Anybody heard 192kHz PCM stereo on a good rig?

Hello everyone,
As the subject line indicates, I am interested in hearing what others think of this format. I myself don't own a dvd-audio player but have listened to two different systems at two different audio dealers: one consisting of a Denon 9000 dvd-a player, Denon 5803 receiver and B&W N805s + M&K subwoofer; and the other consisting of a Yamaha dvd-a player, Yamaha RX-Z1 receiver and Mirage "OM" series speakers (double 8" woofers). But these are not home systems where I can make studied decisions during hours-long listening sessions.

I don't want to sound confrontational in my first post here, but to nip this in the bud:

I simply want to know what others think of the sound of 192kHz stereo PCM. Not whether the dvd-audio format is "dying", how moronic the on-screen menu system is, etc, etc (most dvd-audio/sacd discussions always degenerate into these kinds of screaming sessions).

And in case others here also post on the Blue Note bb, I am now registered there also, under the same screename. I don't have an "agenda" or whatever so I will put this link to my first post there so people clearly know where I stand on the dvd-a/sacd issue: http://www.bluenote.com/bulletinboard/ubb-cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=16&t=000623

I sure would appreciate any opinions on this matter. Thanks.

[T]

 

Yes, the Dobbie Brothers DVD-A.

Can't tell the difference between 88.2, 96, 192 or SACD if done "right"

Except that they all have much more detail than red-book.

It's still the mastering/quality of original recording.

 

I haven't heard 192kHz yet, but I already have a couple of DVD-A's with 192kHz stereo tracks, and I look forward to getting a chance to listen eventually, somehow.


FFF

 

Hi Taurus,

Welcome aboard! Glad to have you here.

Heard 24/192 PCM DVD-A on the Meridian 800/860 Digital System.
A Demo DVD-A with Steely Dan and Neil Young to name a few.
It sounded very clean but a bit sterile. I wasn't overly impressed.
Perhaps it would have impressed me more with a nice tube rig instead
of the solid state Merdian.

 

My Classic 96/24 DAD of Zoot Sims sounds more impressive than any of the dvd-a's I have with 192/24 stereo tracks. Then again, I am using the D/A converters in my preamp for the Classic disc and I think my preamp outshines my Pioneer combo player. Also, to state the obvious -- I'm not comparing the same recording! Again, not comparing the same recordings, but I can't say that I've noticed a difference in sound quality between dvd-a's with 96/24 stereo tracks and those with 192/24 tracks. Of course it's possible that my rig isn't good enough to reveal the difference, but I don't think that's the problem given than I can hear a qualitative difference between SACD and dvd-a. (Note that I didn't say which I preferred and I am not trying to start a format war conversation.)

 

I've heard 24/192 versus DSD. Hank Williams at Mastermix has had several listening test like this. His room is one of the most perfect listening environments you'll ever be in. Amazing sounding room.

It goes without saying that both were completely superior to 16/44.1. The 192 sounded great. Hell, it sounded amazing. Everone was impressed.

Then he played the DSD version. No matter how good we thought the 192 sounded, the DSD recording sounded better.

 

Did the DSD version sound more transparent to the original analog master?

Or was the source live?

 

Thanks everybody for the observations.

I have only heard one 192kHz recording, from my America dvd-audio. It sounded very good but one weird effect: it sounded like someone turned the reverb up to "10"! But on the 96/24 m-ch tracks, this wasn't audible. Another disc I had, Ah Via Musicom had a similar extra reverb effect when I played its 96/24 PCM track on my home dvd-video player. But not as much though. Could the higher resolution format be picking up more of the original reverb the CD version (which I also own) could not?


I have recently bought Linda Ronstadt's What's New dvd-audio. It also has a 192kHz stereo track. I'll admit up front I bought this mainly out of curiosity: the original recording was done on a 30ips analog machine (but the music is quite beautiful, even if it was heard only on an AM radio). I have yet to do an evaluation at my (ahem) normal dvd-a listening location. I can only access the DTS multichannel track at home but I'm not complaining: at the risk of sounding like a dvd-audio "cheerleader" it sounds great. A smooth, non-aggressive mix. My girlfriend liked it too.

P.S. Speaking of 192: Just saw this new reivew of REM's Document dvd-audio over at HTF (no it's not me): http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?s=&postid=1340318#post1340318

[T]

 

Here's my view:

192khz is much better at capturing transients. I find this is a problem for 96khz as good as that sounds.

