bdiament Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Find out why “more” is not always “better!” Lavry tech I would be interested to know what connections (if any) you have with this commercial product. That statement sounds to me, like something that could have come from their Advertising Department. I also feel sure that many other highly talented DAC designers are likely to have very different views in this area. Regards SandyK Agreed 100%. I wonder why folks can't give this one a rest. It is too dern bad that the opportunity for commerce has led to many converters with "192" on their spec sheets, which actually perform *worse* at this rate than they do at say, 96k. This, I attribute to clocking that is not up to the significantly increased demands of the 4x rates and to analog stages that are not delivering good performance at wide bandwidth. So, we get folks who either don't hear a difference or for some other reason, miss the magic that the 4x rates (176.4k and 192k) can achieve when they're done right. Happily, the work of some of the best designers today is there to be heard by folks who are interested. There are designers who are very good at doing the clocking section of their converters as well as the analog section so that both can very clearly demonstrate what I take to be *huge* advantages at 4x rates. As I've said elsewhere, to my ears, a very, very important threshold is crossed and with properly done 24/192 (or 176.4), the recording sounds - for the very first time in my experience - indistinguishable from the mic feed. This has never happened to me before with analog or with the very best 24/96 I've heard. So, now that I've got a recording format that is truly transparent, I see "articles" (from designers of lossy formats) and "white papers" telling me that is isn't as "good" or is a waste of space or some other silliness. Might as well argue that there are no colors in a rainbow. I won't argue back. I'm too busy enjoying marvelous 176.4k recordings from Keith Johnson and making 192k recordings of my own. Best regards, Barry http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Hi elsdude, ...Plus in more guarded comments at times he appears to think even his hi-rez is only a little bit better than properly done CD. That being the case, seems the difference between 96 khz and 192 khz might be small indeed... I'm not so sure about this. In fact, I'm pretty sure it is mistaken. I remember reading (though I wish I remember where) with much interest, an interview with Keith where he used a phrase very similar to the one I've used since I first experimented with 192k done right: he said a threshold is crossed with the 4x rates (i.e. 176.4 and 192). A threshold being crossed is exactly what I've said many times about my preferred 192k sample rate - with converters that have commensurate clocking and analog stage performance to do it - which in my experience to date, is far, far fewer than the number of converters with the number "192" on their spec sheet. I doubt very strongly that someone who thinks the 4x rates are "only a little bit better" than 2x rates, much less "properly done CD" would refer to a threshold being crossed with the 4x rates. To my ears, properly done 192 (or 176.4), precisely because of that threshold being crossed, is a significantly larger leap up from 96k (or 88.2) than the latter are from CD. It isn't about "a commercial interest to push". It is about a sincere desire to see just how good it can get - and having found how much better it can be. When I visit Reference Recordings' site, nothing is forcing me to purchase the 4x versions of Keith's recordings. The CDs are quite easily available. With some selections, I've gotten both: the CD shows how good CD can be, the 4x version shows how very much more of the performance (and the space in which it occurred) there is to be heard in the original recording. I would agree that no one is the Minister of Information when it comes to digital - or anything else, particularly in audio. But as I see and hear it, folks like Keith Johnson and B.J. Buchalter might be members of the Ministry's *Committee* on Information. ;-} Best regards, Barry http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Hi JPS, Dear all, I've been experimenting with CDs upsampled to 24/192 using iZotope SRC. 24/192 definitely sounds better than 24/96 or 24/88.2 (which are themselves better than 16/44.1). I don't know if this can be attributed to iZotope being better than the DAC internal up/oversampling, to the absence of clipping due to the DAC internal up/oversampling, to the need for less filtering within the DAC, to increased jitter immunity or to something else, but my experience is definitely in line with Barry Diament claims that with 176.4/192 everything is significantly more natural. Upsampling with iZotope's wonderful SRC algorithm can certainly be informative. However, to my ears, it isn't close to *native* 24/192 (i.e., the original recording being at 24/192), which to me, is where the real magic happens and where, with those few converters that are actually up to the task, digital finally fulfills its promise. Try upsampling the 16/44 or 24/96 version of one of the samples on Soundkeeper's Format Comparison page and compare it with