November 27, 2021
 by Paul McGowan

DXD is a digital audio format that has a lot of people excited.

From Wikipedia:

“Digital eXtreme Definition (DXD) is a digital audio format that originally was developed by Philips and Merging Technologies for editing high-resolution recordings recorded in Direct Stream Digital (DSD), the audio standard used on Super Audio CD (SACD). As the 1-bit DSD format used on SACD is not suitable for editing, alternative formats such as DXD or DSD-Wide must be used during the mastering stage.”

Who wouldn’t get excited about a format known as Digital eXtreme Definition?

Makes me titter all over.

Only, the excitement’s all in the name.

In reality, it is nothing more than PCM running at 352.8kHz 24 bit (or 8 times faster than CD quality).

If we call it high-resolution PCM it’s far less appealing. DXD has an allure that’s hard to beat, but it is, after all, just a name.

And here is what’s missing. Converting DSD to PCM is not without its issues.

Like any conversion process, there are good-sounding ones and bad-sounding ones. So, when we hear the term DXD we cannot assume a good or a bad conversion process has been employed.

All DXD does not sound the same.

This conversion process and its ramifications are at the heart of what we’re moving forward with at Octave Records.

I will keep you in the loop as we have more to unfold.

Subscribe to Paul's Posts

60 comments on “DXD”

  1. Beatles Overload!

    It’s really quite extraordinary how the Beatles stay relevant 50+ years on. Interesting how there’s always new product in the pipeline every Christmas selling season.

    Just this year;

    The Beatles: Eight Days a Week documentary.
    McCartney: 3,2,1 documentary
    The Beatles: Get Back documentary.

    Get Back: Let it Be isn’t exactly my favorite album save for three songs and George looks inconvenienced. My best recommendation would be to open a couple bottles of wine while viewing and festive on a really hip garage band. $ 8 bucks a week.

    Sgt Peppers, Revolver, White Album Sessions perhaps…

    1. Oops, forgot the book, Paul McCartney The Lyrics: 1956 to the Present (Two-Volume Set) hardcover = $100.

      Any wonder why Paul is a billionaire?

      And now back to discussing digital minutiae…

  2. Paul, I think something may have cliched at your end. I did not get an email notice of today’s Paul’s Post.

    As to today’s topic, there is a lot of confusion out there when it comes to digital audio. As you said DXD is just 24 bit PCM at 8 times the CD sampling rate which is 352.8 kS.p.s. ( samples per second ). Many people think that the famous dCS ring DAC does DSD since its sampling rate 2.8224 mS.p.s. is the same as DSD’s , however, the ring DAC which uses 24 quantization values which is 4.6 bit PCM ( 2 to the 4.6 power is about 24 ) at 64 times the CD sampling rate.

    1. As I tried to intimate much depends on how you convert DSD to DXD. The standard method used by the industry is a IIR low pass filter that, to my ears, is unacceptable. The loss from DSD to DXD using industry standard methods is not worth the effort.

      Which is why we stay with analog.

      1. The same finding about this IIR filter effect making the sound most unnatural for our ears was reported to me by some most renowned sound engineers, Paul. Why not offering an example for download?

      2. Is that standard? My audio system does not use an IIR low pass filter, it uses a 128 tap linear phase FIR, so it has none of the phase problems of IIR filters. It requires a lot more processing power, but it has the processing power, thanks to a factory-installed hardware upgrade in 2017.

        I read that other very good DACs also take this approach, like Denafrips, but they only use 32 taps. Not long ago some machines were only 8 taps.

  3. We only know how limited a hyped format (or technology) was, when we look at discussions 10 years later. Sometimes things clear up even faster, sometimes slower. We’ll never know it at the time the new found improvement gets on the market or is actually developed.

    In my perception, first (until there was nothing better available in digital) we learned, 16/44.1 was already better overall than analog. This lasted for decades.

    Then came hires and it was obvious what many already heard. But as soon as this improvement was available, digital dogmatists claimed that now there was no difference anymore and admitted that 16/44.1 was maybe not optimal.

    Then came the sensibility for what jitter turned to the bad and it was obvious, that the avoidance of jitter/noise revealed much more of analog’s quality.

