Are we just kidding ourselves?

[Jud]

AFAIK, this would be determined by the clock freq on the DACs. Both of those products use ESS chips and those resample in their standard implementations. Most use a slightly higher base frequency than the 48k family, allowing for both rates.

 

Forrest, I wasn't referring to the chips in the Benchmark or ODAC, but the wide variety of chips that accept 352.8/384 as input. You'd want an input (usually async USB) that would accept those rates. Most USB inputs are 24/192 max these days.

[mayhem13]

Anthony

Very interesting, and I wish you every success with this design . Unfortunately, the size of the room itself will be a key factor here at the very low end. Will there be a small dip in response around the 2K region as in some designs ? ( I guess not.)

Being modular is a very worthwhile goal.

Regards

Alex

 

No reverse null from the XO at 2k so dip......smooth as silk.

 

Room size?......I wouldn't expect anyone to use a design like this in a small room. Those that listen in small rooms are listening to the room mostly anyways.

[new_media]

You have to be either joking or blind. VHS was about 250 lines at best. S-VHS was clearly better at around 400 lines typically, and well mastered DVDs quite a bit better looking again.

 

If hi-res>redbook>MP3 was as obvious as HD>DVD>VHS, hi-res would have been going gangbusters since the late 90's.

[thesurfingalien]

I don't think so. Mr. K. is so full of himself and so dead-sure that he is right and everybody else is wrong and that everything sounds the same, that if he had made a mistake of that magnitude, he would have surely noticed it and rectified it long ago. No, I'm convinced that he simply cannot hear the difference and honestly believes that those samples he posted vindicate his views.

 

There definitely is something wrong with the 16/44.1 file Mr. K supplied as Dennis also has indicated. After I did the conversion from 24/96 to 16/44.1 and back to 24/96 again myself, I was unable to discern between the tracks, and neither was Dennis, who did the same. But just as I he used a laptop with cheap headphones, so that might be a limiting factor.

 

I must also confess I am not that much of a "difference-discerner", a least not anymore; my listening-environment is too noisy to get at it really serious.

 

As for Mr. K's listening-skills... Could be, I dunno...

[new_media]

I'm going to have to download those files myself once I get all this paperwork done.

[Paul R]

"Concerted"?

 

Busted! I could not resist the pun.

 

Seriously though, some here seem to have the idea

they have a lock on the truth. And they are not at all shy

telling the rest of us about that.

 

Chris may have zeroed in on the truth, or it may just

be some people trying to build up their cred. I do not

know. Actually - I tend to care even less. They are definitely

making an effort to bait people and such.

 

By the way, before Dennis or anyone else here finds a

resemblence to themselves in my remarks, I was thinking

of the head blowhard over on the gasbag forums. Somehow,

someway, I would suspect he is making money out of this dispute.

[sandyk]

If hi-res>redbook>MP3 was as obvious as HD>DVD>VHS, hi-res would have been going gangbusters since the late 90's.

 

Perhaps it would have if they hadn't simply converted old tapes to HiRes, where the tapes didn't have much above 22K anyway in many cases , and then painted them with the Loudness Brush for good measure ?

Upsampled versions from HDTracks and others didn't help either.

Actually, DVD-As such as "Linda Ronstadt-What's New" and " Carly Simon-No Secrets" in 24/192 are way better than the original 16/44.1 releases when played through good gear.

[wdw]

.....are-we-just-kidding-ourselves?

 

Well at 400 posts in, it's likely fair to say we are.... ;-)

 

WW

[Musicophile]

You have to be either joking or blind. VHS was about 250 lines at best. S-VHS was clearly better at around 400 lines typically, and well mastered DVDs quite a bit better looking again.

I think this is what he meant, the advantage was obvious. Unlike, to quite many people, the advantages of high-res.

[Teresa]

Please post an example from this thread or any other on this site where someone is telling someone else what they are allowed or not allowed to enjoy.

 

I don’t have the time to search all those posts here and more importantly in YouTube Videos. Basically, I have no problem with anyone saying that high resolution digital sounds the same as CD (16/44.1) to them. Where people cross the line is when they say that they hear no difference, thus they submit as fact that no difference exists for everyone else and anyone who prefers high resolution is a fool and wasting their money. The problem is not Computer Audio but YouTube videos and anti-audiophile online magazines.

 

Teresa, I think that you are overlooking a very important and cogent point. These people who disagree with you about audio believe that they are exercising their freedom and their right to express their views and are possibly looking for an engaging debate as well. Here's the thing about freedom of expression; it goes both ways. While others have the right to disagree with you, you also have the right to ignore those whose views differ from your own!

