The Best for the Least

[bigbob]

6 hours ago, firedog said:

I wouldn't worry about it. The preference for DSD is one of taste and/or having components that sound better playing back DSD. If you like the sound of your PCM playback just stick with it. Even DSD resampled to PCM can sound perfectly fine if your system is optimized for PCM.

 

I understand for many folks that they hear a difference between PCM and DSD, and I don't doubt that they do. When you are living on a tight, fixed income budget, you have to decide what is most important.

 

It would cost me $500 to replace my 20 favorite albums (Oh, Jeez, how would I decide on numbers 15-20?) in DSD.

 

IF I had an extra $500 lying around, I would wonder if there was a capital investment (equipment) which would make everything I already have sound better. Well, after only two days of testing--I can tell you that $249 for a Modi Multibit, and $99 for Schiit Wyrd would be at the top of my future budgets. This thing blows away anything I have ever heard! It is truly a Yggdrasil for 1/10th the cost!

[bigbob]

7 hours ago, firedog said:

It can if you compromise 2 points:

1. extremely low bass

2. loud volume playback with no loss of macrodynamics

--clipped--

Much of the big bucks in audiophilia are devoted to chasing after the uncompromised 2 points above.

1

 

My friend with the $300K system said that the majority of his money was spent to eliminate noise--and that is something you realize until it is gone.

[STC]

57 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

I don't know Oohashi. But it s pointless going above 48KHz as we can't hear that or even close I don't see why 16KhZ-32KHz should degrade anything.

 

Oohashi’s research is freely available online. Perceiving hyper sonics beyond human hearing involves other senses. Non of those who participated in the experience could hear slightly more than 20khz yet the brain fmri scan showed activities associated with hyper sonics. He also conducted the experiment by wearing a helmet to determine how the high frequencies reaches the brain. The most positive wave were detected when the content contains frequencies above 80khz. 

 

Having said that, I only listen to 44.1khz now as I think it is more than enough for various reasons. 

[Spacehound]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

 

Get out of this anti-MQA cult, it’s warping your mind.

 

Native DSD refers to DSD that hasn’t undergone decimation to PCM, either in the A/D or D/A process. There is no conversion happening in a DoP stream so that’s irrelevant. If you have the DAC that can do native DSD (Sabre, 449x, 7841, etc) and recordings made from analog straight into DSD (Channel Classics, Merging, etc) and you have the system of high enough quality to render the dynamic range of DSD, you will be able to enjoy native DSD.

So why did you say  "native" when either native or DSD (sometimes both if can only do DSD at lower speeds) is usually on the DAC specification so they must  think  we are interested in that that.

 

Equipment?

Rossini ----> Naim NAP250DR (no preamp) ----> Tannoy Kensingtons.

[patagent]

17 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

So you’ve never heard high rate native DSD recordings through a real native -DSD DAC. To be honest, enjoying that grade of sound is pretty expensive so it’s probably a luxury that’s out of reach of audiophiles with very limited means.

 

Although DSD is better than PCM, it’s not all one-sided in the quality equation: PCM seems to have a euphonic sheen (ie, drive, energy, etc) that many find positive.

 

The problem with trying to achieve good sound with limited means you have to hunt for super high value equipment. The mass consumer gear out there — USB sticks, chip amps, the lowest end shovelware sound like garbage. In the era of ultra high-performance ICs you can get clarity and tone at a good level, but where fall short is dynamics, inner detail, and general euphonics.

 

I was convinced DSD sounds better than PCM until I heard a 100k Magico system using Berkeley Reference 2.  IMO, DSD only sounds better than PCM in mediocre to low end systems.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

Oohashi’s research is freely available online. Perceiving hyper sonics beyond human hearing involves other senses. Non of those who participated in the experience could hear slightly more than 20khz yet the brain fmri scan showed activities associated with hyper sonics. He also conducted the experiment by wearing a helmet to determine how the high frequencies reaches the brain. The most positive wave were detected when the content contains frequencies above 80khz. 

 

Having said that, I only listen to 44.1khz now as I think it is more than enough for various reasons. 

Oohashi’s results haven’t proved to be repeatable. Experimental results which aren’t confirmed by others don’t really count for anything in science. 