    Then came DSD and we were told that PCM (so everything that happened to us before) is far inferior to DSD in its ability to store the analog waveform and even the use of PCM during editing DSD more or less “ruins” the result if not at least used in a special way which does less harm (not knowing which percentage of todays digital media used the inferior or better method).

    We were then told that the analog editing/EQ’ing of DSD is far superior and DSD therefore is finally THE superior medium.

    We then learned, that (surprise) the interim step through analog consoles with a bunch of connectors and cables inbetween isn’t really optimal either and that Octave now develops an even more special DXD editing variant which now..finally..I mean really finally.. should be lossless (but then firstly will only be available for this tiny label while all others on the market [and all digital media on the market already] use one of the clearly inferior variants described before, which [in contrast to what was communicated at their release] didn’t replicate the analog signal properly).

    I don’t doubt any of those progresses and progress always means that what was before is surpassed, but I think the history of the communication about how soon and how often digital already reached or surpassed analog and prior digital qualities (which were already told us being lossless and perfect) is at least amusing.

    This kind of “amusing” communication about technology in my perception happens at no other place than digital audio. Not with amp, speaker, camera, cabling, car or any other technology, as there, own limitations and the continuous need to overcome them are much more present and too ambitious and absolute claims, rare. We otherwise just know such “amusing” argumentation in politics.

    Aside of this I very much welcome Octave’s effort!

    1. The core promise of digital transmission technologies is and has been: no loss of information, noise-free, bit-perfect! But al always: proper design of the gear is elementary! Similar discussion for power supply. Clean mains power is elementary! But power supply modules itself produce noise and EMI/RFI. And today products generating green energy (windmills, solar power module) also contaminate the mains power supply as motor, airconditioner units, etc do. Thus the design of a high-end power supply module should primarily clean the incoming energy. But modern SMPSs generate a lot of RFI. Thus shielding becomes most important! Or you better go for battery and ultra-capacitor based power supplies. 🙂 Take Home Message: get the basics controlled first by good designing & manufacturing practices. And the biggest room for improvements is still found in recording, loudspeaker design and crosstalk cancellation!

  4. Paul’s quote comes from a review of the Merging Technologies Sphynx 2, linked on the DXD wiki page. That was released in 2004. The review makes it quite clear that it was 24-bit sampled at 352.8khz and says that after using 24/352.8 for editing, it can be concerted back to DSD with minimal degradation or decimated to other PCM rates for consumer use.

    What Paul and the article do not mention is dCS, who for a long time before becoming audio manufacturers were a consultancy inventing much of the HD technology for the professional recording community.

    By the time they pioneered 24/352.8 processing for editing DSD, there were loads of sample rates in use and the name DXD seems to have been used simply to identify that particular format. It was not a buzz-word for consumer audio as Paul suggests – because it was for professional use only. DSD and DXD processing was implemented by software updates to dCS products released in the late 1990s.

    A/D converters were part of dCS’s work on radar and other avionics systems. They invented 24-bit A/D conversion for professional audio in the 1980s, initially for the BBC for use with DAT machines, and the dCS 900 series 24-bit A/D converters were designed for Bob Ludwig and others. They then developed the complimentary 24-bit D/A dCS 950 converters, again for professional use. Due to interest from Japan, these were packaged as a consumer unit called the dCS Elgar and dCS soon became an audio manufacturer. John Atkinson reviewed this in 1997 and for him it was a complete gamechanger for digital consumer audio.

    Because the dCS 900 and 950 were variants of mission-critical military technology using fully proprietary in-house technology using FPGA (the dCS RingDAC), they were unique. They were also hugely flexible.

    dCS also designed the first 24/192 A/D and D/A converters as a consultancy project for the BBC, to transfer their analogue archives between BBC locations. Consequently dCS consumer DACs were updated to 24/192 in 1997.

    Due to the proliferation of sampling rates, in 1996 they designed the dCS 972 D/D converter, and some Japanese audiophiles decided converting 16-bit CD to 24-bit made it sound better. Hence upsampling was born almost by accident.

    When Sony decided to launch DSD, this was handled by software updates to their existing 904, 954 and 972 A/D, D/A and D/D converters. This was around 1998. These were used by Bob Ludwig to master the first SACD releases, which were also issued as 24-bit DVD.

    According to a long article on Mono & Stereo:

    DXD was first prototyped on the 974, 954, 904 – it’s a name given to 24-bit/352.8kS/s PCM digital audio, and the sonic results were spectacular. This feature was soon added to the company’s pro products as DSD is extremely difficult to work with natively in a workstation/mixing desk, according to McHarg (dCS technical director). “It gives very similar transient performance to DSD, but doesn’t have the same difficulties manipulating it, so it is a convenient format to work in to generate a final DSD release.”

    I find this history of interest because the with their existing RingDAC, now almost 40 years old, and because they did not use any commercial DAC chips, dCS were able to pioneer a lot of HD audio (PCM, DSD and D/D upsampling) very quickly because a lot was done by software updates.

    I appreciate Ed Meitner played a big role in SACD and Bob Ludwig and the likes use EMM converters as well.

    These dCS and EMM machines were, from what I read, state of the art, and remain so. Other manufacturers have obviously come in, like Tascam, making very good machines and presumably a lot cheaper. But state of the art technology has been around a long time, 20 years and more, as it was designed to meet the needs of the professional audio community at the time.

    1. Steven,
      Thanks for a great and fascinating write up.
      I guess dCS have long been regarded as being at the pinnacle of digital, certainly in the U.K. but of course as with everything subjective, not everyone would agree, and I’ve heard their sound described as dry, though I’m not exactly sure what that means. I can’t personally comment as I’ve never heard their kit. Similarly EMM Labs is another highly respected manufacturer invariably garnering excellent reviews. I believe Paul McG uses or has used their converters. Unfortunately for most of us this high end gear comes in at considerable cost.
      One thing I did hear, when dCS first began to demo their gear, they used a studio master tape as the source.

      1. The main point is I think that, whilst we think of the dCS consumer audio, and I’ve heard them quite a lot, they made a massive contribution to professional digital audio production internationally, as consultant designers, and what they were doing 20 to 25 years ago is now commonplace in consumer audio.

        Very similar to Tim de Paravicini, who had legendary status for designing bespoke professional studio equipment beside his EAR consumer brand (and I’m listening through his last product now – the EAR Phonobox).

        dCS developed the technology for producing SACD/DSD, including DXD, and whilst it quickly went out of fashion as a playback format, it remains at the heart of their consumer products.

        The story goes that in the late 1990s when dCS first demonstrated the dCS Elgar doing 24-bit data conversion at the New York Audio Show, the unit was damaged in transit from the UK, so it sat on a plinth and they actually used their professional 950 D/A converter.

  5. Paul, what would be really really interesting is, how a remastering of analog tapes to SACD/DSD would turn out using your process compared to say Kevin Gray‘s custom mastering chain using PCM editing for DSD.

    I guess he possibly has the best or one of the best mastering chains on the market, but still way too much gets lost on the way to the digital medium (assumed the problem is not on digital playback side). A progress with your process could be easily identified in this case of remasterings if happening.

    Did you ever think of producing remasterings, too? Gus might have reputation enough to get original masters from labels.

    1. I will look into Kevin Gray’s chain. Thanks for the tip. To date, no one I know has come close to pulling off what we hope to with our new Zephiir process, but we’ll see. Always good to know what’s out there.

      Remastering is an idea but doesn’t get us where we want to go unless the original happened to be an analog tape. That I could see might have value, but then we know nothing about acquiring such things.

      1. Ahh…Zephiir!

        Yes exactly, it would have to be from original tapes and the difficulty will be to have one, the major labels trust with master tapes (and he has to be in the states, possibly near the labels). For good reason only few reissue labels get them so far and some engineers even were dropped from such trust lists in the past.

        Maybe it stays a dream, but it would have value indeed, as one can compare directly and see the achieved or not achieved improvement directly, where when you record your own, you don’t have a comparison unless you do it all analog in parallel.

        When comparing e.g. golden era (or other AAA) classical on vinyl vs. SACD from the same mastering engineer (as Analogue Productions did releases in parallel on vinyl and SACD), it’s even more obvious than by golden era (or other AAA) jazz examples, how little of the magic makes it on SACD for whatever reason.

        If you could achieve more here, it would be quite an easily reproducible progress for making analog magic available on SACD and this would have quite a sales potential imo.

  6. Formats and recording. The myth has been perpetuated that faster is better and always more is better. Maybe in a lot of cases it is. I’ve heard some phenomenal new recordings that were carefully done on analog tape and then converted to DSD or DXD formats.

    A couple observations / questions
    If higher rate DSD is better for playback (2x or 4x) – then why are not those rates being used in the recording process at Octave Records?

    The other question concerns the PCM offerings that come with Octave Records downloads.
    Why are they not multiples of 44.1 (except for 1) but rather multiples of 48? Wouldn’t there be less interpolation if they were available in 176.4 or 88.2? Or is it because higher numbers sell better?

    Quite frankly the recording quality and the music are more paramount to me, before a hunt down of formats. Especially since the recording industry is, shall we say, “ less than forth coming” in disseminating detailed information “of how”, at least for the majority of disseminated music.

      1. Currently listening to vinyl, which goes through A/D conversion to 40/384 PCM, phono and speaker DSP is applied and then sound comes out of the speakers. It is all done through proprietary processing.

        I have become completely indifferent to formats and as Mike says the mixing and mastering, and the processing in your audio system, is really what seems to make the difference.

        As set out in long form above, 24/352.8 was simply implemented in the late 1990s for lossless editing of DSD and called DXD for convenience. I think the dCS units were 6-channel and Bob Ludwig used a stack of them. Probably still does.

        I don’t know who it is that is getting excited about DXD. It’s a format for professional mixing, also used as the original format for a few recordings (NativeDSD listed 470 titles).

    1. To answer one of your questions, Mike, we don’t record in anything but single rate DSD because that is what the Sonoma system is limited to. We have purchased two Pyramix recording systems capable of recording up to 4X DSD and once we get to learn the system we will be switching from Sonoma to Pyramix.

    2. I think the interpolation argument is a myth. The new sample rate audio is re-sampled from a reconstructed waveform generated from the original sample rate audio

      1. It may be. Just seems to me it’s easier to divide by whole number multiples with no rounding or interpolation (even if the “error” is inaudible).

        The only control I have is on the playback side and even that is dependent on my choices. If the recording quality improves with music I like, then that’s all I can ask.

        All I can do right now is find good recordings in what ever format they come in.

  7. Pushing the boundaries of recording technology is a good thing, to be encouraged and hopefully widely adopted. However, you can have the absolute best recording system and format in the world but, if the artists you like don’t use it, what is an audiophile to do? (Hands thrown up in the air with rolling eyes and exasperated expression emoji).

    1. Good morning Richtea!
      I’m with you on that man!
      There are in deed a quite a lot of Audiophile recordings out there.
      But sad to say, not enough of them have been remastered in to either DSD or put down on an SACD.
      For once, I’d like to hear a lot of the music that Micle Jackson left behind, put down on an SACD, or I’d like to be able to download his hole intire catalog in DSD.
      But truth be told, the record companies won’t do that for those of us that loves Micle’s music.

  8. I think the important thing for everyone to bear in mind when discussion extreme-resolution audio formats is that the format itself does not guarantee the quality of the audio signal stored within it. It is a trivial matter to take a 128Mbps MP3 file and upconvert it to DSD256, DXD, or any other format of choice, and the result will still sound like 128Mbps MP3. Beyond a certain baseline capability, there is absolutely nothing about any one high-end audio format that means the music contained within it must sound better than the same music contained within another audio format. The only things that impact how the music will sound are the things you have to do to get the music into that format in the first place, and the things you have to do to extract it from the format in order to play it.

    As far as playback goes, despite what people like to imagine, there is in practice an awful lot of digital manipulation that goes into an audio signal once it enters a DAC, and this manipulation generally differs from DAC to DAC, and plays a major role (but not necessarily the dominant role) in how one DAC sounds different from another. These factors come into play big time whenever you try to compare the “sound” of DSD to the “sound” of PCM. IF (and I’ll discuss this IF in a minute), both DSD and PCM audio formats contain the same music, any differences you hear when attempting to compare the two will be dominated by the differences in the digital processing employed to handle the two formats in the input stage of the DAC used for the comparison. When one consistently sounds better than the other, it is tempting to conclude that this is proof positive of the superiority of one format to the other, but it’s really a misleading conclusion.

    Getting music into a digital audio format is major source of variance in sound quality. Most ADCs these days are based on a DSD-like process (a Sigma-Delta Modulator) to encode the incoming analog signal. This produces what you might like to think of as a “native” DSD-like root audio format, one which does not conform to any existing consumer audio format. In fact, there are as many variants of this “root” format as there are ADCs out there, which is why no standard has emerged for outputting this format natively. The ADC, therefore, converts this “root” format in real time to the output format of choice, be it PCM or DSD.

    This gets to the core of Paul’s post. Conversions between one digital format and another are generally not lossless. For sure, you can minimize the losses, and if done right you can make them all but disappear. But making them all but disappear comes with compromises, and you don’t see people making those compromises in the real world. Why not, you might ask. A major part of that boils down to preconceptions of what is and is not important, and another part of it lies in lazy assumptions that digital conversions can just be assumed to be perfect. As human beings, it seems we are generally predisposed to prefer to accept the dogma.

    There is a myth out there … and this has become part of the dogma in some circles … that DSD is fundamentally better than PCM, because when you convert it to PCM (for example to edit it) and then back to DSD the result is inferior. I suggest it is a myth because, in my view, the differences arise when these conversions are done in a sub-optimal manner. In other words, DSD that has been converted to PCM and back again sounds worse because of the poor quality of the conversions between the two, rather than because the intermediate PCM stage is fundamentally inferior from a sound quality perspective.

    1. Thanks Richard…
      A very informative read. Looking at things from strictly a consumer point of view it’s easy to draw all encompassing conclusions. The comparisons made are in actuality due to playback equipment and it’s design. The “reference” recordings used to make those judgments and the way they are produced are the wild card that very few have any control over.

    2. Thanks for the great post explaining more detailled!

      What must be said is, that so far we not only heard that the conversion process during DSD editing can be limited considerably by the PCM stage (if done wrong), but also that DSD in general is far superior to PCM. This relativates your final sentence a bit, saying, that the sound quality difference of PCM in general isn’t questioned so much, just the conversion process.

      1. The notion that DSD is inherently superior to PCM is problematic. I don’t think it is superior. But I do have well over 1,000 DSD albums in my own library, and a small fraction of that number in PCM. So I am clearly noticing an improvement in sound quality with DSD.

        I think about this a lot, and I have a couple of explanations that account for it. First, my DAC is a PS Audio DirectStream. It is a really fine DAC, but it does have a weak spot in that its playback of 24/352.8 (DXD) is horrendous. Unfortunately fixing this problem with a firmware update is not an option because it requires a filter update that the onboard FPGA is not able to accommodate. This means that I do not have a practical option for listening to DXD where that is the original format of a recording. The other, more general explanation for the preferable sound of DSD is that it is such an awkward format to use in the recording studio, and, as Paul has implied, imposes significant restrictions on the job of the Recording Engineer. You need an absolute commitment to sound quality if you are going to make the sacrifices necessary to record in DSD. I think that commitment, relegated to second place in the world of Pro Tools, is primarily what drives both original recordings in DSD and modern remasters for SACD to sound so much better.

        1. I love it when it gets more balanced and thought-out, the deeper and more expert level (on your side, not mine) things are discussed.

          It is absolutely comprehensible if it’s rather that way, that the superiority of DSD productions lie in the care that the process demands, than the format itself and that, would PCM/DXD productions get similar effort and purism, the sound quality difference would possibly be minor.

          I think we are aware, that the perception of most, by the way DSD was discussed here so far, is probably completely different.