 

I didn’t overlook it as I believe in freedom, and people can listen to music in any way they desire. As I said in the post you are quoting “I have no problem with people who disagree with me. Also I have no problem with how anyone listens to music even if it's MP3, CD or even 8-track cartridge, however those with an anti-audiophile agenda and a public voice go way over the line.”

 

These people haven't the power to destroy anything, and when they say that they don't believe that hi-res audio brings any added value to the pastime of listing to music, that's just their opinion.

 

I'm not talking about those people as I believe in personal preferences even if for something I abhor, but only people who try to push their preferences on everyone else. The biggest danger is mostly from YouTube videos and anti-audio online magazines where they don't just state that high resolution digital not only sounds the same as CD to them, but sounds the same to everyone else and those of us who prefer high resolution digital are imagining things.

 

…and folks like you and me will continue to purchase such fare.

 

And I hope we will be able to continue to do so in the future.

 

Teresa seems to see dissenting opinions to her own as personal affronts. She believes that when someone expresses the opinion that hi-res has no value, that they are telling her that she shouldn't or can't listen to hi-res audio anymore.

 

George this is not true, as I stated above I respect other peoples opinions and have to problem if high resolution digital sounds no different than 16/44.1 to them. I’m not talking about those people, but the people who hear no difference so they submit as fact that no difference exists for everyone else and anyone who prefers high resolution is a fool and wasting their money.

 

reply to jhwalker.

 

Then why do you people keep insisting that anybody who doesn't agree with your supposed knowledge of all things theoretical, based on what they actually hear, is in effect stupid and delusional? Your dissenting views are read by heaps of silent readers of the forum, and if they are believed must be damaging to projected sales of hi resolution recordings and gear.

 

It's one thing to simply say that you are unable to hear what others say that they hear, but to keep dragging out Nyquist and Shannons work all the time as interpreted by yourself, in an effort to try and make others seem like idiots, and make yourselves come across as superior isn't helpful to this hobby, any more than keep insisting that USB and Network cables can't possibly affect digital sound reproduction without causing binary data errors.

 

Great post Alex!

[Boris75]

With the Benchmark that does stand to reason. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I believe it's one of those DACs that does *not* use the cascading filters John Swenson talked about. Everything you input into the Benchmark gets resampled in one swell foop to I think 110kHz or thereabouts. (This is asynchronous sample rate conversion that Benchmark uses as one means of reducing jitter.) So every resolution you put in, no matter what, gets resampled, and it all gets resampled in one pass, and it all gets resampled to the same rate. Not surprising then that it all sounds pretty similar when it comes out.

 

The Benchmark DAC1 works like this. My understanding is that the Benchmark DAC2 works the same for its SPDIF inputs, but with a higher resampling frequency (something close to 200kHz, but I forgot the exact value), while the USB input is NOT resampled.

[Boris75]

Also, many SHM CD and SHM SACD releases are reportedly not casualties of the loudness wars.

 

I fully concur with the reports that you mention. I have bought plenty of SHM SACDs and Platinum SHM CDs of rock music, and the mastering quality is excellent. The use of platinum and super-hard material (SHM) is snake-oil in my opinion, but the mastering quality is definitely real and worth the high prices of these releases, again in my opinion.

[4est]

It does in fact resample on USB.

 

"The DAC2 HGC has a low-jitter master clock which controls the transfer of audio data from the computer to the USB sub-system. The computer asynchronously transfers audio data to a buffer in the DAC2 HGC. The contents of the buffer are then asynchronously transferred to the D/A conversion sub-system. This second asynchronous transfer eliminates any traces of jitter that accumulate as the data is transferred between the USB and conversion subsystems. No traces of jitter-induced distortion are measurable to our measurement limits (better than -150 dBFS). This truly represents the state-of-the art."

The Benchmark DAC1 works like this. My understanding is that the Benchmark DAC2 works the same for its SPDIF inputs, but with a higher resampling frequency (something close to 200kHz, but I forgot the exact value), while the USB input is NOT resampled.

[Boris75]

It does in fact resample on USB.

 

"The DAC2 HGC has a low-jitter master clock which controls the transfer of audio data from the computer to the USB sub-system. The computer asynchronously transfers audio data to a buffer in the DAC2 HGC. The contents of the buffer are then asynchronously transferred to the D/A conversion sub-system. This second asynchronous transfer eliminates any traces of jitter that accumulate as the data is transferred between the USB and conversion subsystems. No traces of jitter-induced distortion are measurable to our measurement limits (better than -150 dBFS). This truly represents the state-of-the art."

