Understanding Sample Rate

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

I just noticed this quote in @sandyk sig:

 

"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. ..... Cookie Marenco"

 

Does that mean what I think it means?

 It means exactly what it says.

 

 Hopefully, if Mani is able to demonstrate to mansr that he hears things that mansr does not believe is possible, he will also further investigate my reports of .wav files with identical checksums sounding a little different too, as the mechanism(s) are quite likely to be similar. I would willing in that case, to send mansr a USB memory stick with suitable comparison files on it,  although he could also ask esldude to forward him a MAM Gold CD-R with adjacent pairs of comparison files on it, 

similar to those previously sent to both Barry and Martin.

 

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I've always thought it meant something other than what Alex thinks it means.

 

Perhaps @cookiemarenco herself can tell us.

 Perhaps you have a highly selective memory loss, as this has already been  answered several times already in the affirmative.

Quote

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

See reply 12 and later replies from the lady herself.

 

Very Interested in any test results
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

 

 

 

 

 

[Don Hills]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 

Among other things, Don claims to be able to design DACs that are impervious to the problems that afflict most DACs with USB inputs etc.

 

Do I? Quotes, or it didn't happen. And if it didn't happen, expect to be reported.

[wgscott]

34 minutes ago, crenca said:

Does that mean what I think it means?

 

Assuming it is quoted in context, it definitely provides an example of why argument through appeal to authority is a fallacy.  

[kumakuma]

19 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Perhaps you have a highly selective memory loss, as this has already been  answered several times already in the affirmative.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for digging this out. 

 

By  "a copy of your CD", it is unclear to me whether she is talking about a physical copy of a stamped CD, to a CD-R for example, or a rip of a CD.

 

I'd also be interested in knowing whether her thinking has changed in this area in the seven years since she posted this. 

[firedog]

9 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Why do you say that?  You don't mean "cheap" as in "cheapness" do you?  Most modern manufacturing and industrial design is very radically "efficent", most certainly the digital revolution to have been what it is because of this single minded approach to efficiency has brought with it the ability for everyone in the first world, and a very large percentage of those in the 2nd and even 3rd worlds to possess computing power unheard of a couple of decades ago...

Reading way too much into one word. The modern DAC chips based on SDM are used because they are a cheap solution. Meaning inexpesive. 

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

I'd also be interested in knowing whether her thinking has changed in this area in the seven years since she posted this. 

 Why would it ?

 My understanding is that she is referring to a physical copy of a CD with identical binary data.

IIRC, Blue Coast still sells high quality " Mastering" CD-Rs which Cookie reports as sounding better, and supplies for CD orders.

MAM Gold CD-Rs also sound better to me than cheaper generic CD-Rs

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 Why would it ?

 

I don't know about you but I'm not the same person I was seven years ago and I no longer believe many of the things I believed then.

[esldude]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 

Among other things, Don claims to be able to design DACs that are impervious to the problems that afflict most DACs with USB inputs etc.

Behringer can do it for $79.  It isn't that hard to find.  Things like the Benchmark look to be nigh on to completely impervious to USB inputs by test results.  

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Don Hills said:

 

Do I? Quotes, or it didn't happen. And if it didn't happen, expect to be reported.

 

Nasty !

 

Don

You are on record as implying that designers of DACs that are affected this way are Incompetent , and saying that 
" Given that there are cheap DACs on the market which do not exhibit such effects, what else would you call someone unable to meet this quite low bar?"
 Assuming that you are a qualified E.E. then it should be a piece of cake for you to meet this " quite low bar " ?

 

Alex

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, esldude said:

Behringer can do it for $79.  It isn't that hard to find.  Things like the Benchmark look to be nigh on to completely impervious to USB inputs by test results.  

 Certainly not your original Benchmark DAC though.

 Dennis , isn't it about time that you got off this hobbyhorse about all well designed DACs , irrespective of price, sounding almost identical ?

 If you can use a soldering iron, why not try replacing something like an internal LM78XX voltage regulator in the Digital area (+3.3V or +5V) with a plug in LT3045 voltage regulator (.8uV noise) of the same voltage and footprint . It would cost you <$30 to do so from a trusted by C.A. members, ebay supplier, who also posts in C.A. occasionally ?

It's the attention to detail, mainly in the PSU and Clock areas that sets most DACs apart.

 Additional isolated PSUs for Analogue and Digital areas, and an additional transformer(s) cost money, as well as often increasing the size of the required case.

[sandyk]

19 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I don't know about you but I'm not the same person I was seven years ago and I no longer believe many of the things I believed then.

 

Your online persona seems very little different now to what I first found as a C.A. member quite a few years ago.