          I personally still wait for a meaningful option to compare PCM to DSD, which I don’t see so far. Either due to the fact, the DS converts everything to DSD, or non available parallel recordings in each format and identical masterings or as you mentioned the non ability to play DXD at all. Not sure if comparing the part of a collection that’s in DSD to a different part that’s PCM is meaningful. What I notice is, that several recordings even in 16/44.1 sound much better than most DSD I have, simply because of the difference in recording quality (mic’ing etc.). But that certainly doesn’t question that DSD is better as a format, just secondary.

          Anyhow, Paul’s effort to try to find the best possible digital recording/mastering option is extremely welcome. I just think, for the final overall result, to fully optimize the recording know how and equipment first, would be more important. To optimize the format and electronic processes first (as important as it is), seems like searching for the best photo file format or print paper before searching for all available know how how to take best pictures and best camera hardware.

          This again is not meant to criticize the pro’s and their equipment, doing the Octave recordings (very well), I just think, there’s still more potential than in the recording format.

    3. The initial reason for 1bit DSD was how Sony decided to move analog to digital format. Once there, it then becomes problematic. The real issue isn’t formats, but the conversion, as loss occurs every time it is.

      That’s why I seek to only allow one conversion in the playback chain. One D/A before I/V and the buffer and then the input stage of the amp. Careful attention to the analog stage after the DAC is one of sections oft overlooked or scrimped on in much of the consumer choices. So much attention is payed to “features” in the digital realm, and analog is generally overlooked.

    4. Richard and I agree 100% on his last paragraph. Richard has proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is the conversion process from DSD to PCM and back again that we hear. When done properly, there isn’t a difference.

      Richard and his son Tim have devised a conversion process called Zephiir that proves this and will become the basis for Octave moving forward.

  9. The day that Sony and Phillips decided the chop up an analog signal opened up a Pandora’s Box that looks as if it will never close. Just reading all of these comments about every type of digital technology, formats, bit depth, sampling rate, using A/ D converter’s then waving the magic wand over the top several times and then converting back to analog using D/A converters and adding every other type of ancillary digital technology to arrive at the highest quality sound reproduction just makes my head spin.

    We speak of the high and audio industry as a small one but I am seeing possibly thousands of companies that are working on internal circuit components or circuitry to produce new and improved sound.

    It’s not that I want anyone to stop doing their research and moving forward but I think things are getting so convoluted that it’s almost like all of the Covid variants we are experiencing. Just when you think you’re on the verge of success you get hit over the head with a rubber mallet.

    Most of this community seem to eat this up. Unfortunately, I’m not enjoying the ride anymore. it took me close to 15 years to buy my first CD player and two years ago for my first DAC/Streamer and now I’m just going to enjoy all three audio sources at my disposal until someone finally comes up with the breakthrough technology that solves these problems once and for all.

    I don’t mean to be a wet blanket but this literally takes me away from the reason I love music and audio technology instead of drawing me deeper in. I find plenty of high-quality PCM recordings as well as the DSD but like Paul I’m still not entirely satisfied with where were at right now for multiple reasons. Very few of the DSD recordings that I have heard are absolutely stunning and sound outstanding musically. So, my final words are:
    “No matter where you go, there you are”

    1. Neil, Please don’t blame S&P. The idea of digitizing analog signals had been around for decades before S&P introduced the CD. If they hadn’t done it someone else surly would have.

      1. I understand what you’re saying Tony I was a digital engineer and I understand that someone else eventually would have come up with a similar format. What I wasn’t thinking about was to generalize my statement. I was quoting the history.of SACD and the companies that hold the patents.

  10. Today’s Post along with the comments is impressive. The knowledge of the posters humbles me.

    From my perspective, one of my systems has the PS DSDAC and the PS DSMP, and I have been disappointed that SACD recordings that I have purchased do not sound as natural as my Redbook recordings of the same orchestral pieces. It must be due to the recording techniques and the differences between the performers and the concert hall acoustics.

    On my other system I prefer an R2R DAC that accepts with minimal processing PCM data via I2s from my computer without applying oversampling.

    To me the performance is the most important thing. I can watch “I Love Lucy” and “The Honeymooners” in their original fuzzy black-and-white, narrow-screen formats and be just as emotionally involved as I would be if they were somehow reformatted for wider, sharper images, in color and with full-range, less noisy audio, Would I prefer them in color, with crisper images that show more details of their faces, clothing and rooms, and without all the audio noise? Probably. But I’m not sure that the enjoyment factor would be any higher. In fact, the additional detail could be distracting.