 

In addition, some people who’ve looked at the experiment think that what the subjects were reacting to was.a type of distortion caused in the playback equipment by the very high frequency sources, and not the high frequencies themselves. Oohashi didn’t control for this factor, so you can’t actually say that his results show subjects reacted to hearing high frequencies.

 

To show that the findings were significant, you have to successfully repeat them multiple times, and eliminate the distortion caused by the high frequencies.

[elcorso]

41 minutes ago, patagent said:

 

I was convinced DSD sounds better than PCM until I heard a 100k Magico system using Berkeley Reference 2.  IMO, DSD only sounds better than PCM in mediocre to low end systems.

 

Maybe ... in addicts to distortion 

 

And who told you that Magico produce a natural sound?

 

You definitely need a good audio system and not necessarily the most expensive to fully enjoy DSD ...!

 

Roch

[bigbob]

8 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

You can buy very good used subs very cheap?

I can beat very cheap. My friend has a sub in his shed for me. Free, just waiting to bring it over. Looking forward to the heartbeat on Dark Side to thump my chest. Or The Flaming Lips -Oczy Melody.

[Spacehound]

21 minutes ago, elcorso said:

 

Maybe ... in addicts to distortion 

 

And who told you that Magico produce a natural sound?

 

You definitely need a good audio system and not necessarily the most expensive to fully enjoy DSD ...!

 

Roch

Magico  were new and unknown.

 

If they cost 1000-2000 dollars a pair nobody would have given them the slightest attention as they would be 'beneath' wealthy people and the magazines that cater  for them.

 

It's how 'high end' audio  works.

[bigbob]

1 minute ago, Spacehound said:

Magico  were new and unknown.

 

If they cost 1000-2000 dollars a pair nobody would have given them the slightest attention as they would be 'beneath' wealthy people and the magazines that cater  for them.

 

It's how 'high end' audio  works.

 

And we all know folks who need to know the cost, before they can opine about the value. The value of anything audiophile ought to be solely based on how it sounds, not the cost. The desire and aquire syndrome appears to only effect those who can afford the upgrade.

[Samuel T Cogley]

30 minutes ago, bigbob said:

 

The desire and aquire syndrome appears to only effect those who can afford the upgrade.

 

In my experience, there are also those who desire but lack the means to acquire, and the resulting frustration colors their entire view of what gear is desirable and what gear "SUCKS"

[Spacehound]

30 minutes ago, bigbob said:

 

And we all know folks who need to know the cost, before they can opine about the value. The value of anything audiophile ought to be solely based on how it sounds, not the cost. The desire and aquire syndrome appears to only effect those who can afford the upgrade.

This is an  extremely aspirational pastime which mostly isn't about music.

 

We are even given an opportunity  to show how 'far  we have got'  in our signature. And I suspect that may  have an, admittedly small,  influence  on our  perceived 'gravitas'.

[botrytis]

4 hours ago, Spacehound said:

DSD, even at its lowest rate,  is more 'resolving' than 44.1/16 so the comparison is invalid for DSD vs PCM testing.

 

I agree with your second point I don't know about JRiver (though I use it) but no   'Homo Sapiens' (us) human being has ever existed that can hear 22KHz. It's likely still true if you reduce that  to 20KHz,

 

I don't know Oohashi. But it s pointless going above 48KHz as we can't hear that or even close I don't see why 16KhZ-32KHz should degrade anything. Also many people can hear 16KHz.

Incidentally Naim used to deliberately limit their amplifiers to just above 20KHz. They sounded superb., but that was in the days of vinyl and FM radio.

 

Anyone who says  he/she can hear above 20KHz  has a too fertile imagination. See if  they can do 10 cartwheels up a flight of stairs too, it's a more 'objective' test of their imagination.

 

You can hear ultrasonics though the bones around the ear, not the ear itself. This is a known scientific fact.

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, bigbob said:

I can beat very cheap. My friend has a sub in his shed for me. Free, just waiting to bring it over. Looking forward to the heartbeat on Dark Side to thump my chest. Or The Flaming Lips -Oczy Melody.

your vintage speakers probably already go pretty low...many of the modern speakers speakers need  help though as few have large woofer drivers anymore.

[firedog]

10 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

You can hear ultrasonics though the bones around the ear, not the ear itself. This is a known scientific fact.

Don’t think so. Not through the air. Only through direct bone conduction. Show a reference if you claim otherwise.

