All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Thu May 22, 2003 6:50 am

"I can't believe I can take the time to do something like that to help you understand and you just dismiss it. You are in no position to argue these points because you are in way over your head at understanding this stuff."

Lets get something straight, I am aruging against 3 people. Not easy thing to do. I admit that resampling the sample was out there in reference to the CDDA. The problem is this, I am arguing and thinking and working at the same time. Hell I didn't even see your last post that this quote is from. My theory still holds true. Like I said with graphics I can show you what I mean. Lets just put this on ice for now, before you decide to call me a "troll" again.

Looking at that statement "you are in way over your head". How many times did you make statements like this!! Have you never got off the subject of your original arguement and made a mistake? I have made 2 now. Maybe more, I can admit it. Does that mean I know nothing? Does that mean what I say holds no merit? Does that mean I am not worthy of arguing in the presence of such highly esteemed "experts".

This much is true. Elements of the original DSD master can be represented on a CDDA. Sampling from a higher transfer(even down sampling) can possibly show a better representation of a sound curve. I have explained over and over the shift in bits sampling has a hand in the final process. This of course if filters or better software is used. That is my original arguement. All this other discussion was supposed to be for fun. The fact that you and Vinyl brothers start attacking me personally is actually quite funny and worth going after. I have nothing to prove on the board and if all the people here think I am a sound idiot what! I argue to learn not to belittle people. Some of my best arguements have actually set up my next debate. I learn more and more with each discussion. Maybe I won't win this one today, again does it matter? You have not disproved the beginning of this paragraph and that is all that matters to me. You only have made me want to seek firmer basis for my arguement.

Thu May 22, 2003 8:16 am

Last edited by vinyljunkie on Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thu May 22, 2003 12:36 pm

Last edited by vinyljunkie on Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thu May 22, 2003 4:57 pm

See what I mean Greg, No this is Petty stuff!!! I am game.

From VinylJunkie! in paranthesis()

"Sacrifice Dynamic range? KIWIALAN maybe you should polish up a little on your knowledge. How is it going to lose when a sampling rate is higher! The truth is that range hasn't got much to do with it. It has to do with a closer likeness to the original sound curve. If it sounds "tighter" it is because more of the orginal sound is represented. "

(The samplingrate and resolution is 16bit/44.1kHz for the new DSD CD's and the old CD's. You are wrong. )

This is obviously a misrepresentation of my quote and his answer shows it. I paraphrased what I believe all along. True the curve is down sampled from a sampling rate that is 64 times more accurate then the Red Book cd.

"Lets just say this. Do I think a 16 bit using DSD technology(over 100khz) is superior to 16 bit of a 44.1khz of a pcm transfer. You bet. Now on to other things. I am quite disgusted by my answer being erased and I hate typing. It wouldn't make a difference anyway. I am actually retyping what I have argued in the past. "

(you are mixing the cards just to make people believe you. But what is 16bit/100kHz? DSD is really a 1 bit solution. Your DSD master before CDDA transfer is not 16bit/100kHz. You are wrong again. )

Again I am paraphrasing. Same as example 1

(HDCD (20/44.1) has a higher resolution than CDDA (16/44.1). A DSD transfer to CDDA has a lower resolution than HDCD from a DSD. You are wrong, or tries to twist the truth around)

I am twisting the truth. First of all you are not even comparing the same thing. HDCD is raising the bit lenght based on a inferior sampling rate. The gain is a signal to noise ratio which Vinylman actually argued against!!! The difference between -96 to -144db So it comes down to HDCD has more bit reading of a inferior represented sound curve.

"Please don't give me this crap that the Dynamic Range is lowered. Downsampling to 16 bit only loses part of the original info. The PCM transfer is the "limited" part on HCCD."

(Dynamic range is lowered when you shorten the lenght of the dataword. You are wrong when saying the opposite)

I paraphrased as well. Going back to first 2 examples. Though it is misleading to say that dynamic range is lowered for DSD and CDDA doesn't. That is like saying that MUHAMMED ALI got slower as a boxer so I myself should be the better boxer.


Do we see something familiar. If he thought I was wrong, why did he have to point this out. Any fool would either A. believe I am wrong and leave it at that. B. Understand I was trying to write my idea quicker. I will state again YES IT IS 16 bit(44.1khz) of a 100khz representation.

(Again you are telling us about this format, what is it actually. Without resampling you cannot transfer it to CD-DA, that is for sure.)

Yeah and again resampling in my opinion is superior.

(You cannot prove your points, you said it yourself. I have proven mine using objective arguments heavily documented by math and the Nyquist theorem. The DSD will not sound any better on a CD than a CD taken directly from the analogue source. )

When did I say I cannot prove my point. More words in my mouth. You didn't disprove my point (which I will get to later...again!).

"Analog has never been captured the way it should be till now right? "
(Wrong, the correct statement should be that CDDA has limitations compared to a high resolution analogue source. The PCM is certainly capable of represent an analogue waveform. It's just a matter of increasing the samplerate and the lenght of the dataword. DSD has not given us anything new that hasn't been possible earlier.)

No my statement is more true. PCM is a lower resolution case closed! Now whether we can hear it is another story.

(You are wrong, it doesn't matter when you sample. A reproduction wil theoretically be the same regardless of when you start to sample a curve. That is taken care of as all curves are represnted by sinusoidalcurves and those have a strict mathematical waveform. That's the fundamentals for the whole theory. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHEN YOU SAMPLE. Your drawings are worthless as you do not filter your curves before sampling on your paper. Do that and we can talk about your results. )

First of all yes it does matter where you sample as I will talk about later. 2nd your filter arguement falls flat when considering the paremeters within the soundcurve that can be read by a red book cd.

My drawings are that hurts! Funny how I haven't posted one and you are already criticizing them!

"Why not put the scope way beyond what a human can hear? People can adapt, and a trained ear I believe can POSSIBLY adapt as well. IF one person can hear a difference, then that should be the standard. I feel the same way with video!! "

(Why? It is still 16/44.1 we are talking about. Your DSD Elvis CD is 16/44.1 and has no subsonics on it. )

You are confused here, I was actually replying to someone else. I was saying the master should be transferred the best way possible. I never said there was "subsonics" on the ELVIS cd or anyother "hidden" messages. lol

"Using logic I "proved" DSD technology can improve the representation on a dowsampled red book cd. "

(The only thing you have proven is that you do not know the steps from an analogue source to CD-DA. Your proofs are full of fundamental errors and as of that cannot be used as a proof. )

Um no my ideas are solid even if I caught up in symantics.

(This answer shows that you have no knowledge of fundamental digitalization of waveforms and even less knowledge of analogue waveforms. When you guess that a CD-DA can reproduce a square wave (8kHz) or saw-tooth wave (8kHz) you show that you have no idea of what you are talking about. A CD-DA cannot reproduce a 8kHz square wave at all. Why don't you try this on paper and prove to yourself that you are terribly wrong. )

I didn't understand the question and I still don't know what you are talking about. True I don't know everything about Analogue wave forms. Never claimed I did. so shoot me. It was a guess, and I admited it freely.

(You where the only one that could not solve the question. Wasn't that fun? Or was it not what you had expected? )

I really, who answered again. Oh yeah Vinyl man guessed and I agreed. hmmm

"Ahh I figured it out. It is a high frequency range you speak of. 8khz is for phone lines right?

So exactly what I was speaking of before. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY ARGUEMENT. Go back to the IT HURTS ME post and read clearly. THis has nothing to do with high frequency range. My arguement is the same range as a red book cd. USE YOUR HEAD AND THINK ABOUT WHAT I SAID. Doesn't mater how high or fast. God didn't you ever take a math course?"

(Again you showed your lack of knowledge. What a stupid comment. Saying that a 8kHz squarewave has nothing to do with the high frequency range while speaking of audiable sound just shows that it is you who hasn't studied math, not me. By the way I have university degree in electrical engineering and digitalization of curveforms was an important part of the studies. Maybe this makes you a bit more humble when putting others down as of their, by you, assumed social background. )

MY ARGUEMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIGH FREQUENCY RANGE!!!!! You completely misunderstood this. I never said 8khz had nothing to do with a high frequency range. Actually I guessed it in the first sentence. I will say agian The High Frequency range has NOTHING TO DO WITH MY ARGUEMENT!!

Hey man I am proud of you. You are very well educated in digitalization...Now how about a little human contact or composition for your next subject to polish up on.

(It doesn't help to draw when you do not how to draw correctly! You have your own theories about how it is working. But when you draw you have to draw like the sampler does, not as your brain would have done it. )

Reference to drawings you have never seen.

(It doesn't matter where you sample as long as you have defined what you want to sample. )

This is not true!

You know what I am is too short. You guys see my point. I hope you do greg as well. The pettyness of this whole thing is CHILDISH. Attacking every one of my post is rediculous.

My only arguement was this:

If you take more samples of a particular sound curve the when downsampled it CAN be superior to a sound curve that is just sampled in a inferior way. How?

Well it comes down to each bit representation. As long as the sequence starts before or after a bit(If its the same, then they are identical), then every bit representation is more accurate. This is especially true for ranges within the parameter of the RED BOOK CD. It comes down to points on a graph. I don't know how else to say this. I am sure the board is getting tired of this crap.
Last edited by genesim on Thu May 22, 2003 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thu May 22, 2003 5:02 pm

genesim wrote:I am sure the board is getting tired of this crap.

I not entering the debate but you got that bit right genesim. :lol:

Only joking.

Thu May 22, 2003 5:57 pm

Your right Sam, I have the motion of lets get back to Elvis. I have stated my piece and it was a fun arguement. THIS IS THE LAST POST FROM ME ON THIS PARTICULAR THREAD. I will read replies(and laugh as well), it was a experience. To Vinylman, Vinyljunkie, and Greg, good discussion. Sorry about making you mad Greg.

In the end KIWIALAN said it best. WHen it comes down to redoing the masters(which is something else to consider!) the main thing is that more care has been put into the process.

Whether DSD had anything to do with it, or if the difference is even noticable, is subjective. I have stated my view, you guys have stated yours. If you think I am wrong, that is you guys opinion. However "educated" they me be. In the end it is splitting hairs. The best part of what is happening is that fact that some transfers are being made, and hopefully Elvis will see a SACD future.

P.S. a quote from Vinyljunkie-"Finally a point where you admitted that you were wrong. Will we see a more defensive genesim from now on?"

You must be new to the board if you make a statement like that. I have admitted being wrong on my fingers and toes. This has never been above me. Hell I have apologized to the board in several instances!

Thu May 22, 2003 6:38 pm

Last edited by vinyljunkie on Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thu May 22, 2003 8:40 pm

vinyljunkie wrote:1. A PCM 24/192 gives a better high frequency reproduction than DSD.

4. All SACD players have a sharp 50kHz filter to sort out all artifacts casued by the bitstream technology. DVD -Audio doesn't need this as it represents the higher frequencies better. DVD Audio= PCM SACD=DSD.

The 5 other fatcs you listed seems quite obvious and you seems to know a great deal about the theory behind how DA of AD transfers are done.

But these two statements seems to be very brave. Are these two statements a fact? If so it answers a lot of questions why many producers still use PCM and have not even concider using DSD.

But I would like to know if you can verify these two statements better?

Thu May 22, 2003 11:19 pm

Last edited by vinyljunkie on Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thu May 22, 2003 11:56 pm

Though, I am leaving this arguement along, becuause I don't feel like wasting my time on it any longer, I must say something.