the 24/192 sample to hear this for yourself. Best regards, Barry Soundkeeper Recordings Barry Diament Audio Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Hi goldenpiggy, ...In the pro audio world where AES/EBU is prevalent, 96KHz/24bit is common these days, although you'll often see 192KHz in the studio environment... While I'd love to see more work being done at higher rates, the overwhelming majority of multitrack recordings and mixes I've seen from most studios have been 24/44.1. While the interfaces can often handle higher rates (most up to 24/96 and some up to 192 - though fewer do this well, than have that number in their spec sheets) it appears to be computer power that is lacking most often. When I ask clients why they didn't work at higher rates than 44.1, the most common answer is the computer system chokes with many tracks. (It should be remembered most studio recordings are using *dozens* of tracks.) As more and more mixes are being done "in the box", i.e. not being converted to analog, passed through a mixing console and re-converted back to digital for the stereo mix, I recommend clients deliver their mixes for mastering, at the same sample rate as the multitrack originals. (No point in adding a sample rate conversion - particularly typical SRC - to the other things that will occur on the way to the stereo mix.) So it isn't the interface protocol (AES/EBU and Firewire seem to be the ones I see most), it is computer power that seems to limit the sample rate of what I see coming from many studios. However, since this is not 100% across the board -I know folks doing high res multichannel with some Firewire interfaces, at least one with several dozen tracks at a time- perhaps more investment is needed in faster computer systems. Best regards, Barry Soundkeeper Recordings Barry Diament Audio Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Hi Jud, ...Seeing the measurable differences between sample rate converters at SRC Comparisons, eliminating SRC in the chain to the extent possible may be a worthwhile goal. Having a few dozen SRC algorithms to compare and having heard others (some of which are in software I've beta tested) over the years, I've found some very interesting correlations between what I see on the infinitewave site and what I hear in the studio. Of course, the site will show that a great many SRC algorithms, including some quite popular ones, are riddled with issues. The brightening and hardening of timbres I hear with those seems to track what is displayed visually. But the most interesting test for me - because of the very fast correlation between what I see and what I hear - is the 1 kHz tone. Interesting because the harmonic artifacts (i.e. distortion) is *very* low in measured level for a great many of the algorithms BUT it *still* corresponds with what I hear in the different algorithms I've tried. (I'm not suggesting I hear 160 db down in the signal. I'm saying that *some* algorithms, which are well below this in their artifacts, just happen to sound - to my ears - quite clean.) As to your last point, about eliminating SRC in the chain being worthwhile, I think this is *very* dependent on the individual algorithm. As I mentioned above, I've heard algorithms that sound quite transparent to my ears and perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, there are no measurable harmonics showing in the 1 kHz test. (See "iZotope 64-bit SRC, steep, no alias".) To my ears, the results, unlike most of the competition, are *not* brightened and hardened. They sound much like the unconverted original. (As an aside, many other algorithms seem to have an easier time of it with integer conversion, such as 88.2 to 44.1 instead of 96 to 44.1. This has led many to mistakenly think integer conversion is "better". With those algorithms, it is less *bad*. The best algorithms I've heard can do non-integer conversion more cleanly than others do the easier, integer conversion. The best algorithms "don't care" as they seem to be able to handle the math in stride. To Julf's point, in my experience, they also don't seem to "care" whether they are downconverting or upconverting.) Why use SRC? Well for me, since I record at 192k, I need it to create 96k and CD versions. I use it in mastering too. Even when a mix comes in at 44.1k, one of the first things I'll do is create copies at a higher sample rate. The reason for this is that when applying EQ or other processing, I find the results sound better at higher rates. Further, if done at higher rates and the results later converted to 44.1 with a high quality algorithm (such as iZotope's), *some* of the benefits of the higher rates are preserved. In other words, I've found it creates a better sounding 44.1 version than if the SRC was eliminated and all mastering done at 44.1. Best regards, Barry Soundkeeper Recordings Barry Diament Audio Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Hi Jud, ...There will nearly always be some necessity for converting rates - as you mentioned, for the sake of EQ and other processing. But to the extent it can reasonably be avoided, and original data in the recording preserved, why not?... I believe we agree on this. I was not arguing *for* SRC, just mentioning situations where I believe it provides a