Forgive me Computeraudiophiles, for I have sinned

[bachish]

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

 

Thanks for the lengthy reply. The only Sound Mirror work I have are their remasters of RCA Living Stereo on SACD.

 

All of my Reference Recordings SACDs and 24/176.4 HRx's are engineer by Prof. Keith Johnson. The sub-label Reference Recordings Fresh! are the only ones engineered Sound Mirror, I don't have any of those. So I can't comment on those.

 

Also I clearly stated I like pre-2009 Telarc, especially pure DSD SACDs, that was back before they were purchased by Concord Records, who fired the inhouse recording teams and went to outsourcing. Prior to 2009 Telarc's domestic recordings were done by Michael Bishop, Jack Renner, Robert Woods, etc. and the European recordings were done by Polyhymnia .

 

Also most of my PentaTone recordings were engineered by  Polyhymnia .

 

I've not been very impressed with the Naxos CDs, SACDs or high resolution downloads. I have kept a Naxos SACD and a 24/192 download mostly because of the music. The Naxos SACD lists the recording engineer as Genady Papin and producer as Beta International.

 

So, to sum up I don't remember seeing Sound Mirror listed on any of my recordings except for the RCA Living Stereo remasters, so I can't comment on their original recordings.

 

In closing, I really don't enjoy listening to music at 16/44.1kHz PCM or CD, if you do I am very happy for you. ?

 

So just to clarify...I'm not saying you should or shouldn't like 4416 or 9624 or DSD recordings. I actually prefer high res versions too when I can get them for my own reasons. I'm only saying my belief that I see no reason why a properly downsampled and dithered 4416 recording played through a high end system with a great DAC should sound different than the original 9624 version.  It's what I think and I have several reasons for that. You probably do hear a difference but there are several explanations for it and I listed some of them.  

 

My point in the previous post was addressing the common idea floating around audiophile circles that the major label recordings are inferior to the audiophile labels.  The problem with that view is that many independent recording studios and engineers who are well recognized in the industry have recorded for both audiophile labels and the major labels. Just trying to expand your horizons a bit!

 

What audiophile labels do have is perhaps more consistency. Some recordings on Naxos and Chandos, for example, are truely not good while others are recorded by places like Soundmirror or Norbert Kraft, etc. You just have to do some reasearch to sift the chaff from the wheat. 

 

BTW, under the discography for Soundmirror they list recordings done for Reference Recordings and Pentatone.  

 

[sandyk]

10 hours ago, marce said:

Tut tut, the usual pull down, disappointed.

Not everybody is as deaf as you are, and there are HUGE numbers of C.A. members who hear a clear improvement over 16/44.1 with 24/96 , 24/192 etc. as well as with SACD and DSD.

 Then again, they aren't as closed minded as you are about the possible SQ  improvements using more recent Audio formats than 16/44.1 ,other than spectrum saving formats such as  .aac etc.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

2 hours ago, Teresa said:

So, to sum up I don't remember seeing Sound Mirror listed on any of my recordings except for the RCA Living Stereo remasters, so I can't comment on their original recordings.

You should try some.  These guys are excellent.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Not everybody is as deaf as you are

Has he taken a hearing test and shared the results with you? If not, please cease with the insults. Besides, marce's hearing is irrelevant. A man does not require the ability to levitate in order to realise that pigs cannot fly.

[Ralf11]

it also looks like he switched the topic from Phasure DAC to high-res formats

 

- the latter can be distinguished as shown by a meta-analysis (Reiss et al.), tho IIRC the statistical significance was marginal

 

I'd switch my 2500 albums to HiRes if it was cheap, easy, & available...  but it's really hard to find the original HiRes recordings of Buddy Bolden, esp. in 5 channel

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

A man does not require the ability to levitate in order to realise that pigs cannot fly.

 

 You would know. You appear to have been trying to do that for years with your "definitive " pronouncements!

 

I challenge you to start a thread/Poll  about high res formats not being able to offer any improvement in SQ in areas of the forum other than the General area where your disciples don't often venture,  and see how many other members agree with you.

 

If nothing else, the relaxed filtering possible with 24/96, 24/192, 24/384  etc.  does result in a  worthwhile improvement in SQ

 

 Perhaps Bachish who is not a Professional (yet?) should try taking his personal beliefs off line ,and PM either Barry Diament or Cookie Marenco and discuss/learn from them ?

 They are both highly approachable and friendly ,and almost certainly would be able to offer him some very worthwhile advice in their areas of common interest, as would Mario and George too . 

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I'd switch my 2500 albums to HiRes if it was cheap, easy, & available...  but it's really hard to find the original HiRes recordings of Buddy Bolden, esp. in 5 channel

 

If your existing albums are in 16/44.1 format, you can readily play the up to 8 channel versions using jRiver, down converting them to 2 channel. You may be pleasantly surprised  just how good the stereo sounds, while retaining quite a bit of the 3 Dimensional qualities of the multi channel original.

 You may need to take a visit to Holt Cemetery in New Orleans though to ask Buddy Bolden if any of his recordings were in multi track format.