    There was only one “Perry Mason” episode shot in color. For me, watching it was no different an experience than watching the hundreds of monochrome episodes.

    There was one “Hogan’s Heroes” episode produced without a laugh track. A few minutes into it, it dawned on me that something was missing. It seemed so quiet. The lines were not as funny. Everyone seemed so serious. The laugh track definitely made the show funnier. If you train your ears only on the laugh track it can be annoying, but if you focus on the dialog, the laugh track reinforces the dialog and makes it stronger.

    “Leave it to Beaver” episodes, like most other early filmed programs (“I Love Lucy” and “The Honeymooners” being exceptions), were shot with separate takes by a single camera. When Ward Cleaver in a close-up is counseling Beaver, the Beaver was typically not even there because the hours a child actor could spend on the set were limited. I imagine that is how a lot of music is produced today…with some musical instruments recorded separately and then patched together for the final mix. It really doesn’t matter to the listener, as long as the mix is seamless and convincing. But trained listeners often can hear a difference in realism. When musicians record together there is an emotional connection between them that is not the same as recording independently.

    When it comes to audio, regardless of recording and processing format, I like the recordings that sound the most engaging, not like they were recorded in a sterile anechoic chamber, with instruments cobbled together and sanitized of all ambient noise.

      1. Oh yes, glad you brought up music. Music is one of the most important cinematic techniques to set the tone and modulate the mood of viewers. Music is also used, along with dissolves, fades and black outs, to communicate the passage of time and the end of the show.

        1. Music can make the difference between a good movie and a great movie. I love the music from Gladiator. Right from the beginning it stirs up the excitement of what’s to come.

          I just heard that there is going to be a remake of this movie which outrageous me. I think Russell Crowe should go beat the crap out of the backers for trying to pull this crap on a great movie movie like this.

          “UNLEASH HELL!”

          1. Hi Neilus Maximus,
            Sadder is that all these remakes have
            been done in the last decade or so.
            Are they running out of talent or just running out of ideas??

            1. I don’t know Martin but I know that Russell Crowe must be insanely angry. You take one of the great action movies with a wonderful storyline and remake it! It’s all about money, nothing more and there aren’t any good storylines as well. They hardly exist. These movies are for the message and I have turned ti Indie’ sand foreign films.

              BTW Did you check the post from the email that I sent you last night with regard to November 3’s topic new comment from a Woman who is representing Brazilian and other countries women looking for a husband websites? Someone was smart enough to realize that there’s probably some rich men on Paul’s posts.

              1. Russel is not the angry, phone throwing young man that he once was.
                He got paid & he scored an Oscar, so I think that he will be more philosophical about a remake as from what I can see the years have mellowed him somewhat.

                Just checked my e-mails but nothing from you…yet.
                Maybe re-send it if you can.
                Will check Nov 3 PP now.

    1. Ha, I’m guessing that was at least a little tongue in cheek. They can be good for progress and innovation but unsurprisingly there tends to be winners and losers. That’s great when we the consumer’s win out but how often is that the case? From what I read Sony’s Betamax was the technically superior video system and yet VHS became more accepted. I find it’s not unusual that when standards are challenged the resultant is a general lowering rather than raising of said standard. There’s probably a book in there somewhere 😉

  11. I’m still using my modified Magnavox CDB582 thank you very much. Uses the upgraded Philips TDA1541A S1 Crown D/A Converter. I also have the original Magnavox FD2041 14 bit and the Conrad Johnson modified version and the Conrad Johnson extensively modified 1 bit Phillips CD player. I’m not interested in any other digital upgrades at the moment since I love my vinyl over digital for serious listening.

Leave a Reply

Stop by for a tour:
Mon-Fri, 8:30am-5pm MST

4865 Sterling Dr.
Boulder, CO 80301

Join the hi-fi family

Stop by for a tour:
4865 Sterling Dr.
Boulder, CO 80301

Join the hi-fi family

linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram