Jump to content

Forgive me Computeraudiophiles, for I have sinned


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mansr said:

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.

I know I am just peeved that he makes it out I am insulting everyone, I insulted no-one just pointed out the same tired old stuff about defective systems/hearings is played again.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, marce said:

I haven't insulted anyone on this thread or mentioned hi-res, I was replying to you.

 The only replies that I have made in  the last couple of pages in this thread, have been about the Phasure DAC and high res vs. 16/44.1 formats, and how some people must either be deaf, closed minded or use mediocre gear not to hear the differences.

You were the one who Tut, tutted and talked about Bovine excreta.

 

 I owe you NO apologies.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 28-06-2020

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bachish said:

 

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!

 

There are other such studies. A few people on some occasions have been able to hear just a bit above 20KHz, possibly because of poor equipment reflecting some of that energy into the audible range, or maybe just due to exceptional hearing. Nobody can hear to anywhere close to 48KHz. But don't quote studies or science to sandyk he prefers to hear only about tests that confirm his beliefs. Anything else gets him angry.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Nobody can hear to anywhere close to 48KHz. But don't quote studies or science to sandyk he prefers to hear only about tests that confirm his beliefs. Anything else gets him angry.

 

I don't see anybody claiming to directly hear 48KHz, only the effects of it's presence /absence with musical instruments, some of which even have harmonics to past 100KHZ

There is a whole industry built around high res recordings and equipment, with highly qualified E.Es from Sony etc. involved in their design.

Try picking an argument with them on this issue and you are likely to find that they are far more qualified in this area than all of the naysayers posting in this thread.

 

G'night .

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 28-06-2020

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sandyk said:

I don't see anybody claiming to directly hear 48KHz, only the effects of it's presence /absence with musical instruments, some of which even have harmonics to past 100KHZ

 

And this is important why? If human beings can't hear it, why is it important to capture this information? Just in case bats decide to listen in?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

And this is important why? If human beings can't hear it, why is it important to capture this information? Just in case bats decide to listen in?

 

Many audiophiles assume that all hirez has to offer is ultrasonic frequency response, which we can’t hear directly.  Ergo, they conclude hirez must be BS.

 

But, that is overly simplistic.  They ignore the added bit depth, which on recording better preserves low level detail though the many stages and level adjustments of the recording production chain.  Many engineers know this, and many CD releases today use 24-bit recording/mixing/mastering chains prior to final downrezzing to RBCD as a result.

 

I don’t often agree with @sandyk, but I also agree that hirez potentially avoids many of the filter artifacts of RBCD by shifting them up to ultrasonic frequencies, both on A-D in recording and on D-A in playback.

 

So, we have two possible reasons why hirez might offer somewhat better sound, but both subtle.  Some hear them, others do not.  That is totally consistent with Reiss and others’ findings, including my own.  Reiss also demonstrates clearly that prior training on how to take the test, how to listen and what to listen for noticeably improved listeners’ ability to discriminate.  Random, untrained listeners on average did not do as well.

 

It is also compounded by many audiophile anecdotes on the web.  Some unthinkingly listened to hirez remasters from analog or RBCD and concluded hirez makes no damned difference.  I won’t argue with that under those circumstances, but just because an album says hirez on it, doesn’t mean it was truly hirez.  It really must be hirez throughout the recording and playback chains to hear any potential, small differences.

 

Differences between RBCD and hirez are further complicated today by the increasing use of hirez on recordings intended for distribution as RBCD.  Anecdotally, my experience has been that those RBCD recordings are generally improved compared to prior generations if they are not victims of the loudness wars.   Classical recordings are what I listen to primarily.  And, listening differences on those via RBCD and hirez playback seem much smaller and more difficult to discriminate than they used to be.

 

Just a comment about me and my listening.  Wherever possible, I prefer to listen at the native recording rate, or as close to that as I can get.  I do violate that with SACD, which I convert to 176k PCM in order to apply DSP features and functions.  Most of the thousands of recordings on my 52TB NAS are classical from SACD in Mch.  I have not bought a CD in over a decade, and I have acquired very few stereo releases compared to Mch.  Mch is almost always in hirez automatically. That is not a problem for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

I don’t often agree with @sandyk, but I also agree that hirez potentially avoids many of the filter artifacts of RBCD by shifting them up to ultrasonic frequencies, both on A-D in recording and on D-A in playback.