 

The buffering is done with NO sample rate conversion on the USB input. This point is quite apparent in the following quote:

he DAC2 has an Asynchronous USB interface. The DAC2 pulls data from the computer and buffers it before sending it to the D/A converter. The low-jitter master clock in the DAC2 controls all transfers to the D/A converter and the USB jitter is totally isolated from the conversion clock. For this reason, the upsampling is not needed for jitter attenuation, and we chose to turn it off. In our listening tests and bench tests, we could not detect a difference between upsampling on and upsampling off, so we chose to opt for minimal processing.The upsampling process is very transparent in the DAC2, and forms an important part of the jitter attenuation system, but is unnecessary when using the USB input. For this reason it is always off when the USB input is selected.

The upsampling process is required for all other digital inputs because S/PDIF and optical inputs will always need jitter attenuation to eliminate jitter-induced distortion. There is no such thing as a jitter-free S/PDIF connection.

 

Here is the link from which the quote can be found: Benchmark DAC2 HGC - USB and ASRC | Benchmark Interaction

[Jud]

Also, many SHM CD and SHM SACD releases are reportedly not casualties of the loudness wars.

 

I fully concur with the reports that you mention. I have bought plenty of SHM SACDs and Platinum SHM CDs of rock music, and the mastering quality is excellent. The use of platinum and super-hard material (SHM) is snake-oil in my opinion, but the mastering quality is definitely real and worth the high prices of these releases, again in my opinion.

 

Super *high* material (claimed better optical qualities producing less jitter). Not of great consequence to me since I'm listening to the file, not the disc, from a PS3.

[Jud]

Thanks Boris. I too had thought the DAC2 used ASRC with all inputs.

 

Edit: I'm assuming the ESS chip still does internal upsampling to the mHz region.

[4est]

Excuse me, and maybe I am confused. So it does not convert rates, but does async resample twice? I do not get it...

The buffering is done with NO sample rate conversion on the USB input. This point is quite apparent in the following quote:

 

 

Here is the link from which the quote can be found: Benchmark DAC2 HGC - USB and ASRC | Benchmark Interaction

[alfe]

Super *high* material (claimed better optical qualities producing less jitter). Not of great consequence to me since I'm listening to the file, not the disc, from a PS3.

 

Using polycarbonate with diffractive index of 1,45 or 1,55 will have no impact on the physical jitter because it's mainly created during the glass mastering.

The only thing that this material bring is less birefringence which will make less reading errors,. which mean less extrapolation by the correction algorithm in the CD player.

In the case of ripping it will bring nothing more than a normal CD.

[Jud]

Super *high* material (claimed better optical qualities producing less jitter). Not of great consequence to me since I'm listening to the file, not the disc, from a PS3.

 

Using polycarbonate with diffractive index of 1,45 or 1,55 will have no impact on the physical jitter because it's mainly created during the glass mastering.

The only thing that this material bring is less birefringence which will make less reading errors,. which mean less extrapolation by the correction algorithm in the CD player.

In the case of ripping it will bring nothing more than a normal CD.

 

Hi alfe - In the case of green marker on the edge of a CD, Keith Johnson found the sound was altered because the green interfered with the reading laser's tracking mechanism, resulting in jitter. I would therefore not doubt the opposite could be true - better optical properties, fewer problems for the reading laser tracking, less jitter.

 

But as both you and I pointed out, I'm listening to a rip, not the disc, and a rip using a cheap mass market player at that.

[Jud]

Excuse me, and maybe I am confused. So it does not convert rates, but does async resample twice? I do not get it...

 

I don't know if this is what you are asking, but my impression is: (1) Non-USB input goes through a resampling step in the DAC (asynchronous sample rate conversion) that USB input does not, for the purpose of reducing jitter. (2) USB input is clocked out of the DAC's buffer by a clock or clocks located in the DAC (async USB input) for the purpose of reducing jitter. (3) All types of input go to the ESS DAC chip, whose internal oversampling I gather differs from that of most other DAC chips, with final rates winding up somewhere in the mHz range (I also gather ESS is not especially forthcoming with details, but perhaps folks like John Swenson or Miska may have more info for us).

[AlainGr]

Hi alfe - In the case of green marker on the edge of a CD, Keith Johnson found the sound was altered because the green interfered with the reading laser's tracking mechanism, resulting in jitter. I would therefore not doubt the opposite could be true - better optical properties, fewer problems for the reading laser tracking, less jitter.

 

But as both you and I pointed out, I'm listening to a rip, not the disc, and a rip using a cheap mass market player at that.

I wonder if someone has ever tried to rip a CD with a quality CD/DVD transport instead ?

[Jud]

I wonder if someone has ever tried to rip a CD with a quality CD/DVD transport instead ?

 

There has been the occasional(!) discussion here.... (I don't think we want to go there in this thread.)

[AlainGr]

Ah! I will gently change my direction then

[alfe]

Hi alfe - In the case of green marker on the edge of a CD, Keith Johnson found the sound was altered because the green interfered with the reading laser's tracking mechanism, resulting in jitter. I would therefore not doubt the opposite could be true - better optical properties, fewer problems for the reading laser tracking, less jitter.

 

That's the biggest BS of the audio industry, how a lens of 780 nm will read 497-560 nm?

Laser tracking? what about the track pitch.

The physical jitter is only about pit depth.

Vibration create reading error not Jitter.

And dont forget that a laser lens is mounted on spring to avoid the vibration effect.

[gmgraves]

I don’t have the time to search all those posts here and more importantly in YouTube Videos. Basically, I have no problem with anyone saying that high resolution digital sounds the same as CD (16/44.1) to them. Where people cross the line is when they say that they hear no difference, thus they submit as fact that no difference exists for everyone else and anyone who prefers high resolution is a fool and wasting their money. The problem is not Computer Audio but YouTube videos and anti-audiophile online magazines.

 

But Teresa, that's their RIGHT. If they believe that there is no difference and they want to voice that finding/opinion, or even press that opinion on others, that's allowed. You just have to have enough confidence in your own opinions that theirs' don't sway you. If you can't do that, then the problem is with you, not with them

 

 

 

I didn’t overlook it as I believe in freedom, and people can listen to music in any way they desire. As I said in the post you are quoting “I have no problem with people who disagree with me. Also I have no problem with how anyone listens to music even if it's MP3, CD or even 8-track cartridge, however those with an anti-audiophile agenda and a public voice go way over the line."

 

And do you arbitrate that line? Sure seems so. I'm an audiophile and have been for almost my entire life, and I don't get upset by those posters with an "agenda to destroy hi-end audio", so, why should you?

 

 

 

I'm not talking about those people as I believe in personal preferences even if for something I abhor, but only people who try to push their preferences on everyone else. The biggest danger is mostly from YouTube videos and anti-audio online magazines where they don't just state that high resolution digital not only sounds the same as CD to them, but sounds the same to everyone else and those of us who prefer high resolution digital are imagining things.

 

But you know differently, don't you? I sure do. So just realize that people have differing opinions and even (often hidden) agendas. It's fine to debate with them, even vehemently, but it's not fine to advocate shutting them up. That's censorship, and as history has shown us, censorship ultimately does not work. Freedom of expression for all points of view seems to be the best policy for every subject and person.

 

 

 

And I hope we will be able to continue to do so (purchase hi-res material) in the future.

 

Me too, and I'd be willing to bet that we will. There is no doubt that the recording industry has embraced hi-res for good and for all, and for very practical reasons only peripherally connected to increased sound quality. Since, going forward, everything will be in some form of hi-res format anyway, there's little work involved in uploading it to a web-site to sell. Since that's not only the path of least resistance, but also new model for music retailing, you can be sure that it will only become more common as time goes by. I'm betting that within five years, the major record companies will have their own web-sites for selling hi-res content over the Internet, and won't be relying on third parties such as HDTracks and the like to do their distribution for them. Look at it from their perspective: They can sell something a million times and still have it! There is no inventory to maintain and distribute, no production facilities needed, nothing but a server and somebody to manage it. They don't even need anyone to take the money! I'd say that's an irresistible business model for the music industry, and they will embrace it!

 

 

 

George this is not true (that she sees dissenting opinions to her own as personal affronts), as I stated above I respect other peoples opinions and have to problem if high resolution digital sounds no different than 16/44.1 to them. I’m not talking about those people, but the people who hear no difference so they submit as fact that no difference exists for everyone else and anyone who prefers high resolution is a fool and wasting their money.

 

You are conflating two different subjects here, Teresa. Nobody doubts that you have no problem with what other people hear or want to listen to. That's not the point. The problem is that you seem to have a problem with other people expressing their opinion in a way that might cause the uninitiated to believe that those opinions are fact. Well, my point is that there is nothing you or anyone else can do about that short of disallowing them to post here at all and that is censorship, and we should all be against that. Let the dissenters wail on. That's their right, and our right is to ignore them.