benefit. In terms of converting to a higher sample rate for playback, I prefer not to simply because I'd rather listen to files at their native rate. If I *was* going to use SRC to attain a higher than native sample rate, I'd have to dedicate quite a bit of time to converting the music in my library using an off-line process. (Even the best SRC I've heard is, in my view, not at its best when performing the conversion in real time, i.e. during playback.) Since there are too many other things I prefer to do with my time, I listen to music in my library at the rate at which it was delivered. Best regards, Barry Soundkeeper Recordings Barry Diament Audio Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Hi David, Barry, a question for you -- just something I'm curious about: When you upsample material for mastering, do you use "power-of-two," or "integer," resampling (i.e., 44.1 goes to 88.2 or 176.4), or do you just resample everything to 192? --David The rate at which I'll convert to depends on the individual program I'm working with. But to answer your question, I don't aim for integer conversion as my experience has been this is only important for SRC algorithms that are not very capable. In other words, the algorithms that perform "better" at integer conversion than they do at non-integer conversion will, to my ears, not do a particularly good job even at integer conversion; they merely perform less *badly*. With the most transparent of the algorithms I've tried (currently iZotope's 64-bit SRC by a good long country mile), it just doesn't matter. To my ears, their SRC will create results that are *much* more faithful to the unconverted original, whether integer or non-integer. It seems to me, this algorithm can handle the math without issue, i.e. it "doesn't care" what sort of conversion I ask it to do. Best regards, Barry Soundkeeper Recordings Barry Diament Audio Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Off topic question: I've subscribed to this thread but have not received any email notifications of the newer posts I've found when checking back. It is in my subscription list and is set to "instant". What am I missing. Thanks in advance. Best regards, Barry Soundkeeper Recordings Barry Diament Audio Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Hi JR, I believe SRC means reclocking data, and if you have a very stable master clock, it is in effect a de-jitter. Also, when one goes from 16 bit to 24 bit, this tends to lessen or redistribute quantization error. These should have audible effects... While I agree with regard to SRC and jitter, I think it is deeper than that insomuch it can be taken to indicate SRC necessarily makes things sound better by reclocking the data. In my experience, most SRC algorithms, despite of reclocking, tend to brighten and harden timbre, which I deem a distinct negative. Additionally, there is at least one brand of converter that automatically reclocks any input to an arbitrary rate (which the designers feel is optimal). To my ears, the results with this are always brightened and hardened. So again, the improved jitter spec comes at a sonic price (which to some, will be a net loss in sound quality rather than the gain implied by reduced jitter). As to going from 16-bit to 24-bit, I agree 100%. In an earlier post, I mentioned using SRC during mastering source material that comes in at less than high resolution, even when the target is a CD. Just before applying the SRC, the very first step is to copy the source files to create versions with longer word lengths (usually 24-bit but sometimes 32-bit float, depending on the mastering application I'm using; there are currently four in the toolbox - each does something the others don't). With the longer word length files, there is more room for any processing that may be applied in mastering and as with the higher sample rates, the end result is better sounding than can be created otherwise. For projects destined for CD, once all mastering processes are complete, the penultimate step is SRC down to 44.1 kHz and last of all, dither/noise shaping is applied to reduce the word length to 16-bits. Best regards, Barry Soundkeeper Recordings Barry Diament Audio Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Hi spdif-usb, What I find interesting is that the best sounding mastering software I have (among several different packages and apps) and the best sounding recording/mixing apps I've heard tend to do their internal math at 48-bits, 64-bits and 80-bits. I'm not suggesting my DAC needs this; just an observation about the software that happens, to my ears, to be the most transparent at processing audio. (My DAC is spec'd at 24-bits, no more and is to date, the most transparent one I've yet experienced, by a good country mile. Of course, while I've been fortunate to hear a great many, I have not heard all.) Best regards, Barry Soundkeeper Recordings Barry Diament Audio Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Hi Julf, Absolutely - as I think I might have said before, any intermediate processing definitely needs more headroom and precision, so you want extra bits for that. But once the processing is done, and the results normalized, the subsequent DAC doesn't really benefit from having any more bits than the source material. For my ears and based on my experience so far, I agree. (That is why I wrote the second paragraph in post #95). On the other hand and perhaps merely coincidental (I don't know), with my 24-bit DAC, I'm hearing the best playback of 16-bit material I've yet heard. (That said, I attribute this to the whole design, not simply the wordlength.) Best regards, Barry Soundkeeper Recordings Barry Diament Audio Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Hi elsdude, A question Barry. You have said when you hear 176 or 192 it crosses a threshold into sounding like live feed. You may have no reason to have done so, but have you listened with some of the relatively affordable consumer level DACs playing at those high sample rates? And if so do they get pretty close or fall far short in your opinon? By affordable I don't mean like $100 units, but maybe units of $1000 and less. To be clear, with regard to 4x rates, I said I find the threshold crossed*with the best converters I've heard*. I've also said many converters I've heard which have a "192" in their spec sheets actually perform *worse* (to my ears) than they do at 2x rates. In other words, I find marvelous *potential* in 4x rates but only *some* gear able to exhibit this. I find that gear magical because never before have I been unable to distinguish the recorded sound from the mic feed - not with any analog device and not with any digital device operating at less than 4x rates (even the ones that drop my jaw when run at 4x rates). I know of no converter in the $1000 range that does 4x rates. Not talking what's on the spec sheet but what comes out of my speakers. Even at $2000, the best I've heard isn't even spec'd for 4x rates - but does a wonderful job at 96k. Best regards, Barry Soundkeeper Recordings Barry Diament Audio Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Hi spdif-usb, Hehe. I wasn't trying to suggest my DAC sounds fully transparent at 192 kHz, just that I think it sounds slightly better at 192 kHz when compared to 96 kHz. So, I have no other choice but to disagree with Dan Lavry's paper. The statement you quoted from me was a response to someone else's question. (Perhaps you already knew this.) Still, I understand exactly where you are coming from. ;-} Best regards, Barry Soundkeeper Recordings Barry Diament Audio Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Hi spdif-usb, ...Would you please care to explain? It seems to me you prefer 192 over 96. Did I misunderstand? Best regards, Barry Soundkeeper Recordings Barry Diament Audio Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Hi Julf, ...A specific DAC might be better at handling one sample rate than another, but that might not apply as a general rule to all DACs. I've seen statements like this from other folks and my question in response is always: Have you ever heard a converter that did 4x rates (176.4k and 192k) well that did not do 2x rates well too? I haven't. What I've heard are converters spec'd for 4x rates that don't deliver at those rates. In my view, these are not "better at handling one sample rate than another" (though I do understand why some feels would describe them that way), they are simply marketed as being able to do something they can not. Oh, perhaps they can fulfill a laboratory requirement to attain the number on the spec sheet but in my experience, operating at a certain frequency is not at all the same as being able to properly play Music sampled at that frequency. As I see and hear it, those converters that show just how magical 4x rates are, that, for the first time in my experience, deliver recordings I cannot distinguish from the direct mic feed, do indeed contradict the paper (to put it mildly). Unless I misunderstood, the paper, I took it too say there is no benefit to rates beyond 24/96. I've never confused 24/96 with the mic feed. Never confused the finest analog with the mic feed either. So to me, either the paper is valid or having a recording that sounds like the mic feed is valid. They seem at odds with each other, so personally, I'm going with the latter. Best regards, Barry Soundkeeper Recordings Barry Diament Audio Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Hi Julf, ...I definitely have - several DACs out there upsample everything to the highest rate, and the upsampling algorithm is of course always a compromise, so I can see why some of those DACs might work better with "native" 192K vs having to upsample 96K material... We might be talking about two different things. I was referring to the performance of a given converter at a given sample rate. I tend to avoid converters that automatically convert everything to a single sample rate because I find their on-the-fly conversion to do more sonic damage than any theoretical benefit. Those always seem to brighten and harden the sound of the source material and while some may enjoy this type of sound, it isn't what I look for. With that type of converter, I think it a *given* that they perform better when playing files at their native rate. I was referring to converters playing files at their native rate. I've never heard one that does 192 well that does not also do 96 well. And of those, I've never heard one that did 96 better than 192. This last only seems to occur