 

Of course Alex was talking about higher sampling rates and not greater bit depth, and not about recording and mastering, but playback. 

 

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying there is a benefit to using higher sampling rates in playback. What is it, aside from allowing noise shaping/filtering above audible frequencies (which doesn't require content to be hi-res, simple oversampling will do the same)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

And this is important why? If human beings can't hear it, why is it important to capture this information? Just in case bats decide to listen in?

 

The theory is that, even though we do not hear ultrasonic frequencies, that audio energy exists as upper overtones of musical instruments which has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear directly.

 

When listening to music we hear the fundamental note and its overtones shape the timbre, this is why an oboe and a clarinet sound different when playing the same note as their overtone series is different. The more overtones available to shape the timbre of the fundamental tone the more accurate the timbre is.

 

See There's Life Above 20 Kilohertz! A Survey of Musical Instrument Spectra to 102.4 KHz

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

The theory is that, even though we do not hear ultrasonic frequencies, that audio energy exists as upper overtones of musical instruments which has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear directly.

 

When listening to music we hear the fundamental note and its overtones shape the timbre, this is why an oboe and a clarinet sound different when playing the same note as their overtone series is different. The more overtones available to shape the timbre of the fundamental tone the more accurate the timbre is.

 

See There's Life Above 20 Kilohertz! A Survey of Musical Instrument Spectra to 102.4 KHz

 

1. Did you see the posts of how "fast" things like cymbal strikes are?  There may have been pics of rise times but I don't recall for sure.  But the rise times were not very fast really.

 

2. Thanks for posting the Boyk study.  It is not clear if Fig.1's Y-axis starts at 0.  Assuming it does, the supersonic frequencies are at pretty low SPLs (assuming they could be detected at higher SPLs).  It might be possible to do some additions or removals of > 20 kHz sound to test.

 

3. Did anyone mention brickwall filters yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2018 at 7:07 AM, vl said:

 

Sound Keeper's web site has tracks of different resolutions for free downloads.  Listen to them.  With my system the 16/44 tracks sounded very similar to hires tracks.

 

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

How should I interpret the fact that:

  • converting 16/44 version to 24/96 and subtracting from the original 24/96 gives around 40-50 dB in the audible range
  • while taking the original 24/96, converting to 16/44 and back, and subtracting from the original gives dead silence in the audible range?

Is it that they are misaligned? Or that some different resampler was used to prepare the 16/44 version and I cannot just use sox to "revert" it exactly enough? (Or something else?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

2. Thanks for posting the Boyk study.  It is not clear if Fig.1's Y-axis starts at 0.  Assuming it does, the supersonic frequencies are at pretty low SPLs (assuming they could be detected at higher SPLs).  It might be possible to do some additions or removals of > 20 kHz sound to test.

There is a table further down with some summary and one column there is "Percentage of Power Above 20 kHz".

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 6:53 PM, bachish said:

You realize that there is not the hard and fast line between so-called "audiophile labels' and 'major labels', right?... 

 

And not all audiophile labels have great recordings either. One of my least favorite recordings of all time is Carmina Burana performed by the Atlanta Symphony and Chorus recorded by Telarc. The SACD layer offers no help. Why? Because the acoustics in the Symphony Hall were awful in 2001. They've since replaced the shell (2013) which has helped a lot. But the acoustics make a far bigger difference than DSD vs PCM or even 44/16 vs 96/24.  If the recording is excellent, it will sound excellent on PCM 44/16, 96/24, 88.2/24 or DSD.  DSD will not automatically sound more analog! ...

 

Actually, I was aware that my favorite recording engineers from Telarc who formed Five/Four Productions made a few recordings for Deutsche Grammophon. However, I assume (and I could be wrong) that the requirements of a major label are different than the requirments of an audiophile label or a recording company who strives to make the most natural sounding recordings they possibly can.

