FORGETTING the Digital to Analog conversion part, what is BEST Digital source?

[sandyk]

43 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

if noise wasn't an issue, then there would be no need for "usb toys" or special cables.

 

Exactly !

[sandyk]

On ‎11‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 4:18 PM, beerandmusic said:

 

I don't need or want PCM....that is the idea behind the new HOLO Spring DSD (pcm only at cost savings)...if someone wants pcm they can buy the pcm flavor.

 

  You are an obvious exception, as the vast majority of people also want access to high resolution formats as sold by HDTracks etc. ( they also have some DSD offerings now too) there is likely to be very little market demand for what you are asking for, and if it was made available it would be likely to be relatively expensive due to lack of economy of scale.

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

many people upsample everything to DSD512.  If there wasn't a market for people that want DSD only, they wouldn't make one.  For me, i just want native DSD....for anything less, i will simply do optical out of my pc...but for most of my listening, i just play native dsd.

 In  other words you are prepared to settle for 2nd best with anything other than DSD with it's very small share of the overall market, and limited range of genres, when a decent LPCM DAC can almost certainly , at least with genuine 24/192 material,  equal or beat upsampled content to DSD ?

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

...many people that upsample everything to DSD512 swear by it...

 

Some members also report that material upsampled to DSD sounds a little too "smoothed over."

It may come down to personal taste ?

 

P.S. 

Posted September 19, 2017

I don't want to debate dacs, the conversion, or the analog out...I want to discuss the digital source input only.

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

Yea, i dunno and have no opinion...i never do it myself...i prefer native dsd...but the logic in my brain would tell me that it would sound more analog, rounded, less bright, less harsh, less fatiguing (so smoothed over, may be one way to put it), but my guess is that i would prefer it to low resolution, but again, i have no opinion...i know i prefer native dsd to hardware upsampled via an nt503....e.g. if i have native DSD64, and try it upsampled by the dac, i didn't care for it...

 

 More analogue sounding ?

 You are talking about poorly implemented digital.  Well implemented digital is not harsh sounding or fatiguing !

Apparently, most Phasure NOS DAC owners no longer even feel the need for high res formats.

 

[sandyk]

5 hours ago, tailspn said:

 

Absolutely. Any DSD recording not converted to PCM in its post production process is less degraded from the original A/D conversion. That's because all professionally used A/D converters are front ended with Sigma-Delta modulators producing a 1 bit or multi bit DSD like bit stream(s). Any conversion to PCM requires decimation filtering which has a more or less audible effect on the original content. Many listeners prefer the sharper sounding result of PCM conversions, but that does not mean the resulting sound is closer to the original. It's not.

 

I wasn't talking about DSD original recordings .I was talking about original PCM recordings that have been upsampled to DSD.

IMO, Format Conversions can not improve on the original, however they may result in an improvement on playback with some DACs. Even a conversion from .wav to .flac and back again will result in some minor audible degradation.

My understanding is that even Cookie Marenco's Blue Coast DSD recordings are first processed using PCM.

 

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I question that one, Alex. FLAC is lossless, the bits in the the two WAVs will be identical if the processing was done correctly - if there is an apparent difference, then there is some side effect because the containing file differs in a fashion that the playback mechanism is sensitive to.

 

Quote

.......The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist. - Cookie Marenco

 

 That has been my experience too, and occasionally I also use a conversion from.wav to .flac and back again.to further highlight the differences on the comparison .wav files that I provided for evaluation.

This subject was also covered in depth in The Absolute Sound 220 and 221 by Dr. Charles Zellig and his co author.

 While trying to find a copy of these I found the attached (below) which may be of interest to some members.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0716/Why_Do_WAV_And_FLAC_Files_Sound_Different.htm

https://bridgeaudio.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/the-absolute-sound-guide-to-affordable-high-end-audio.pdf

[sandyk]

57 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-zeilig-63635316/

 

 So ? This forum has quite a few members who are Scientists from  other disciplines, Medical Specialists etc.