[esldude]

19 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Certainly not your original Benchmark DAC though.

 Dennis , isn't it about time that you got off this hobbyhorse about all well designed DACs , irrespective of price, sounding almost identical ?

 If you can use a soldering iron, why not try replacing something like an internal LM78XX voltage regulator in the Digital area (+3.3V or +5V) with a plug in LT3045 voltage regulator (.8uV noise) of the same voltage and footprint . It would cost you <$30 to do so from a trusted by C.A. members, ebay supplier, who also posts in C.A. occasionally ?

It's the attention to detail, mainly in the PSU and Clock areas that sets most DACs apart.

 Additional isolated PSUs for Analogue and Digital areas, and an additional transformer(s) cost money, as well as often increasing the size of the required case.

Well designed DACs would of course sound almost or simply identical.  

 

As for replacing regulators etc.  I doubt I have any that are replaceable.  I have done the regulator swap and powered from batteries thing though it was some years ago.  I definitely have time with soldering iron in hand.  

 

This brings up a topic however.  Do you think there is some perfection DACs would move toward so they will at least in principle sound the same at some point?  There can't be improvement infinitely as our hearing isn't infinitely capable.  

[Don Hills]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

...

You are on record as implying that designers of DACs that are affected this way are Incompetent ...

 

The implication is your interpretation.

 

...  and saying that 

" Given that there are cheap DACs on the market which do not exhibit such effects, what else would you call someone unable to meet this quite low bar?"...

 

Where did I say that? You quoted it, saying I said it. Link, or I didn't say it.

 

(For the record, I have said that it is not hard to manufacture a DAC that is unaffected by noise on the USB input, the proof being measurements of inexpensive DACs that are not affected by noise on the USB input. I have called those DACs competent, but I don't believe I have called the manufacturers of DACS that are affected, incompetent.)

 

...  Assuming that you are a qualified E.E. then it should be a piece of cake for you to meet this " quite low bar " ? ...

 

You assume incorrectly. I've never said (or implied) that I'm a qualified E.E.

Another swing, another miss. 3 strikes...

 

[sandyk]

24 minutes ago, esldude said:

This brings up a topic however.  Do you think there is some perfection DACs would move toward so they will at least in principle sound the same at some point?  There can't be improvement infinitely as our hearing isn't infinitely capable.  

 

Dennis

 I don't believe so, as to implement the changes to the PSU area alone, to markedly improve isolation between Digital and Analogue areas will considerably increase the manufacturer's costs, and thus increase substantially the retail costs, at least for better than average DACs. Add in an extra PSU transformer and you will also need a larger case.

There appears to be a belief at present in C.A. that any DAC retailing for >U.S. $100 is overpriced.

I am not someone like GUTB, as I DIY much of my gear, but the very best sounding DACs cost way more than your typical consumer DAC .They simply sound more natural, with an ease about them, and are not fatiguing for longer listening sessions.

The costs may further lower though as the newer breed of very low noise voltage regulators become more commonly used.

I am fortunate that I have been able to compare my own gear with some of the best gear available, and correct most of it's shortcomings by conventional technical methods such as additional voltage regulation etc.

The costs may further lower though as the newer breed of very low noise voltage regulators become more commonly used.

John  Swenson is now also putting these new breed voltage regulators to good use in his most recent Ultracap PSU design.

 

I suspect that your Benchmark DAC, due to it's age now, would likely have at least one 78xx voltage regulator ?

 

Alex

[sandyk]

27 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

Where did I say that? You quoted it, saying I said it. Link, or I didn't say it.

 

 Seeing that you insist.

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/28618-why-do-wav-and-flac-files-sound-different/?page=7

 So those E.E's are incompetent, or the owner's equipment defective ?

 

Perhaps you can do better ? 

 

Did you even bother to correct the reply from me in 2016, or did you wish us to believe that you were a qualified E.E. ?

" .. You are in effect calling your fellow E.E.s incompetent.

 

Thank you. "Incompetent" is a more accurate description than "defective."

The classic example is someone who designs and manufactures a DAC that is audibly affected by noise and/or timing jitter on the USB interface. Given that there are cheap DACs on the market which do not exhibit such effects, what else would you call someone unable to meet this quite low bar?"

[wgscott]

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I don't know about you but I'm not the same person I was seven years ago and I no longer believe many of the things I believed then.

 

https://www.livescience.com/33179-does-human-body-replace-cells-seven-years.html

 

[Spacehound]

9 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

Similar to your approach to asking the same question repeatedly until you hear an answer you like? 

"Search until you find an 'answer'  that suits what you already believe then stop"  Think about it,  it's even responsible for 'hypocrisy'.

