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

[Albrecht]

On 1/12/2018 at 6:05 PM, beerandmusic said:

technical advancements will be made regardless...

 

time and competition brings prices down.

You can also think of it this way...new technology will also bring the old technology down.

 

It's a simple cycle...i think you read into what i wrote incorrectly...i never suggested that new technology will mean lower prices, but it certainly can and does in some circumstances where new technology requires cheaper products.....think those new $30 class D amps.  not saying they are better, but it is newer technology and cheaper to make...but that is not what i was talking about....all i was referring to is that time and competition drives down prices. 

 

Time x = product A =$500

Time x+1 = product A = $400 product B = $550

Time x+2 = product A = $300, product B= $400, product C=600

product B has newer technology then product A and is lower in price than it was at time x+2

 

This cycle will continue forever, so in essence prices are always coming down and technology is always improving.  Sometimes some products are great at discounts and may even be better than newer technology.

 

I know I am not really saying anything more than common sense...i think you just misunderstood something i said.

 

And to close, you can buy a $2K dac today that will beat a $10K dac of 10 years ago, no?  And if you don't think so, i am sure if you did some research, you could come up with some piece of audio that can be bought cheaper today and beat something of the past...or at least I would hope so.

 

 

""technical advancements will be made regardless...""

 

Depends on what you mean by technical advances, - and no, - that is not necessarily true...

""time and competition brings prices down.""

And as I explained, and cited reasons for, that is not true in the world of certain luxury goods. Can you present any evidence or citings to the contrary. Just repeating a cliche doesn't make it so....

 

"This cycle will continue forever, so in essence prices are always coming down and technology is always improving.  Sometimes some products are great at discounts and may even be better than newer technology.""

 

Prices in High End audio are going up. Again, - I asked you to name ONE PRODUCT where the tech has advanced, better parts are more expensive and improvements are more costly. Look at the SoTM and Sonore product improvements, - a simple case of what I'm speaking about.

""

""And to close, you can buy a $2K dac today that will beat a $10K dac of 10 years ago, no?"

ABSOLUTELY NOT.  and you couldn't be more wrong, - an excellent example. There's no 2K DAC out there today that can touch a Meitner of 10 years ago....

 

What you are saying is completely contrary to "common sense."

 

 

[Speedskater]

21 hours ago, fas42 said:

Unfortunately, how does one measure "reasonQuote this able", and "trivial"?

How does one define "reasonable" ?

That would be components and systems that follow 'good engineering practices'. Unfortunately  not all the components and systems described in the C.A. forum follow 'good engineering practices'.

 

How does one measure "trivial" ?

I'm not sure way you would want to make trivial measurements as these may not be repeatable or reproducible.  But in any case, modern test equipment allows extremely small microscopic measurements to be made.

[Ralf11]

a trivial effect is one that cannot be heard

 

or, let's go full bore into neurophysiology and neuropsychology and say it is trivial if not only can the listener NOT hear it consciously but it affects the listener in no way whatsoever, even unconsciously

 

we can use fMR and collect stress hormones from the eye surface to test 

[fas42]

4 hours ago, Speedskater said:

How does one measure "trivial" ?

I'm not sure way you would want to make trivial measurements as these may not be repeatable or reproducible.  But in any case, modern test equipment allows extremely small microscopic measurements to be made.

 

Everything that's audible is ultimately measurable, but how much is it worth to somebody to work out a method that can establish a proper link? ... These days, close to nothing ...

 

Easy to hear at the first level: does the reproduction sound like an audio system, or the "real thing"? Next level, can any recording be put on and still 'work'? Another level, is the sound still convincing at everything from a whisper, to the maximum SPLs the parts can handle? Very straighforward to assess via hearing - but how to measure ... ?

[beerandmusic]

13 hours ago, Albrecht said:

""technical advancements will be made regardless...""

 

Depends on what you mean by technical advances, - and no, - that is not necessarily true...

""time and competition brings prices down.""

And as I explained, and cited reasons for, that is not true in the world of certain luxury goods. Can you present any evidence or citings to the contrary. Just repeating a cliche doesn't make it so....

 

"This cycle will continue forever, so in essence prices are always coming down and technology is always improving.  Sometimes some products are great at discounts and may even be better than newer technology.""

 

Prices in High End audio are going up. Again, - I asked you to name ONE PRODUCT where the tech has advanced, better parts are more expensive and improvements are more costly. Look at the SoTM and Sonore product improvements, - a simple case of what I'm speaking about.

""

""And to close, you can buy a $2K dac today that will beat a $10K dac of 10 years ago, no?"

ABSOLUTELY NOT.  and you couldn't be more wrong, - an excellent example. There's no 2K DAC out there today that can touch a Meitner of 10 years ago....

 

What you are saying is completely contrary to "common sense."

 

agree to disagree with everything you said...we obviously see things differently....you obviously didn't understand anything i wrote by your response to what i wrote.....not worth debating....

[barrows]

On 1/13/2018 at 2:27 PM, sandyk said:

 

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.

 

How well an oversampling step is done has a huge impact on on whether the result will sound good.  Early on, upsampling/oversampling got a bad name, because the hardware (chip inside the DAC) which was doing the process had limited processing power, resulting in imprecise math, which produces sonic artifacts which are not present in the original data.

Now we have other options: many people use a powerful computer and programs like HQPlayer or XXHighend to oversample to high rates, and then just let the DAC (hardware) covert to analog and apply the analog filter.  Alternatively, we also have (some) DACs which incorporate enough onboard processing power to very intensive oversampling with advanced enough math to avoid the creation of audible artifacts; DACs like the Mola Mola do this using very powerful DSP chips, and the Chord DAVE does it using a very powerful FPGA.

We are experiencing a renaissance of sorts of digital playback with this ability to oversample to very high rates without compromise, as once we get to these high rates (especially considering single bit streams) we can then convert to analog using a much simpler process which itself produces much less in terms of conversion artifacts.  The result is, that cutting edge DACs these days produce a higher level of resolution AND more natural sound (less, no, artifacts).

As a result, even though an oversampling cannot actually produce more resolution than the original recording contained, what we will hear coming out of the DAC will be higher resolution than what we have experienced before using the "old ways" of doing things.  This higher resolution is the result of eliminating conversion artifacts which in the past obscured details.

 

[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

 

 

[beerandmusic]

11 minutes ago, sandyk said:

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, 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

 

you didn't read what barrows 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.

[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!

[beerandmusic]

26 minutes ago, sandyk said:

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

To each his own!

 

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.

[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 !

[psjug]

11 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 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.

 

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

[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"

 

[psjug]

11 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 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  !

 

I am sure lots of people can hear better than me.  One thing I can do as well as anyone else though is check if two wav files are the same.  No offense take about being called a smart ass - I deserve that and like that kind of thing even if I don't.

[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.

[Ralf11]

55 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 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  !

 

 

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

 

 

[bibo01]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

"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"

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

[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

 

 

[mansr]

27 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

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

I thought Australians said arse.

[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

 

 

[barrows]

3 hours ago, sandyk said:

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

 

 

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.

And do not get me started on R2R, it has many inherent problems.  

[Ralf11]

you know sandman, "many, many members have heard the difference between" decent people and yourself

[bibo01]

8 minutes ago, sandyk said:

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

See reply 12 and later replies from the lady herself.

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...

[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 ?