily about "data" but data processing and how the brain responds to digital data reconstruction. Our brains appear to have a high degree of sensitivity to discontinuity.
Click to expand...
Ah, the TIME domain.

Reverchon may have a point.
 
AJ Soundfield said:
For you preferring tape? This thread. Didn't say anything about my preferences, just responding to yours about tape here:

You're giving false objective reasons for your subjective preferences and stating them as absolute. I have absolutely no doubt tape sounds better...to you.


Not because of tape.:)
Click to expand...

Avoiding the question does not help your cause.

I know its fun to play the "objectivist" on threads, but be one and provide more specifics please. Tape versus CD versus DSD, etc. What material? What system? Who was the recording engineer? What was the system in the studio? What system do you use at home? How do you measure and correlate said measures with sonic performance? Prior to existence of more precise measurement tools, numbnut engineers used to tell us that coat hangers were the equivalent of any exotic cabling. How times have changed.
 
Geardaddy said:
Norman, that's a purely speculative point obviously, but it makes intuitive sense and is in part an extrapolation of findings in the digital domain.
Click to expand...

Try the SBOOster BoTW with the ultra, the active noise reduction filter. They claim it lifts the Aries Femto performance.
 
Geardaddy said:
Avoiding the question does not help your cause.
Click to expand...
I answered the question, your claim that tape is better is your personal preference superimposed on reality as an absolute.
Geardaddy said:
Tape does sound better.
Click to expand...
To you.

This is a DSD vs PCM thread. Perhaps you should start a tape thread and reassert your preference as absolutism, again.

cheers,

AJ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top