Actually, somebody like him is far more likely to be able to afford way better than average gear, which often lends itself to more in depth investigations in the Audio area.

 

 BTW, I have also worked with Dr. Zellig in an investigation in  this area, where he also confirmed my findings under non sighted conditions .(HFC Forum)  

 

Extract from HFC Forum.

"....Recently, I sent Dr. Zellig and Chris, who is a friend from Spain,(also a C.A. member) uploads of a 24/96 .flac file from HDTracks that had been converted to a .wav file again, and the same track extracted from my DVD-A. The track was "Diana Krall-Temptation". I had to remove the Header information in the extracted .wav file to make it playable with both cPlay and also my Oppo 103.
After the Header information was removed using Sound Forge 9 , both versions had the same .md5 checksums.
Although Dr. Zellig and my friend Chris both heard clear differences, they preferred the .flac derived version, which was not how I found them before Zipping, TX and Unzipping again.
The DVD-A version was better focussed with a greater depth of image, and her voice sounding cleaner at this end."

 

[sandyk]

Barrows

 I am well aware of everything you have said,( my old X-DAC V3 for example , although it is limited to 24/96,  upsamples everything to 24/192)  however I do not agree that conversions from one format

 to another are completely lossless, (in this case LPCM to DSD) although many may like the result.

Quite a few members have reported that they don't like the resulting "smoothed over" result that they hear.

Alex

 

 

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

you didn't read what he wrote.

Also, can you state what members in what threads wrote "they don't like the resulting smoothed over" and what they were using for their upsampling?

 

I find it difficult to believe anyone that has used hqplayer and a quality dsd dac didn't like it...or even examples he gave of chord, mola mola or even psaudio with dac upsampling.

 

 Yes, I did read what he wrote. He spoke mainly of upsampling though, not format conversions (LPCM to DSD) which was my original concern. Perhaps YOU didn't read my original  post correctly ? I did NOT say anything about upsampling in the original format, in this case it was LPCM. There are decided advantages to well implemented upsampling in the original LPCM format if well implemented.

 No, I am not going to do a lengthy search to find again the members who reported the smoothing over result of an LPCM to DSD conversion.

I get it that you love your conversions from LPCM to DSD. 

To each his own!

[sandyk]

29 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

No, as i stated before, I prefer native dsd with no upsampling.  I just believe there are 100 to 1 people that prefer upsampling using hqplayer and a quality dac that have tried it, compared to people "who you suggest" say they don't like it because it sounds smoothed over.

 

29 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I just believe there are 100 to 1 people that prefer upsampling using hqplayer and a quality dac that have tried it, compared to people "who you suggest" say they don't like it because it sounds smoothed over.

 

 So what ?

 The majority  of members like .flac too, and don't even notice the difference between it and the original .wav file, or even a .wav file converted to .flac and back again, or for that matter a copy of their original CD.

 I do, and have had my findings verified as reported on numerous previous occasions.

 Due to my hearing damage I am very aware of any further reduction or smoothing over of HF detail that most people would not even notice. Like Barry Diament, I don't overly like SACD either ! I find something lacking with it, but I accept that the vast majority of members love their SACDs . I much prefer 24/96 LPCM over SACD, just as I much prefer the 16/48KHZ audio on well recorded music videos over the same audio when recorded on CD at 16/44.1. Neither do I like .aac audio either, especially at the 187kilobits maximum on YouTube that many are quite happy with. As for MP3, it really pisses me off. Anybody that can't hear the difference between .mp3 and the original CD and an .mp3 copy must be either even deafer than I am, or very easily pleased !

 According to presently accepted theory, due to my hearing damage and age, I shouldn't be able to hear these differences, but I can !

Hearing is a very individual thing, and one shoe doesn't fit all !

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, psjug said:

I think what happens is that the 1s convert OK but the 0s are made more round when they should be oval.

 

 I suspect that this lady and Barry Diament, who are both highly respected Recording Engineers. have way better hearing abilities than you do, smart ass  !

Quote

"If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD,

you might as well give up your career as a tester. The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist. - Cookie Marenco"

 

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, psjug said:

One thing I can do as well as anyone else though is check if two wav files are the same. 

 

I have been able to demonstrate, as a result of 6 positive correctly performed separate DBT sessions performed by Hi Fi Critic magazine, that when using comparison .wav files that I supplied, that .wav files having identical .md5 checksums do not necessarily sound the same.

The quality of the power supplies used has been proven to be a factor here, as does whether the files were ripped using a good internal Optical device, or a cheap USB powered portable DVD Rom using a generic USB cable.

 

 However, my recent research in this area has shown that it is possible to Regenerate the poorer sounding files using an Uptone  USB Regen, a modified USB-A to USB-B adaptor( No +5V or shield connected through)  and a very low noise PSU for the Regen, so that the resulting new file saved to USB memory sounds very much like the original better sounding .wav file.

 In all cases, all of  the .wav files STILL have identical .md5 checksums.

The same applies to .flac files downloaded from HD Tracks etc. when converted to .wav files and processed by the same method. In all cases, where differences are heard, the files were played from System Memory.

 I also have several CDs on an internal HDD that were ripped way back in 2009, that also sound quite a bit better when re-processed this way too, and saved to USB memory.

 

I will not be going further with this in open forum, (ONLY P.M's)  as it's been done to death many times over already.

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

do you have to call people "smart ass" ??

 

 

 

  If people like yourself make flippant replies instead of a reasoned reply, perhaps they deserve to be called a smart ass ?

 Psjug didn't take offence to my similar kind of joking reply, so why should you ?

I doubt that he would take offence to a reply like this to what was a flippant reply by him, even if we were face to face .

Perhaps there are cultural differences at play here, if my reply was found to be offensive ? .

It certainly wouldn't have been taken as offensive by any of my friends if they made  a humorous remark as he did.

 Not even by several of my many good online friends from USA and the U.K. etc.

 

Quote

 No offense take about being called a smart ass .... Psjug

 

 

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

I thought Australians said arse.

 

 Yep ! I tried to make it a little less offensive to a few highly sensitive members.

[sandyk]

23 minutes ago, bibo01 said:

Hi, please, do you have the link where Cookie Marenco supposedly said the above?

 The original link does not work due to forum upgrades, however I have a saved copy of her original post .

Hi all, I want to thank Chris for providing the a great forum for audiophiles. I'm thrilled that we are discussing FLAC openly.
In the last month, I have had several requests for Blue Coast to provide FLAC and now I can put a link to this forum!

 Unlike some of the other threads where visuals are being used to analyze the authenticity of sound, on this thread, it appears that you are eager to do listening tests. Good news.

 I've been a professional recording engineer for more than 30 years and I encourage you never to believe what you read about a product, but believe what you hear.
 I've learned the hard way in the 80's when digital recording was first made available. We were promised all kinds of improvement on sound..
the two most damaging lies were that digital recordings would last forever and a digital to digital copy had no loss of quality. Neither proved to be true (if you want more information on that, I can elaborate).

 We were fed by an industry greedy to increase the bottomline. I was at Windham Hill during the switch from vinyl to CD. Now, much of my work at the studio involves restoration of analog and digital projects
 and preserving recordings at their highest level possible for future generations as well as new analog recording.

 It's painful to consider what has happened to the music from 1990-2010 in the digital domain. For that reason, I have returned to 2" analog as the preferred recording medium on my projects with a backup to DSD.

 If you think 96 24 wav files are tough to deliver, downloading some of our DSD audio might crush your broadband! LOL. But, it is the most accurate and we can deliver to customers.
We have been mixing to DSD for more than 10 years now and intend on releasing as much as we can in that format. For us, it is a stunning difference, even if it's a pain.

DSD does not accept metadata, but then, neither does vinyl. However, we do believe that if the interest for higher quality is demanded by the customer, that broadband speeds will increase and metadata programs will be developed for DSD.

 We have done exhaustive testing with top professionals in the studio with DSD and PCM digital of the highest sampling rate. If you want to try, we are offering a few DSD downloads through Korg for use with their AudioGate software,
 which is free as well.

We are interested in preserving the audio at its highest quality, not most convenient. It was our decision to offer the same audio experience we enjoyed in the studio to our customer if it was ever possible. Now it is.

 Comparison testing under controlled conditions is very difficult. First you must have excellent and trusted source material. Use audio that if known to be good from the multitracks,
preferably acoustic since it contains all the frequencies and few or no overdubs. Since we know our music and the source, we always test with our Blue Coast audio.

 You'll need to figure out a way to listen to your audio from the same source through the same flow of electronics. Determine what your source medium is going to be and deliver your files to be compared to one source.
 Of course, this is going to be one digital generation away, but all things considered your files will undergo the same digital generation.

If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD, you might as well give up your career as a tester. The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist.

 We tested the customer experience by emailing the audio.. both the FLAC (at its least damaging compression) and the full sized 96 24 file (in uncompressed Zip) of the same music. We then opened them up,
 reconstituted and played back through several listening and playback configurations. We compared against the original 96 24 audio the files that the audio files were made from. Roch (elcorso) posted my results.
FLAC was close, but not close enough.

 At the time, I was more curious if emailing audio and broadband would destroy bits of information. We decided that the uncompressed 96 zip was the least damaging (though almost not existent, there is a slight degradation,
 not as much as FLAC).

 Those of us in mastering and recording are dealing with issues of loss of bits during storage and archiving daily. It saddens me that some of my dear mastering friends actually haven't done the listening tests themselves.
AES is full of engineers who never listen. It astonishes me that they believe what they read and not hear.

 Historically, convenience and cost has always beat out quality. An unfortunately reality we live with and why I joined the audiophile community. FLAC is a very close substitute to the original with metadata convenience and
broadband costs savings, but it's not the same. We will offer FLAC after our catalog at Blue Coast has been posted as DSD files, probably in 3 months and we will continue to offer our full sized WAV files as well.

 Heaven forbid, we might even offer mp3s on iTunes..  Probably not before we release on vinyl. Ultimately, it's about the music, customer satisfaction and my own enjoyment. For me, I want the studio experience every time,
but I will listen to a ringtone or youtube video if the music inspires me.... and I'll enjoy it.

 Bottomline.. audio will continue to improve and we at Blue Coast, hope to be on the frontline of whatever happens.

 Enjoy!

 Cookie Marenco
 Blue Coast Records

 

Quote

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-music-downloads-and-streaming/sound-better-uncompressed-downloaded-files-6158/

 

Quote

 

 

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, barrows said:

Have you listened to a Mola Mola DAC?  This is a must experience.  And Alex, yes, I was referring to oversampling to DSD, as this is the format where most DACs produce the least artifacts.  It is in oversampling to DSD where the final conversion to analog becomes much simpler to do without generating artifacts.

 

No, but I hope to hear a Gryphon Kalliope DAC at a C.A. friend's house in coming weeks.

 

 I note also that Peter St's Phasure NOS DAC doesn't need to do a conversion to DSD, just upsampling to a much higher bit rate,

 and most of it's owners no longer feel the need for high res.

Perhaps there is more than one way to skin a cat ?

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Here is a link to the thread if anyone wants to read in situ:

 

 

 It still won't change what Cookie said in the copy I provided .

Perhaps you hope that replies from others who disputed her reports will negate her message ?

 Note also that Roch confirmed her reports about less degradation of her supplied files if sent as Uncompressed Zips.

 He nagged me for a couple of months to try the same, as I was sceptical. However, when  I eventually tried what he recommended , I obtained similar results.

[sandyk]

25 minutes ago, bibo01 said:

I wonder, though, as the claim was made quite a few years ago, if playback has improved since then. For example, some players decode FLAC on the fly, others decode it to WAV completely before playback, others place all in memory...

 

 Everything I play from my PC is played from System Memory using the simplistic CPlay, yet I am able to hear clear differences.

 IIRC, at one point in time you were going to do some research using people who also hear similar things to what I hear ?.

[sandyk]

Hi Barrows

The attached should answer a few of your questions. Note that it also uses Ultracaps.

I have also heard Audiophile Neuroscience's previous DAC, the Bricasti M1, which when compared with my own DIY DAC by it's new owner (a Telstra Mobiles Engineer) was outperformed by my DIY DAC. We were using a similar comparison CD -R to that sent to Barry Diament with pairs of adjoining tracks having identical .md5 checksums. My friend found the differences a little easier to pick with my DAC. After the session I later discovered that he had been using Coax SPDIF for the M1, but HDMI to the TV and back again via Toslink for mine. We were playing the CD-R with an Oppo 103.

No, I didn't let on to him later about his connection stuff up. To be fair about the tests, I had let him do all the setting up and volume adjustments.

After this he decided to try different opamps in  the Bricasti M1,but biased into Class A.

Regards

Alex

 

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/superioraudio/equipment/0814/gryphon_audio_designs_kalliope_dac.htm

 

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I have met Cookie, and was not all that impressed, and don't doubt for a minute she has said several things at one time or another that she would change her mind on....btw, and another topic... last show i saw her at, she uses "consumer grade" player for her demos of her dsd stuff.

 

I have read many things, that many people have once stated as fact, only to later, realize their error.

 

Personally, the fact that Cookie said something means very little to me.

 

 

 Blue Coast Records is a highly respected supplier of DSD recordings that were engineered by Cookie !

So now you have become another GUTB who frowns on almost all "Consumer" grade equipment  ?

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, barrows said:

I read up on the Gryphon...  Not impressed.  It looks like a good implementation of an (outdated) ESS 9018 DAC, with a mediocre clock.  Nothing earth shattering here in terms of D/A.  The Mola Mola is totally ground breaking by comparison.

 

 A mediocre clock performs much better when  supplied by far better isolated power supplies, which Gryphon Kalliope  DAC appears to have in abundance.

 

An underwhelming review, where it needed a USB Regen to really shine !

 https://www.stereo.net.au/forums/topic/117214-mola-mola-dac/

 

 

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

She was using a "lowly" SONY HAPZ1ES.

 And how many years ago was that ?

 Ever considered the possibility that a Record producer may wish to demonstrate their recordings on something like the majority of their customers are likely to be using ?

I note also that you seem to keep talking about sub $2K gear as references.

 You appear to be just a wee bit biased against high end gear  normally, except in cases like this . 

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

The HAPZ1ES will be frowned on by many people because it is not "boutique" and "made in japan", but in all honesty, she was smart to use it instead of a pc or usb based dac.  There are a lot more options now, and I doubt she is still using it, but maybe.  It sounded great.

 

Well, that isn't how you came across in your previous post !!!

Note also the comment in the review at the link that I posted, about the need for a USB Regen to lift the performance of the DAC that Barrows used for an example of the State of the Art.

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, barrows said:

haha, that is not a review, it is a random forum post.  I have extensive experience with the DirectStream, and the Mola Mola is in an entirely different league.  If it did not sound good to this person, it was a set up issue.

 

Sorry, but a DAC of that pedigree should not need a USB Regen to further lift it's USB performance.

 It should be impervious to typical USB vagaries.

 It apparently sounded VERY good indeed to the person making the report after the Regen was put in line.