|
Digital Drive Upsamplers, DACs, jitter, shakes and analogue withdrawals, this is it. |
|
|
|
Digital Drive Upsamplers, DACs, jitter, shakes and analogue withdrawals, this is it. |
|
In Reply to: Re: SACD in Japan posted by Kazu Kawasaki on July 3, 2000 at 09:43:54:
I understand what Kazu is saying about the sound difference, but I draw different conclusions. His use of descriptive terminology which is visually based is very appropriate, though, and suggests the parallels in the video world.
For example, many HT buffs still have preferences for S-Video signals instead of component, and often make comparative statements about how the "colors are more saturated", or the "edges are sharper", and what they are descrbing to me are the common faults of video signals compared with photography, particularly as regards "edge enhancment" and other processing techniques commonly used in video. One of the worst examples that comes to mind is the cartoon like video produced by the current line of Sony Wega flatscreen TV's (which are flying out of dealer showrooms) when left in their factory default settings. Compared with a progressive scan, delinterlaced DVD, scaled on a good HTPC, with an accurate color calibrated monitor or projector, it's very obvious (to me, and many others) where the faults lie in the conventional video signal and TV. Explaining that the component or RGB signal has 3X the color bandwidth of the S-Video signal is so much abstract verbage; most people have become very accustomed to what they watch or hear over the years, and they're used to video looking like video; when it doesn't, it strikes them as strange. Film doesn't normally have "edge enhancement".
In the audio side of things, we're all familiar with the concept of trying to assemble a "compatible" system, which roughly means that the colorations and imbalances in one component are matched to those in another component, in an attempt to produce the most pleasing end product. The audio recording/reprodcing chain is rife with this approach, with signal processing and EQ to "compensate" for the supposed limitations of microphones, recorders, recording media, etc. On the whole, it has enabled the production of some fairly decent recordings with equipment and sources that are at times questionable, but it is neverthelss something of a kluge. As an example, it was a fairly unquestioned practice/recommendation for many years that speakers should have an HF roll-off of about 3 dB per octave above 2 kHz, and that recordings would be pre-emphasized in a similar degree. Flat speakers would NOT sound correct, and weren't recommended.
Now, even defining what a flat speaker should be isn't a simple question- are you referring to the early arrival on-axis performance, or the nearfield power response, or the far field power response? All have their own contribution to perceived quality, yet some highly regarded speakers have serious shortcomings in at least one of these characteristics. Witness the Eggleston Works Andrea, a Sterophile speaker of the year choice, which CANNOT sum a nearfield early arrival response correctly because of crossover phase problems, but who's farfield power ressponse is fairly smooth, and which has other characteristics, some feel, to recommend it.
In my opinion, good "acoustic" recordings on SACD (preferably DSD recordings, like Telarc has made recently) on a system with flat axial and flat room power response does not "soft" or lacking in detail- it sounds breathtakingly alive and natural, even coming from a "humble" SCD777ES. As quoted by others, "studio mic feeds for the masses". Even very good CD's after a while sound somewhat "electronic" in comparison. However, I must also say, that with breakin, the SCD777ES can provide very inviting CD reproduction. My preference is for the DF3 filter setting, which uses even order digital filters, over/upsampling/interpolating the CD data while retaining the original sample data points, which conventional oversampling filters do not. While I have had substantial success upgrading the analog section of my older Sony CD players (inluding XA7ES), and probably will do the same to this unit after some more breakin and when I'm convinced I'm past the early failure zone, there are clearly a lot of things this player does very well in the digital domain that anlog tweaking of a conventional player will not readily equal. My 777ES is run through a passive preamp using Shallco switch based attenuators for balance and volume, and most of the rest of my electronics, and my speakers, are custom (DIY, I'm an EE).
IMO, for a street price under $2500 (what I paid, including 2nd day shipping from one side of the country to the other), the SCD777ES represents very good value in build quality, sonic performance at that price point, and potential for tweaking. SACD and DVD-A players will come down in price, but there are many facets of build quality (mechanical resonance, for example) which do impact low level resolution, and make it likely that the utlimate performacne with the high resolution data formats will justify the more expensive and lavishly built players. Time will tell; it should be an interesting few years ahead of us, but very rewarding for music lovers, I think.Regards,
Jon
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Re Edges and softness, etc. - JonMarsh 07/5/0009:09:26 07/5/00 (1)
- You said it better than I could have... - Rich 12:58:31 07/8/00 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