 

Don't blame B&M,  he's part of the human race.  One of the vast majority who hasn't realised that  the human race has been 'broken'  from day one. All other species are 'rational'. We aren't but we've got a fancy name for our stupid behaviour, we call it 'intelligence' and it  doesn't actually work. Some know this  so try to use other things, mostly intense  curiousity (like cats) and logic.

[sandyk]

27 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Some know this  so try to use other things, mostly intense  curiousity (like cats) and logic.

 

 Fuzzy Logic, or Furry Logic ?

[sandyk]

34 minutes ago, wgscott said:

https://www.livescience.com/33179-does-human-body-replace-cells-seven-years.html

 Interesting.

I wonder how often we renew our memories, as they obviously become less accurate as we age, as can be seen when reading old note books for Divorce proceedings etc.

 It's a pity the brain doesn't use checksums  to confirm our memories are accurate ?.

[Spacehound]

8 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 He has never claimed to be, and has in the HFC forum on several occasions asked more suitably qualified members for their insights. 

 

OTOH, in C.A. we often see some E.Es making dogmatic statements outside their normal area of in-depth expertise !
 

 Incidentally, attached is some information  about the earlier Sony 100khz Super Tweeters that I referred to previously.

http://www.ebay.it/itm/131535507587

Be nice if you  behaved like you say  Martin Colloms does.

 

And you behave exactly like the EE's you complain about despite that you know far less than they do.

You are far from the only one here who  is unwilling to stick to their knitting,  but I think it is fair to say  you are the most extreme. (For example, Jud appears to know far more than you do about 'digital' and he's a lawyer.)

 

Stick to 'analogue' stuff  and you'd be fine.  I'd take your advice on building a small and good Class A amplifier any day.

[Don Hills]

Thank you, Alex. Now read it in context. I had said that a DAC affected by USB noise was defective.  I agreed that "incompetent" was a better description (of the DAC) than "defective". I've referred to "competent" DACs in many places, so logically I believe there are "incompetent" DACs. But I accept that the next paragraph reads that I'm calling the designer of such a DAC  incompetent. I apologise for doubting you. (Memory is the second thing to go with age. I forget what the first one was.)

 

But on your claim that I claim to be a qualified E.E., I neither implied or expressed it, and the thread you linked to shows no such claim.

[sandyk]

19 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

(For example, Jud appears to know far more than you do about 'digital' and he's a lawyer.)

 Jud knows vastly more about Digital than most other members. I have a great deal of respect for Jud., and believe that he would make a fine Moderator when Chris is unavailable.

 

 It will be quite interesting to see what happens if Mani is able to convince Mansr that he is wrong in this area.

 Not that you will ever accept any confirmation by Mansr if Mani proves his points at their GTG. 

I note that you also refuse to accept confirming reports by both Barry D.  and Peter, as well as the independent report from Cookie Marenco.

 You would be happy to accept my advice about building a small but good Class A amplifier, but refuse to accept that similar proven technical techniques can also vastly improve the SQ of a DAC  ?

 

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

Thank you, Alex. Now read it in context. I had said that a DAC affected by USB noise was defective.  I agreed that "incompetent" was a better description (of the DAC) than "defective". I've referred to "competent" DACs in many places, so logically I believe there are "incompetent" DACs. But I accept that the next paragraph reads that I'm calling the designer of such a DAC  incompetent. I apologise for doubting you. (Memory is the second thing to go with age. I forget what the first one was.)

 

But on your claim that I claim to be a qualified E.E., I neither implied or expressed it, and the thread you linked to shows no such claim.

Don

 Apology accepted.

Is the first part to go , the raising of your sex drive ?

 I would prefer to have mine lowered to where it would do some good.

It seems highly likely that you didn't notice my comment about " your fellow E.Es" , so didn't correct me.

Alex

[Spacehound]

22 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Jud knows vastly more about Digital than most other members. I have a great deal of respect for Jud., and believe that he would make a fine Moderator when Chris is unavailable.

 

 It will be quite interesting to see what happens if Mani is able to convince Mansr that he is wrong in this area.

 Not that you will ever accept any confirmation by Mansr if Mani proves his points at their GTG. 

I note that you also refuse to accept confirming reports by both Barry D.  and Peter, as well as the independent report from

Cookie Marenco.

You choose not to respond to any of the  points in my post then? Obviously I made a mistake putting Jud in as it allowed you to 'divert'.

 

And dragging Mani and a few other irrelevant people  into it and dreaming up what I  would do is merely another diversion. (As is your reply to Don, he didn't do any "apologising" he just put you straight.)

 

Didn't work, Sport. You just don't have an answer.