in the converters that are *marketed* as 192 capable but which in fact, don't have the clocking that is up to the significantly increased demands of 192 and don't have the analog stage performance at the wider bandwidths. Best regards, Barry Soundkeeper Recordings Barry Diament Audio Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 I have come to think it is no simple task for a designer of digital converters to create one that does justice to the 4x sample rates (i.e., 176.4k and 192k). While there are plenty of decent sounding converters that do 2x rates (i.e. 88.2k and 96k), as I've said elsewhere, my experience has been that very few with "192" in their spec sheets seem to be able to *truly* deliver at these rates. So, we get "truth"s and "white papers" from some quarters telling us "secrets" about why 4x rates are "a waste" or "useless" or "worse" than 2x rates. What I find interesting is that we don't hear this sort of nonsense from some other quarters, where instead, we get converters that *do* perform at the 4x rates and do so to an extent I wouldn't have imagined only a few years ago. The best of these represent the first recording devices I've heard in my life that deliver results that truly sound like the mic feed prior to conversion. (I'm not talking about the ones that use phrases like that in their marketing literature, I'm referring to the ones that actually *do* it.) I am very glad these designers chose to apply their skills toward taking the recording and playback arts across the threshold into true transparency (again, something I've never heard before this, from any analog device and certainly any digital device - and of the latter, *none* operating at less than 4x rates). Best regards, Barry Soundkeeper Recordings Barry Diament Audio P.S. I'll repeat what I recalled earlier of an experience all this nay-saying about 4x rates brings to mind. A manager at a large NYC recording studio once told me he was sure the female orgasm is a myth. His "proof"?: He'd been with dozens of women and not once did he ever witness one exhibiting signs of having an orgasm. There you have it. Folks telling me 4x rates are "useless", etc. remind me of that manager. Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 To the off-topic subject at hand, I was reporting what someone told me. It seems to have its parallels to folks telling me 192k is "useless". Best regards, Barry (not Bruce) http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 The strange thing to me is the converters that have shown me absolute Magic at 4x rates (176.4k and 192k) --"flawed", in my view by nothing other than the fact that they sound more transparent than any in my experience and by a good country mile-- also outperform the others I've compared them to at 96k (in blind tests, where none of the listeners -all colleagues- knew which converter was which until the results were tabulated). I'm all for electronic measurements but wonder sometimes that a lot of folks don't seem to recognize their credence in these is also subjective. The measurements provide a map. The map (to borrow from Korzybski) should not be confused with the "territory", which in the case of devices whose only purpose - at least as far as I'm aware - is to be *listened to*, is the listening. I know some folks disagree with this. I'd be curious to hear from any of them if they picked their playback system without listening to it. Perhaps I'm missing something but as I see it, if the numbers are indeed capable of describing everything an astute listener will hear, they should be sufficient for selecting all the components in a system. Yet I haven't met anyone who will say outright that they picked their system based only on the specifications, without audition of any of the components and did not listen at all until the system was assembled. (I'd also be very curious to hear such a system.) To be clear, I am *not* suggest measurements are not useful or important. On the contrary: I feel they are quite useful and quite important. But when the experience and the measurements do not agree, particularly when we're talking about an experiential phenomenon like listening, I'm going to question how those measurements apply to the listening and not the other way 'round. Best regards, Barry Soundkeeper Recordings Barry Diament Audio Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Hi Sumflow, You don't need a dealer near you to try out different cables (and other items). I've used the Cable Company many times and find their service to be outstanding. They charge a modest fee for rentals, let you hang on to what you've rented for two weeks and if you purchase anything from them, they deduct what you've spent on rentals in the last year from the purchase price. Best regards, Barry Soundkeeper Recordings Barry Diament Audio Link to comment
bdiament Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Perhaps I'm missing something. To use the Cable Company, it doesn't matter where you live. If you have an Internet connection or a telephone and can get packages delivered to your home (and mail them back when the rental period is over), that's all you need. Best regards, Barry Soundkeeper Recordings Barry Diament Audio Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now