 Quad recordings from reel to reel tape can also sound very good when down converted to Stereo

Your Oppo 205 should also be able to offer a very good stereo presentation from them too if the rest of your equipment is of a similar calibre.

[bachish]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 Perhaps Bachish who is not a Professional (yet?) should try taking his personal beliefs off line ,and PM either Barry Diament or Cookie Marenco and discuss/learn from them ?

 They are both highly approachable and friendly ,and almost certainly would be able to offer him some very worthwhile advice in their areas of common interest, as would Mario and George too . 

 

Nope not a professional recordist. 

 

Anyway, talking to Barry Diament or Cookie Marenco won't convince me either way. I need to see a repeatable double blind study showing trained listeners were able to hear the difference.

 

The closest study to date I know of that shows trained listeners may be able hear the difference between 4424 and 8824 is an Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper, Sampling rate discrimination: 44.1 vs. 88.2 from May 2010.

 

They had three versions to compare:

 

2 versions recorded at 88.2 and 44.1 simultaneously.

1 version down sampled from 88.2 to 44.1

 

Here is a quote,

 

"Listeners were free to adjust the sound level and their position if needed. The duration of the experiment ranged between two and four hours per participant [plenty of time to become familiar with the files]...three expert listeners out of 16 listeners obtained significant results p<.05, 2 tailed. However, they significantly selected the wrong answer, suggesting they could hear the difference between A and B but picked the wrong one [in other words, they choose the 4424 file thinking it was the 8824]...The remaining 13 participants did not perform above chance level, either at the individual or group level...On a scale of 0 to 10, expert listeners reported that the difficultly level of the task was 9 on average...They commented that the task was very demanding in terms of concentration and that it was hard to stop doubting about what they heard..."

 

In summary, it was primarily the down sampled version that was discernible from the original 88.2, not files recorded at 44.1 and 88.2 simultaneously. 

 

In other words,

 

Files recorded at 88.2 and down sampled to 44.1 were distinguishable to a few but they chose the wrong answers.

Files recorded at 88.2 and 44.1 were mostly indistinguishable to everyone.

 

A couple of points...

 

It's not exactly an endorsement of the benefits of high sample rates when the 3 that had significant results picked the wrong answers.

 

The ADCs were RME Mictasys, not considered high end converters. 

 

As has been pointed out by those who know much more than me, recording w ADCs at different sample rates simultaneously introduces possible artifacts.

 

All said it was quite difficult.

 

The study may only show that the down sampling of Pyramix at the time was somewhat audible.  

 

This paper was presented in May 2010. The study was likely done prior to the year 2010, which puts the technology at approximately a decade old. Not only is the study a decade old but the converters were meh...I'd be curious to see if these results are repeatable today with top converters and the best modern SRC. Personally, I seriously doubt it would be. But I'm willing to change my mind if double blind tests show otherwise.  And besides people, they weren't even picking the 88.2 files when they detected differences! They chose the 44.1 files!

 

 

 

 

 

[vl]

44 minutes ago, bachish said:

 

 

 

This paper was presented in May 2010. The study was likely done prior to the year 2010, which puts the technology at approximately a decade old. Not only is the study a decade old but the converters were meh...I'd be curious to see if these results are repeatable today with top converters and the best modern SRC. Personally, I seriously doubt it would be. But I'm willing to change my mind if double blind tests show otherwise.  And besides people, they weren't even picking the 88.2 files when they detected differences! They chose the 44.1 files!

 

 

 

 

I once had an audition of the Dragon Boat track from Lift from Soundkeeper, in both 16/44 and 24/96.  There were five people excluding me.  All five considered themselves to be audiophiles.  The test was a blind test.  One of the five preferred the 24/96 track.  The rest liked the 16/44 track better!  Perhaps some people were accustomed to the sound of 16/44.  

 

To my ears the difference between the two tracks was small but audible.  I preferred the hires track.  The playback system was good enough to allow the listener to tell if the recording for the CD was made with analog tape or digital.

[sandyk]

48 minutes ago, bachish said:

 

 

 

 

A couple of points...

 

It's not exactly an endorsement of the benefits of high sample rates when the 3 that had significant results picked the wrong answers.

 

The ADCs were RME Mictasys, not considered high end converters. 

 

As has been pointed out by those who know much more than me, recording w ADCs at different sample rates simultaneously introduces possible artifacts.

 

All said it was quite difficult.

 

The study may only show that the down sampling of Pyramix at the time was somewhat audible.  

 

This paper was presented in May 2010. The study was likely done prior to the year 2010, which puts the technology at approximately a decade old. Not only is the study a decade old but the converters were meh...I'd be curious to see if these results are repeatable today with top converters and the best modern SRC. Personally, I seriously doubt it would be. But I'm willing to change my mind if double blind tests show otherwise.  And besides people, they weren't even picking the 88.2 files when they detected differences! They chose the 44.1 files!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Digital Audio has been markedly improved in the last 8 or more years, both with A to D, and D to A.

