LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  November 2012

ARSCLIST November 2012

Subject:

Re: Interesting history of DGG-Polydor-Polygram-Berliner Studios-SACD-etc

From:

Clark Johnsen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:26:04 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (160 lines)

Thank you -- my responses are below.

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Goran Finnberg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Clark Johnsen:
>
> > That must lead one to question the reproducing system.
>
> "No difference whatsoever" is an exceedingly rare event.
>
 Perhaps I misunderstood the message: "The experts and parts of the
Hi-Fi/High End scene are at cross purposes over the new recording format
DSD, on which the Super Audio CD is based, and possible advantages of this
format in comparison to PCM, as it is used for CD and (in its
high-resolution variety) for DVD-Audio."  I took it that the "no difference
whatsoever" line referred to CD PCM, not to the (very uncommon) high-rate
DVD-A.

>
>
> http://old.hfm-detmold.de/eti/projekte/diplomarbeiten/dsdvspcm/aes_paper_608
> 6.pdf<http://old.hfm-detmold.de/eti/projekte/diplomarbeiten/dsdvspcm/aes_paper_6086.pdf>
>
This paper in fact employed an even higher rate PCM: 176/24. Also it does
not specify what speaker models were used or anything about their
crossovers. Perhaps you can inform us?

clark

>
> Watch out for any line breaks above. The whole link needs to by used!
>
> Or use:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/pateu4
>
> http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/dvda/messages/7851.html
>
> DVD-Audiobahn
>
> DSD vs. PCM tests at Universal's Emil Berliner Studios
> 80.184.248.69
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread:  Display  Email  Next ] [
> DVD-Audiobahn ]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Posted by Mathias Myka on October 01, 2003 at 05:12:11
>
>
> The September, 2003 edition of "Production Partner", a German magazine for
> studio technology (http://www.production-partner.de), has a fairly
> interesting interview with Rainer Maillard, head of the recording service
> department of Emil Berliner Studios (http://www.emil-berliner-studios.com
> ).
> They do most classical recordings for Universal's Deutsche Grammophon
> label,
> and also seem to be owned by Deutsche Grammophon.
>
> For two of the most recent SACD productions of DG, the studio did a
> parallel
> recording in DSD and PCM (96/24) technology, and made extensive comparisons
> between the two digital audio formats. One of these recordings is the SACD
> production of Gustav Mahler's 2nd symphony, played by the Vienna
> Philharmonic Orchestra, directed by Gilbert Kaplan.
> If you have this SACD, you may have noticed that be booklet says: recorded
> in PCM 96 kHz/24 bit.
>
> As I find this interview quite interesting, I have tried to translate those
> parts relevant to the never-ending SACD- vs. DVD-Audio/PCM discussion. Here
> we go:
>
> **********
> [About audible differences]
> "When comparing the parallel recordings [i.e. DSD vs. PCM], several things
> need to be considered. One example: when I compared the main microphone
> [tracks] of the Mahler Surround Production in DSD and PCM, there was a
> notable difference. Later I discovered that the sensitivity of the D/A
> converters in conjunction with the monitoring unit had a certain tolerance,
> which was about 0.3 to 0.6 dB. When playing back through five speakers,
> this
> was audible. After adjusting the levels of all channels, the difference was
> practically inaudible."
>
> [About blind tests]
> "We did A/B/X blind tests, which again and again without mercy showed the
> difference between reality and imagination. To most of our colleagues and
> guests it was impossible to notice a difference and thus make a judgment. I
> think that's a positive result. It shows that DSD is positioned on a very
> high quality level."
>
> [About parameters for high end recordings]
> "The question is not about format. To produce a high end audio recording,
> completely different parameters have to be considered. How do I select
> musicians, recording venue, instruments, positioning, microphones, cables,
> converters, mixing desk, outboard equipment etc.? How do I combine these
> elements? If I move a microphone just one inch from it's location, the
> differences will be greater [than between DSD and PCM]. I could hire a
> different piano tuner, then it will sound different again, or change the
> room temperature. To me that's fascinating."
>
> [About DSD's impulse reproduction]
> "Because DSD uses 64x oversamling as compared to the CD, measurement
> results
> for impulse reproduction are very good. But such a measurement signal will
> hardly ever be encountered in practice. "
>
> [About DSD artefacts]
> "A one bit data stream by itself has a s/n ratio of only 6 dB. This noise
> energy, by means of noise shaping, can be moved into a frequency range
> where
> it no longer interferes. As a result, you get good s/n ratios of about 120
> dB in the human hearing range. We took a closer look at the increasing
> noise
> above 20 kHz, and we are not sure if this noise can be seen as an artefact
> or effect, possibly even as a positive sound effect. [...] One very
> revealing experiment was playing back a 30 kHz sine wave with varispeed at
> one tenth of the original speed. By using this trick, you can hear the
> artefacts at 3 kHz, which otherwise wouldn't be audible to us. Here, a
> difference between DSD and PCM showed itself, and this also can be
> measured."
>
> [About archive media]
> "With regard to our archive, the answer [derived from these experiments] is
> clear: on a master recording, there is no place for noise, as it cannot be
> removed later. So we have decided to use high resolution PCM with 96 or 192
> kHz sampling rate as our archive medium."
>
> **********
>
>
> Mathias
>
> Rainer Maillard was also interviewed in the English Pro Audio Magazine
> "Studio Sound" where he in a much expanded detailed interview how this
> comparision was done.
>
> You cannot fault what they did in any way......except personal "Theories"
> based in wishful thinking instead of facts.
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Goran Finnberg
> The Mastering Room AB
> Goteborg
> Sweden
>
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> Learn from the mistakes of others, you can never live long enough to
> make them all yourself.    -   John Luther
>
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(") Smurfen:RIP
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager