Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:51 am
So will the SH sheep now loudly proclaim that SACD is capable of reproducing a greater quantity of echo with more “lifelike” and “three-dimensional” qualities than poor, lowly redbook does? I suppose it does indeed, particularly if the self-proclaimed Tonmeister’s hand is pushing firmly on the echo knob or slider on the DSD chain. You know, the one he claims is identical yet somehow, uh, different from the redbook chain.
At least now we know that when Hoffman says “air” he really means “added echo”. And don’t forget that he recommends a $9000 SACD player as the only DAC out there that can adequately showcase said air/echo. Thus far he has yet to publicly comment on the benefits that the infamous hatrack may bring to SACD recordings, but time will tell. Or maybe I missed the official missive.
Hoffman has been ludicrously inconsistent on the subject of DSD/high resolution since day one. Well, actually, he began by saying that such resolutions were not necessary and could in fact be a hindrance to good (re)mastering. Nowadays, of course, he waves the DSD fanboy flag ever so high, all the while proving himself to be woefully incapable of answering the most basic of all questions. That is, given his decade-long chest-beating about his 16-bit/44.1 kHz-targeted masterings being “identical to the master tape”, why is that now, all of a sudden, DSD and SACD are deemed necessary to, uh, “sound identical to the master tape”? Audiophiles may claim differently, but basic physics tells me that tape does not age like fine wine and Father Time does not bestow magic new frequencies or airy spaciousness onto aging masters. But need I remind anyone here that science and logic are frowned upon at stevehoffman.tv and that any such rationally based questions or inquiries are met with very much the same hostile zeal a medieval village mob brought to a witch burning?
Oh, yes, there is that ethereal “air” all cooped up in the SACD pits, of which Hoffman bitchily reminds us no sub-$9000 DAC will be capable of farting out. Bollocks!
I would like SH or his minions to tell me why a simple SACD analog-out recording to a Minidisc deck (COMPRESSED PCM 16-bit/44.1 kHz!) produces results that are virtually indistinguishable from the source in ABX testing. Putting aside the fact that the Hoffman gang doesn’t believe in ABX testing (wonder why!!!), doesn’t this tell you that SACD is a crock? If an MD recording can capture all frequencies and that elusive air that’s blowing in the wind, so too, a logical mind would surmise, could an uncompressed redbook CD!
SH is selling snake oil, pure and simple. And something tells me that if his check was signed by the Other Side, he’d be touting DVD-A rather than DSD. If he (or Sony or Philips, for that matter) was able to produce one iota of evidence, one logical argument or defense of the necessity and “superiority” of DSD and SACD, then perhaps a real dialogue would ensue. But I’m not holding my breath for that to happen.
But I do think that Hoffman's snidely bitchy responses – the only ones he seems capable of making with regard to this subject – speak volumes.
At least now we know that when Hoffman says “air” he really means “added echo”. And don’t forget that he recommends a $9000 SACD player as the only DAC out there that can adequately showcase said air/echo. Thus far he has yet to publicly comment on the benefits that the infamous hatrack may bring to SACD recordings, but time will tell. Or maybe I missed the official missive.
Hoffman has been ludicrously inconsistent on the subject of DSD/high resolution since day one. Well, actually, he began by saying that such resolutions were not necessary and could in fact be a hindrance to good (re)mastering. Nowadays, of course, he waves the DSD fanboy flag ever so high, all the while proving himself to be woefully incapable of answering the most basic of all questions. That is, given his decade-long chest-beating about his 16-bit/44.1 kHz-targeted masterings being “identical to the master tape”, why is that now, all of a sudden, DSD and SACD are deemed necessary to, uh, “sound identical to the master tape”? Audiophiles may claim differently, but basic physics tells me that tape does not age like fine wine and Father Time does not bestow magic new frequencies or airy spaciousness onto aging masters. But need I remind anyone here that science and logic are frowned upon at stevehoffman.tv and that any such rationally based questions or inquiries are met with very much the same hostile zeal a medieval village mob brought to a witch burning?
Oh, yes, there is that ethereal “air” all cooped up in the SACD pits, of which Hoffman bitchily reminds us no sub-$9000 DAC will be capable of farting out. Bollocks!
I would like SH or his minions to tell me why a simple SACD analog-out recording to a Minidisc deck (COMPRESSED PCM 16-bit/44.1 kHz!) produces results that are virtually indistinguishable from the source in ABX testing. Putting aside the fact that the Hoffman gang doesn’t believe in ABX testing (wonder why!!!), doesn’t this tell you that SACD is a crock? If an MD recording can capture all frequencies and that elusive air that’s blowing in the wind, so too, a logical mind would surmise, could an uncompressed redbook CD!
SH is selling snake oil, pure and simple. And something tells me that if his check was signed by the Other Side, he’d be touting DVD-A rather than DSD. If he (or Sony or Philips, for that matter) was able to produce one iota of evidence, one logical argument or defense of the necessity and “superiority” of DSD and SACD, then perhaps a real dialogue would ensue. But I’m not holding my breath for that to happen.
But I do think that Hoffman's snidely bitchy responses – the only ones he seems capable of making with regard to this subject – speak volumes.