Which best represents your opinion of 96kHz high res recordings vs. redbook?

[Paul R]

Deleted

[wgscott]

The nice thing about a poll is it still is functional long after the rest of the thread goes straight to hell.

[Paul R]

The nice thing about a poll is it still is functional long after the rest of the thread goes straight to hell.

 

Oops - sorry Bill.. -Paul

[Jay-dub]

Have you tried/are you able to play around with oversampling prior to the reconstruction filter?

Yes, my standard way of listening to content from a CD is to convert it to 48kHz with a ridiculously high-performance sample-rate converter. This way, the content is silent from 22-24 kHz, which covers the entire transition band of the reconstruction filter, and the only filter whose characteristics affect what reaches my ear is the anti-aliasing filter used in the recording, or if I don't like the sound of that one, whatever filter I apply in the remastering that sounds better to me despite a slight loss of bandwidth.

[Jud]

Yes, my standard way of listening to content from a CD is to convert it to 48kHz with a ridiculously high-performance sample-rate converter. This way, the content is silent from 22-24 kHz, which covers the entire transition band of the reconstruction filter, and the only filter whose characteristics affect what reaches my ear is the anti-aliasing filter used in the recording, or if I don't like the sound of that one, whatever filter I apply in the remastering that sounds better to me despite a slight loss of bandwidth.

 

Ah. I'm curious about this stuff (could you tell? ). Have you tried sample rate conversion to the highest rate your DAC can accept (which is?) or 88.2/96kHz? And what sample rate converter is it? (I have begun using an offline converter myself - http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/offline-upsampling-20999/ .)

[gmgraves]

Ah. I'm curious about this stuff (could you tell? ). Have you tried sample rate conversion to the highest rate your DAC can accept (which is?) or 88.2/96kHz? And what sample rate converter is it? (I have begun using an offline converter myself - http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/offline-upsampling-20999/ .)

 

You didn't ask me, but I use the Korg "AudioGate" application. It will convert anything to almost anything else (you can even convert LPCM to DSD if you so choose). I find it more than satisfactory and it's FREE under the right circumstances!

[Jud]

You didn't ask me, but I use the Korg "AudioGate" application. It will convert anything to almost anything else (you can even convert LPCM to DSD if you so choose). I find it more than satisfactory and it's FREE under the right circumstances!

 

Since I don't have Korg equipment I would need version 2. Is that publicly available with the "Twitter license"?

[gmgraves]

Since I don't have Korg equipment I would need version 2. Is that publicly available with the "Twitter license"?

 

Yes, that is what I have as well (although my license is from owning a couple of Korg DSD recorders, so that might influence what features work with the free versions - I don't know that though and am just guessing). And the Twitter business is what I meant by it being "...FREE under the right circumstances!".

[Jud]

Taking a quick look around, it does not appear that version 2 or Twitter activation are available since January 2014.

[mayhem13]

What if you are very pleased with your speakers as I am? My life is in upheaval and I haven't the space for my Soundlab ESLs that are in storage. While I await the opportunity in that area, I am pursuing others avenues. Maybe I am daft, but that seems a practical to me. Changing speakers is not always a solution, nor desired. To attempt to distil it into only that is short sighted. To push that view constantly while others are attempting to discuss something unrelated is inappropriate and rude. You may know an awful lot about speakers, but time and again you have displayed that you do not understand me or many other posters. Maybe it is time you give us that DIY monitor project you have mentioned. Give us something to work with. Better yet, how about a full on attempt at a full range one that will compete in a price class you feel is representative- say 5-10k. If what you say is true, we'll be floored, and not feel the desire to play with software and such.

 

Seriously, it is far easier to be a critic when you have nothing on the table. Show us what you can do. Need a cabinet or something built? I'd consider doing it for free for the cost of shipping for a prototype or even a production run if it is fiscally viable. Bi amp or tri amp if you care to. That will make it easier to model perhaps, but no DSP please.

 

Again.....I've sadly been misread. Please excuse me as my intent is not to correct but I'm not sure where I asked anyone (yourself included) to change or improve upon their speakers but instead merely pointed out the 2nd most limiting factor in the audio chain......first being our ears.

 

Being in tune with your gear as I assume you must be, I'd question just how impactful moving a piece of furniture or sitting side saddle in your favorite listening chair might be compared to say......a comparison listen of the same master in both 44.1 and 96 when done properly?

 

I hope I've made my point.......which was always about the thread topic. It's my best representation of the topic. Not rude.........an opinion, remember?