[bigbob]

10 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

your vintage speakers probably already go pretty low...many of the modern speakers speakers need  help though as few have large woofer drivers anymore.

I have 1975 large Advent Loudspeakers and never wanted more bass. The second cut on the Flaming Lips moves the woofers such that the tie-dyed speaker covers appear to be breathing.

[botrytis]

7 minutes ago, firedog said:

Don’t think so. Show a reference.

 

https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/27898/can-humans-perceive-sounds-above-20-khz

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1639-fetuses-can-hear-ultrasound-examinations/

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/05/us/experts-find-deaf-can-hear-at-high-ultrasonic-ranges.html

 

There are others.

 

 

[bigbob]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

In my experience, there are also those who desire but lack the means to acquire, and the resulting frustration colors their entire view of what gear is desirable and what gear "SUCKS"

That would apply to some on this forum.

Even if I won the Irish Sweepstakes, I would never have spent $7800 on a one meter pair of Nordost Valhalla Reference speaker wire, but that doesn't mean that a gift didn't Vastly improve the SQ compared to lamp cord (albeit Monster Cable Audiophile lamp cord)

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, botrytis said:

https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/27898/can-humans-perceive-sounds-above-20-khz

That agrees with firedog's assertion that it doesn't work for airborne sound.

 

3 minutes ago, botrytis said:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1639-fetuses-can-hear-ultrasound-examinations/

Irrelevant.

 

3 minutes ago, botrytis said:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/05/us/experts-find-deaf-can-hear-at-high-ultrasonic-ranges.html

This is about a device in direct contact with the head, i.e. not sound arriving as waves in air.

[Confused]

1 hour ago, Spacehound said:

This is an  extremely aspirational pastime which mostly isn't about music.

 

We are even given an opportunity  to show how 'far  we have got'  in our signature. And I suspect that may  have an, admittedly small,  influence  on our  perceived 'gravitas'.

I can see your point, but I would caution against generalisation.  I post the key parts of my system in my signature because I think it provides a useful context sometimes, say when information sharing on component testing and similar.  But in all honesty, I can say that I am a little embarrassed by how much money I have spent on hifi.  For balance, I’m happy to report I live in the local ghetto and drive a 10 year old car.

[wwaldmanfan]

36 minutes ago, bigbob said:

That would apply to some on this forum.

Even if I won the Irish Sweepstakes, I would never have spent $7800 on a one meter pair of Nordost Valhalla Reference speaker wire, but that doesn't mean that a gift didn't Vastly improve the SQ compared to lamp cord (albeit Monster Cable Audiophile lamp cord)

 

I'll bet you are the only person here who's speaker wires cost three times as much as all the rest of your stereo equipment put together. Even if you didn't buy them, that's pretty special.

[bigbob]

50 minutes ago, wwaldmanfan said:

 

I'll bet you are the only person here who's speaker wires cost three times as much as all the rest of your stereo equipment put together. Even if you didn't buy them, that's pretty special.

Considering that my system was a 1980s Yamaha RX-135 and a pair of 1975 Advent speakers before I was given Denon and Nordost Valhalla Reference speaker wire, I could put the value at $200 With Schiit Modi 2 being worth half that.?

[GUTB]

It’s been established that humans receive and process high frequency information (Ooshi), and non-linear distortion effects are well known by now. 

[fas42]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

Oohashi’s results haven’t proved to be repeatable. Experimental results which aren’t confirmed by others don’t really count for anything in science. 

 

In addition, some people who’ve looked at the experiment think that what the subjects were reacting to was.a type of distortion caused in the playback equipment by the very high frequency sources, and not the high frequencies themselves. Oohashi didn’t control for this factor, so you can’t actually say that his results show subjects reacted to hearing high frequencies.

 

 

A huge amount of the sciencey testing crashes into the "not controlling for all possible factors" pothole - because it takes too much time, is far too difficult, they're not interested, etc, etc - and hence is largely useless. I give up reading AES papers very quickly, because it's clear that the experiment is not even close to testing what the real purpose should be to find out: what circumstances lead to the best possible sound?

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

That agrees with firedog's assertion that it doesn't work for airborne sound.

 

Irrelevant.

 

This is about a device in direct contact with the head, i.e. not sound arriving as waves in air.

 

many other animals are known to hear at ultrasonic (to human) freq.s  - I would not be surprised if humans can do so to some degree using the ear drum > 3 bones, etc.