 Add to that, the new generation extremely low noise, very wide bandwidth voltage regulators which have been able to result in further improvements in S/N both at the Recording and Playing stages.

 

It's pointless trotting out old statistics in this area to prove anything either way.

Yes, it could be interesting to see how the formats compare in DBT when using recent technical advances with the high res formats..

 

Like so many other sceptics, you appear to believe that the ONLY reason for the High Res formats is to keep making people pay again for the same earlier recordings that they already have.

That is an extremely cynical POV ! 

 

 It's also fairly widely accepted these days that high res formats sound better partly due to the greatly relaxed filtering needed,

compared with 44.1 and SACD.

[Ralf11]

bachish - search on Reiss - I posted the entire cite to that study

 

as usual, the difference for HiRes (if any on a given album) will be smaller than room tmts. or new speakers

[sandyk]

23 minutes ago, vl said:

The playback system was good enough to allow the listener to tell if the recording for the CD was made with analog tape or digital.

 

 How many C.A. members are capable of doing that, considering that many still find Computer Audio lacking in comparison with a good CD player ? Audio files played from System Memory have the potential to crap all over most affordable CD players.

 

 I wonder if Bachish was able to do that using high quality software such as JRiver for example ?

 Not ALL software players sound the same when playing the exact same material either.

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

as usual, the difference for HiRes (if any on a given album) will be smaller than room tmts. or new speakers

 

 Would you expect them to be otherwise ?

 They are icing on the cake for a well implemented room and speakers etc.

[vl]

19 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 How many C.A. members are capable of doing that, considering that many still find Computer Audio lacking in comparison with a good CD player ? Audio files played from System Memory have the potential to crap all over most affordable CD players.

 

 I wonder if Bachish was able to do that using high quality software such as JRiver for example ?

 Not ALL software players sound the same when playing the exact same material either.

 

After more than ten years of experimentation with computer based (windows) audio, I came to the realization that Windows PCs and good audio did not mix.  I abandoned using the PC for any part of my audio system related to sound.  Today my PC's function is to store the music tracks.  These tracks are streamed via WiFi to the Auralic Aries streamer, which is a purpose built computer doing the streaming and the management of the music library.  It does an excellent job of that.  

 

As good as the Aries is, it needs fine tuning.  For example I use the 5.8 GHz WiFi band exclusively for this streaming.  Even with one streamer operating, the choice of 20 MHz or 80 MHz bandwidth for WiFi imparted a different sonic signature, though both have data throughput far in excess of what I use for streaming.

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 Would you expect them to be otherwise ?

 They are icing on the cake for a well implemented room and speakers etc.

 

yet many, many people waste valuable time & money on things that don't matter

 

[marce]

8 hours ago, sandyk said:

Not everybody is as deaf as you are, and there are HUGE numbers of C.A. members who hear a clear improvement over 16/44.1 with 24/96 , 24/192 etc. as well as with SACD and DSD.

 Then again, they aren't as closed minded as you are about the possible SQ  improvements using more recent Audio formats than 16/44.1 ,other than spectrum saving formats such as  .aac etc.

 

WHAT'S THAT YOU SAY, BIT LOUDER I CAN'T HEAR YOU....?

 

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, marce said:

WHAT'S THAT YOU SAY, BIT LOUDER I CAN'T HEAR YOU....?

 

 You are probably MYOPIC too.

1. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/myopic#myopic__1

   •  

[marce]

Yes I am short sighted, but have an open mind, it just closes when the odour of bullshit enters my nostrils....

[marce]

My apologies to the thread owner and CA in general for my previous biting comment...

[sandyk]

51 minutes ago, marce said:

My apologies to the thread owner and CA in general for my previous biting comment...

 

Given that the previous discussion was about Hi res vs. 16/44.1, you sure know how to insult and get offside with a large proportion of the C.A. members and readers who love hi res and DSD , don't you ?

[mansr]

25 minutes ago, sandyk said:

you sure know how to insult

You have taught him well.

[sandyk]

37 minutes ago, mansr said:

You have taught him well.

 

He still is far from catching up to your record of ridiculing and dismissing reports by so many members in other areas of the forum, not just the General Forum area., and that includes qualified E.E.s too.

[marce]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

Given that the previous discussion was about Hi res vs. 16/44.1, you sure know how to insult and get offside with a large proportion of the C.A. members and readers who love hi res and DSD , don't you ?

I haven't insulted anyone on this thread or mentioned hi-res, I was replying to you. I would like a public apologies and a retraction of that statement please.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, marce said:

I haven't insulted anyone on this thread or mentioned hi-res, I was replying to you. I would like a public apologies and a retraction of that statement please.

That's never going to happen. As you well know, Alex has been insulting people left and right for years. For whatever reason, he gets away with things that would see others banned in a jiffy. Maybe Chris feels pity for him.

[marce]

For the record I have been looking at and trying some hi-res files, I am also going to have a play with multi channel DVD audio. My own view at the moments is I need some hi-res versions of the same mixes to determine whether the difference is the mix or the quality, I do not find the differences to be strikingly obvious, this is via open backed headphone listening as my system is still in bits.