Also, the same thing with cymbals and other tricky high frequency instruments. They sound much better on 192khz, although one must take care in microphone placement at recording.

DSD, however, seems a bit better than both. I hear improvements on my home system (tubes and Maggies) and significant improvements on location when I have listened to microphone feeds of live acoustic events.

For most, recording & mastering quality are likely to be most important. For high end types, a good resolving system will show differences.

 

Another DSD miracle! Gotta like it!

FFF

 

It was a Johnny Cash and Alan Jackson master tape. The vocal on the Alan tape was so loud we stopped listening to it though.

The DSD sounded like the analog tape. Couldn't tell a difference. After a while we heard the differences with the 192 PCM. It was funny, after we learned what to listen for all of us could pick out the 192 within a few seconds of switching over. The imaging and top end changed.

Keep in mind that we were listening on $100,000 speakers and were all in a very anal mood. You'd never hear these differences on a normal system. Well, maybe you would.

 

Personally, I have heard both on superb gear, SD-1, Meridian, Levensen amps, Watts Puppies ect.

Both formats are superb. For my taste, DSD is only slightly better. There is just a small bit of the PCM "in your face harshness" in 192k recordings. I mean a small amount. Nothing that gives me real listening fatigue.

I own both formats and continue to buy both formats.

 

The 192 was great. It really sounded wonderful. Yet, when he switched to the DSD the imaging became both more precise and wider. The sound had slightly more depth and girth to it too.

The top end changes I heard are pretty much the same as LSUPRO observed. Things got a little harder. I know those are his words but they sum things up nicely.

I think he was using dcs DSD converters. It's been so long ago that I've forgotten many of the specifics... I've forgotten which PCM converters were used. The tape was being played on a tube Ampex machine with some sort of custom electronics.

Keep in mind that these differences were only heard because we were making our ears work overtime trying to hear things at the atomic level. Pretty geeky stuff, I know.

Which converters have you used for your DSD projects so far Steve? I've never done any DSD work myself but, in general, did the older DSD converters sound darker than newer PCM converters?

 

Yesman, thanks for your clear explanations of what you heard with DSD and 192k! BTW, did you also get to compare a 96k version?


FFF

 

No, didn't hear a direct 96k comparison. I mix to analog and 24/96 and know that 192 does sound better, but the improvement is smaller than the jump from 192 to DSD.

Just for jumps and giggles, Hank let us hear 16 bit through his Pacific Microsonics HDCD converters. It hung in there great but just wasn't the same. At that resolution you can tell you're starting to miss stuff.

 

Well, I went to my "evaluation location" (i.e., a very upscale HT store) & gave that Linda Ronstadt What's New dvd-audio a spin. But had a problem: they completely changed around my regular listening rooms and wasn't very familiar with the speakers (what I consider the most important part of a system).

This is what I listened to today:
The Denon combo (9000 player/5803 receiver) but now with N803s + small B&W sub.......and a new HUGE overstuffed couch at the side almost blocking the left speaker. Arrrgh!

Anyway, the 192kHz stereo track sounded very clean and detailed. And no harshness of any kind that I could detect. Imaging was very sharp.

Next system in a different room (This was a bonus, since I went at 4:30pm, so the place was practically deserted):

McIntosh dvd-audio player (brand new)
McIntosh stereo preamp and (huge!) stereo power amp. Sorry, didn't look for model numbers.
B&W Signature 800 speakers (two 10" woofers). Yep, yours for only $19,999 a pair. The speaker cable was as thick as my wrist. Check them out here: http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=products.models&label=Model Signature 800

This was the first time I had heard these speakers. They sounded pretty much the same as the N803's, but obviously had better bass response. I am going to probably sound like an audio cretin, but I was quite UNimpressed with them, considering their enormous price tag. Anyway the 192kHz again sounded excellent. No complaints to speak of.

Well that was my rather lamo 192kHz review. And stupid Tweeter AGAIN disconnected their Yamaha player's analog outputs, so a no-go on that system today. This is what happens when you have prime rib desires but with a ground chuck budget.

I want to get a dvd-audio player with my upcoming tax return, but want to get a decent turntable also (a knowledgable guy at Guitar Center today said soon Technics is coming out with a "Mk IV" version of their SL-1200 table; hence the lowish price of $399 for their stacks of MkIII tables). But not enough $$$ for both. And all those garage sales with vinyl marked at $0.50 a piece. Decisions, decisions.........

[T]