Vinyl Junkie, I never said Greg was a Amatuer. I was referring to the process.. I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth.

The fact that you keep trying to downplay my character, shows what kind of person you are.

I stand by my statements and don't intend to argue anymore on the subject. You are guilty of being unreasonable and childish. I don't know what you are trying to prove. Are you trying to expose me as a fraud? About what? I kept "proved" in quotation marks and I never said anything was more than my opinion.

In closing please keep my name out of your bullshiit. I have treated everybody with respect and never implied anything other than they COULD be wrong. You have proved nothing and have further made your same OPINION known. Sure I may have disagreed and questioned where they arrived at their conclusions, but I never made statements like "you are in over your head" or "you don't know a thing about whatever...".

Please do me a favor...go away until you learn how to treat people with respect and stop slandering. I apologized for my statement that might have offended Greg. The question is are you man enough to at least quit the lies?

P.S. You DSD vs PCM proofs are good for a laugh, and there are many well known people that disagree with that. Guess what, THIS IS A ELVIS message board and I take full responsibilty for it getting out of hand. When you start making it personal, then I am done discussing anything with you. The quotations was the last straw.

Thu May 22, 2003 11:57 pm

<He called Greg an amateur, Greg is educated and is more a professional than an amateur. He just tried to explain all of this in a way that could make people understand without having a technical background.

I appreciate that comment, with a caveat. While it is true that in a couple of the heated debates with Genesim I went on about my technical background in these areas, the point was not to insult or question anyone elses' background, just data for those who may wonder if I actually know what I am talking about. I take no pride in the fact that I told Genesim on several occasions that he didn't know what he has talking about, I only did this out of frustration at the level of effort I spent on this and the futility I felt when I realized it was a pointless exercise. Regarding Genesim, he wouldn't have a Chemistry degree if he wasn't a smart guy, they don't just hand those out, so lets give him the benefit of the doubt. If any of you like the band Rush and frequent their messageboards, you could probably figure out who I am over there, and find a recent thread where I got severely put in my place because I was grossly misinformed about something I posted over there. I can see both sides of the fence.

Of course, now I'll be branded an Elvis traitor since I admit being interested in Rush.....


Fri May 23, 2003 12:38 am

Understand this Greg, I never called you a Amateur and I actually was commenting on how you put the experiment. My wording I guess was bad again. Instead of amatuer process, I should have put....ill equipped..whatever. It wasn't a baseless process, and I commend him for doing it.

This is a LONG way from me calling GREG himself a AMATUER. This is obviously a attempt at starting up another feud. This I do have a problem with, even when I apologized to you.

Fri May 23, 2003 8:48 am

Last edited by vinyljunkie on Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fri May 23, 2003 7:32 pm

I can anwer one thing. I feel you are dead wrong about DSD vs PCM, so stop assuming you have proved anything.

I can't discuss anything with you , without it turning into personal attacks and slander. Sorry, but that is a waste of time for me. You can say most anything you want about me, but when you start getting petty and trying to turn it into something personal or saying I am a fraud and also trying to put words in my mouth and start some fight, that i have a problem with! I was only having a discussion and you turned it into some flushing out of the "uninformed".

So me not responding is no ommision that I think you are right. IT is because you have acted like a child. Keep responding, but be keep in mind what I just wrote.

Ok I am really done this time.

Sat May 24, 2003 9:41 am

I think we all can agree on one thing here and that is this:

PCM 16/44.1 is inferior to DSD, but that PCM 24/192 is just as good or probably better than DSD. This is so far proven excellently by vinyljunkie's link that shows the PCM can reproduce impossible curvforms better than DSD.

What has not been proven is that there will be any difference between a direct 16/44.1 transfer and a DSD transfer converted to 16/44.1. But I feel that Greg's explanation is very convincing even thou he have not proven it by using math or a scope.

Mon May 26, 2003 8:38 am


Tue May 27, 2003 9:18 am