I listen to it again already currently, really great music and I love the direct sound with the live like presence of the drum set and bass reproduction in general. Powerful and I’m sure the best musical performance on Octave yet.
1 Like
Another fun listen through the whole records today.
Would be interesting if something changed in the recording setup for all the tracks after 1964 on record 2, as they sound quite a bit airyer with better separation than the previous ones.
It would also be interesting why the short 1964 was faded out.
There’s definitely 3D potential in those later tracks. If with recording setup or gear optimization in future room ambiance/imaging would get more free floating and open, it would already be special for a digital recording on vinyl. Looking forward to hearing a second Mervine LP release maybe next year? 
1 Like
A small service to those who still look out for the SACD or LP:
https://www.thevinyladventure.com/product/gabriel-mervine-say-somethin-ps-audio-gold-sacd/
1 Like
As others have said here, this recording in no way lives up to its hype. The soundstage is congested and, as a drummer, the most important sounds, the drums, sound horribly un-natural, with a weird metallic tone that is impossible to rationalize either by room or mic placement during the recording. If I can try to explain, it sounds like the snare drum was played in another room somewhere, and the sound was piped in through speakers in the back of the studio - it’s that awful. Yet the ride cymbal seems fine, as does the hihat. The bass drum is too loud and resonant. Very disappointed in this recording.
I know this is an old topic, but I just read it for the first time. My download version also sounds like garbage on the mentioned tracks. The hash noise is not normal brushwork. Something must have corrupted some of the download files, because it seems like those of you with the disk don’t hear it. But believe those that do have it on their copies.
I think we should be given another chance to download the album.
I have the download, the SACD and the vinyl release of this album and all sound awesome to these ears.
3 Likes
Not aware of others that stated this album does not live up to
it’s hype…
Most have actually stated the opposite…
With my system:
Gabriel Mervine’s Say Something…is amazing and displays
masterful muscianship as well as recording and mastering…
Best wishes
1 Like
Yes, the musicianship is first rate, as is the composing and arranging. Musically, I have no complaints. But the drum sound is so bad that I wonder if anyone was even listening to it during the recording. I’d have to say that anyone who thinks it’s OK really has no idea what a live drummer sounds like.
Could there be an anomaly with your system?
Best wishes
1 Like
Both unnecessarily harsh and inaccurate; there are a good number of us who are/have been performing musicians and also have experience recording. I, for one, know exactly what a live drummer sounds like,and know well the bother of assisting the drummer with load in/out.
As I noted early on in this thread, I have come across people who are very uncomfortable with the sound of recorded brushes on a snare and interpret it as distortion. As @badbeef opines listening to the sample it sounds like closely recorded brush/brushes on the snare, at a very high level in the mix.
I understand not liking the sound. There are many ways to record a drum kit, all of which result in a different presentation. Frankly I enjoy the controversy and the varying opinions on the sound. It highlights how choosing and setting up mics, etc. is as much art as science.
3 Likes
@Paul, is the downloadable DXD format the formal directly after mixing or is it converted from DSD 256?
If the former, is it possible to provide it for buyers of the DSD256 version or would they have to buy again to compare?
Not sure I understand the question. The process is: record everything DSD256. Convert to DXD and mix. DXD 2-channel master is now done. Transcode to all other formats from that DXD master.
If you download the DXD version, that is the original 2-channel master.
Thanks, that’s what I meant!
But if I want to compare DSD256 to DXD I have to buy both versions, correct?
3 questions:
-
Would the DXD master have the highest SQ since it does not go through another conversion (back to DSD256)?
-
Microphone output (analog) is converted to DSD256 (digital), ie at 11.2 million samples per second. This DSD is converted to DXD, ie 352 thousand samples per second. Where did the just less than 11 million samples per second go (11.2 - .352)?
-
In converting the DXD back to DSD256, where did these nearly 11 million samples per second come from?
I think I gave a high-level answer to this a couple of weeks ago (less samples, much more depth per sample).
Try this - don’t count the number of samples, count the number of bits:
11 million * 1 bits
is not so different from 352,000 * 24 bits (8 ish million)
or
352,000 * 32 bits (11 ish million).
(all are per second of course).
so even ignoring the more detailed answer, the amount of bits (and hence info) is not so different.
There certainly is not 11 million samples being thrown away, or 11 million samples being invented when going back the other way.
Same info, similar amount of detail, different format.
3 Likes
yes, I saw your previous analysis, hoping for Paul to chime in since his shop has first-hand technical experience (though perhaps you do too)
1 Like
It’s probably difficult to understand because the formats are so different. Here’s another way to think about it that might help you.
DSD is a 1 bit string while PCM is made of 32 bit words or chunks.
So, when we record at DSD256, we need to run at a very high frequency, 11,264,000 bits per second. That speed is needed to get all those 1 bits expressed as data. Within that data is all the dynamic and frequency information of the music.
Now, let’s move to PCM. PCM needs to get the same amount of data as DSD in order to get the same sonic information. But, PCM doesn’t have to run as fast because it operates not a string of bits but as chunks of bits.
Same amount of data, just expressed differently.
So, you can do the math. PCM running at 352.8kHz at 32 bits of resolution= 352,800 x 32 = 11,289,600.
See what’s happening?
DSD 256 is the equivalent of 44,100 x 256 = 11,289,600.
Notice that each has the same amount of data. We’re not donwsampling when we convert to DXD, we are parallel converting the same data into simply another form.
I’ll try and address this in a post.
Hope that helps.
7 Likes
Superb
And thanks to @joma0711
Mission accomplished
And DSD256 we purchase from Octave is, in effect, the same data (minus audible conversion losses noted in Positive-Feedback article above) as Octave’s DXD (ie PCM) 352 files
1 Like
Hah! Thanks. I hadn’t seen this. @joma0711 is absolutely correct. Look to my post this Sunday for a longer winded version explaining in detail how the bits are the same and nothing is lost of “downsampled”. It is not.
2 Likes