[4est]

Yes, but these things are not mutually exclusive. One can move furniture AND play with software. Probably best not to do it at the same time, but they can both be done. I see it akin to someone talking about speakers, and another saying that the mastering is more important. As true as it might be, they were talking about speakers not recordings. FWIW, I have zero interest in high rez material because it is hi res. My interests reside in getting the best out of the redbook material I have. These days it is upsampled as per my signature. The quality of the recording itself is far more important to me than the sample rate.

 

In noticing you didn't pick up on my speaker offer, I feel compelled to say that it was a legitimate offer.

Again.....I've sadly been misread. Please excuse me as my intent is not to correct but I'm not sure where I asked anyone (yourself included) to change or improve upon their speakers but instead merely pointed out the 2nd most limiting factor in the audio chain......first being our ears.

 

Being in tune with your gear as I assume you must be, I'd question just how impactful moving a piece of furniture or sitting side saddle in your favorite listening chair might be compared to say......a comparison listen of the same master in both 44.1 and 96 when done properly?

 

I hope I've made my point.......which was always about the thread topic. It's my best representation of the topic. Not rude.........an opinion, remember?

[mayhem13]

Yes, but these things are not mutually exclusive. FWIW, I have zero interest in high rez material because it is hi res. My interests reside in getting the best out of the redbook material I have. These days it is upsampled as per my signature. The quality of the recording itself is far more important to me than the sample rate.

.

 

Then what the hell are we arguing here? Kill the format wars and one remains.....it'll be 16/44. It won't change the recording processes in the least. The DSD dinner party is almost over. PONO's obituary is being written as we write.

[Paul R]

Then what the hell are we arguing here? Kill the format wars and one remains.....it'll be 16/44. It won't change the recording processes in the least. The DSD dinner party is almost over. PONO's obituary is being written as we write.

 

(snort!) DSD is the great silent killer in the game, slowly stalking and devouring all the other formats. (grin)

 

I have to admit I finally decided and shoos 'Options 4,5,7,and 8 may all be relevant", because I think they can be. However, I would not bother upsampling PCM 16/44.1 to PCM 24/96. Not enough payback for the effort.

 

I have to admit, I am listening to more and more music, transcoding 16/44.1 to DSD128. It isn't a "flash in the pan" or "I got tired of it in a few weeks" type of thing. As you can see, I am using really *old* speakers I really like the sound from. That sound, from PCM->DSD, is as close to an old AR Turntable with a Shure V15 IV cart on it as it gets from Redbook source.

[mayhem13]

(snort!) DSD is the great silent killer in the game, slowly stalking and devouring all the other formats. (grin)

 

I have to admit I finally decided and shoos 'Options 4,5,7,and 8 may all be relevant", because I think they can be. However, I would not bother upsampling PCM 16/44.1 to PCM 24/96. Not enough payback for the effort.

 

I have to admit, I am listening to more and more music, transcoding 16/44.1 to DSD128. It isn't a "flash in the pan" or "I got tired of it in a few weeks" type of thing. As you can see, I am using really *old* speakers I really like the sound from. That sound, from PCM->DSD, is as close to an old AR Turntable with a Shure V15 IV cart on it as it gets from Redbook source.

 

Although humorous...I'll be somewhat sad to see someone's hopes and dreams flushed right down the new technology in toilets.........the streaming services. I'm not sure the artists and record labels know what they have here......we'll no longer have the ability to 'own' their content!......no more sharing, piracy, etc. Once gone, it'll be gone for good......and then the control of the market will be back in the hands of the labels......and there's retribution to be paid to the starving artists and label execs on the unemployment lines. Get ready folks......it's coming soon!

[sandyk]

Get ready folks......it's coming soon!

 

Only if you are stupid enough to let it happen ! Let's see how most people take to having to pay each and every time they play their favourite recordings again. I would have thought by now, after the excesses with personal data, that many people would be reluctant to have large corporations knowing even more about them. Some modern recordings use the "f" word profusely, as well as other phrases repugnant to many. Would they wish to be added to a database of possible sexual deviates or those that some future Government decrees must be sterilised as they wouldn't make suitable parents ?

[mayhem13]

Only if you are stupid enough to let it happen ! Let's see how most people take to having to pay each and every time they play their favourite recordings again. I would have thought by now, after the excesses with personal data, that many people would be reluctant to have large corporations knowing even more about them. Some modern recordings use the "f" word profusely, as well as other phrases repugnant to many. Would they wish to be added to a database of possible sexual deviates or those that some future Government decrees must be sterilised as they wouldn't make suitable parents ?

 

People are taking to it.......in droves!......with many more to get on board.

[wgscott]

(snort!) DSD is the great silent killer in the game, slowly stalking and devouring all the other formats. (grin)

 

I have to admit I finally decided and shoos 'Options 4,5,7,and 8 may all be relevant", because I think they can be. However, I would not bother upsampling PCM 16/44.1 to PCM 24/96. Not enough payback for the effort.

 

I have to admit, I am listening to more and more music, transcoding 16/44.1 to DSD128. It isn't a "flash in the pan" or "I got tired of it in a few weeks" type of thing. As you can see, I am using really *old* speakers I really like the sound from. That sound, from PCM->DSD, is as close to an old AR Turntable with a Shure V15 IV cart on it as it gets from Redbook source.

 

Wouldn't it be easier just to run it through a tube?

[Teresa]

...Kill the format wars and one remains.....it'll be 16/44. It won't change the recording processes in the least. The DSD dinner party is almost over. PONO's obituary is being written as we write.

 

I am praying you are wrong, I guess I should buy all the DSD downloads I can afford before they disappear. I would not be happy in your projected 16/44.1kHz hell. If what you say happens I will have to either stop buying music or go back to the analog formats for new music as I absolutely abhor the strident, uncomfortable sound of 16/44.1kHz PCM.

[Teresa]

Only if you are stupid enough to let it happen ! Let's see how most people take to having to pay each and every time they play their favourite recordings again. I would have thought by now, after the excesses with personal data, that many people would be reluctant to have large corporations knowing even more about them. Some modern recordings use the "f" word profusely, as well as other phrases repugnant to many. Would they wish to be added to a database of possible sexual deviates or those that some future Government decrees must be sterilised as they wouldn't make suitable parents ?

 

You can count me out also, I don't trust the cloud, which is not really the cloud but an earthbound server with everyone's crap on it. When I lay down money I want to own not rent! I prefer my music to be on my hard drive, playable when I am NOT connected to the internet.

[mayhem13]

I agree Theresa......you should be able to buy music in the highest resolution possible for ever and ever. But sadly, I just don't think that's the likely future. Besides a few audiophiles like yourself, no one is interested in ownership anyone when availability of streamed content is so simple. I haven't bought into it.....YET. If and when a reliable 16/44 or 16/48 service arrives, I'll probobly get on board though as i don't share your views on Redbook when done properly.

[Paul R]

Wouldn't it be easier just to run it through a tube?

 

Well, I am rather allergic to tubes but even given that, the sound of DSD does not sound like tubes, to me. I do think tubed DACs are capable of making PCM sound better hence why I love the sound of high end Wavelength DACs. But I generally like high res (24/192k) music on those DACs even better.

 

i have never tried just running the sound of say, my little Proton though a tubed buffer stage though. Sounds like an interesting experiment, if I can find one.

[Musicophile]

 

i have never tried just running the sound of say, my little Proton though a tubed buffer stage though. Sounds like an interesting experiment, if I can find one.

I've been curious about this little thingy for a while:

 

Micro – iTube

[4est]

Sadly it uses a funky tube. Not all tubes are created equal and I find it no wonder that I have never seen a vintage piece with that tube even though it is a JAN (Joint Army Navy) item. If it used a 12ax7/12au7/12at7 or even a 6dj8 there might be hope. If that tube were special in any way, it would have been used more. As it is, it was likely chosen as a lesser of two evils in price vs performance. I found a new one for $20 on my first hit.

 

edit: I just noticed that date on the tube I saw, it was marked 1985, in other words, junk as compared to when tubes mattered...

I've been curious about this little thingy for a while:

 

Micro – iTube

[gmgraves]

I've been curious about this little thingy for a while:

 

Micro – iTube

 

This is a class of product that I've never understood. Modern tube circuits, if correctly designed, shouldn't have any "tube sound" (in fact, I doubt seriously if anyone could, by just listening, tell that a Manley or a VTL or a modern ARC component was tubed or solid state). Yeah, you can design tube equipment to sound "tubby", if you wish, simply by biasing the tubes toward the nonlinear part of the transfer curve. But one triode stage? (The iFI device uses a single dual-triode; that is, two triode tubes -ostensibly one for each channel- in a single tube envelope). These devices are, I expect, set to unity gain, so I really don't see how they could interject much tube sound unless the designers are doing some kind of dynamic biasing to insure that the tube produces maximum even-order harmonic distortion at all levels and perhaps these devices are designed to roll-off in frequency response at each end of the spectrum. I dunno, I've never actually heard one. I know that not only does iFI make one but so do several other Chinese manufacturers such as Yaqin, so, somebody must like them!

[mav52]

You can count me out also, I don't trust the cloud, which is not really the cloud but an earthbound server with everyone's crap on it. When I lay down money I want to own not rent! I prefer my music to be on my hard drive, playable when I am NOT connected to the internet.

 

Sometimes the really good OLD days were so simple