 

A while back I read an interview with an engineer who has worked for both commercial and audiophile labels. And he does what his client asks as they are paying him. It's up to the client (record company, artists, etc.) if they want a natural minimalist recording or a big production with EQ., limiting, compression, etc. He records popular, jazz and other non-classical music. It's possible that outsourced engineers are given more freedom with classical music, I don't know. At any rate I'm sticking with audiophile and boutique labels in high resolution.

 

I don't own the Telarc Carmina Burana you mention, but I do have the first movement (O Fortuna) on Telarc's SACD Sampler No. 1 and I just played it and the 2:33 excerpt sounds excellent on my system. I don't own the complete SACD as I am not a fan of classical singing styles, I prefer folk, rock, pop, jazz for the human voice. 

 

Two of my favorite Telarc SACDs are with the Atlanta Symphony and the acoustics are fantastic, they are Britannia and Gandolfi's The Garden of Cosmic Speculation. I sell or trade-in any recordings that have awful sound including poor acoustics. So I have no explanation why these sound so different to you and I.

 

21 hours ago, bachish said:

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

 

As I stated in the previous post the sub label Reference Recordings Fresh! are engineered by Sound/mirror and the main label Reference Recordings are engineered by Prof. Keith Johnson.

 

I went through Sound/mirror's discography today and it turns out I own two of their recordings one on PentaTone and one on BSO Classics. 

  • This England - Carlos Kalmar, The Oregon Symphony - PentaTone Classics SACD
  • Ravel: Daphnis et Chloe - James Levine - BSO Classics SACD

This England on PentaTone does not credit Sound/mirror but lists John Newton as engineer, sad to say I'm not practically found of the sonics on this one, but it's good enough to keep. I prefer the sound quality of PentaTones recorded by Polyhymnia.

 

Also the Ravel: Daphnis et Chloe is good but nothing to get excited about.

 

I didn't mention it last time but I prefer the remastering of the Analogue Productions RCA Living Stereo recordings over the Sound/mirror ones. However, the Sound/mirror Living Stereo SACDs are a great bargain as they sell for $10 or less new and often include two LPs whereas the Analogue Production Living Stereo SACDs sell for three times as much and only include a single LP.

 

21 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

You should try some.  These guys are excellent.

 

It turns out I have two original recordings from Sound/mirror (see above) and based on those I won't be seeking them out. I listen in 2-channel, perhaps they are better in multi-channel?

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Of course Alex was talking about higher sampling rates and not greater bit depth, and not about recording and mastering, but playback. 

 

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying there is a benefit to using higher sampling rates in playback. What is it, aside from allowing noise shaping/filtering above audible frequencies (which doesn't require content to be hi-res, simple oversampling will do the same)?

I don’t think I am saying what you say I said.  I think what I said was there may be a benefit to using higher sampling rates and bit depths, ideally as natively recorded,  for hirez playback.   I never did advovacate upsampling everything to hirez for all playback. I don’t think upsampling accomplishes much, if anything.  I thought I was fairly clear that many, if not most, of the advantages of hirez seem to occur on the recording production side, but that to hear all of those advantages, one must play in hirez.

 

I don’t think there is any consensus agreement on the notion that oversampling is exactly equivalent to upsampling, or that oversampling produces the same measured and perceptual results as hirez recording + playback.   Theoretical arguments are not my thing.  I base my views on many, many measurements of actual DACs from many sources, most of them using oversampling with RBCD vs. hirez.  That, plus my own, non-scientific, anecdotal listening experience.  

 

But, measurably, there seem to be consistent, measured filter artifacts in RBCD playback, even with oversampling, that are shifted into ultrasonic inaudibility with hirez recording/playback.  I don’t think there is any solid evidence that oversampling, which we have had since the ‘80’s, accomplishes the same thing.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bachish said:

Even if so, the overtones were present at the time of the recording and were exerting their influence on the lower frequencies and those effects would already be captured by the microphones in the recording.

 

 

Only if you are using microphones with a wide frequency response

.IIRC, you don't use microphones that are only 1dB down at 40KHZ like Barry Diament and probably others that make hi res recordings do.

 

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 28-06-2020

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Teresa said:

Actually, I was aware that my favorite recording engineers from Telarc who formed Five/Four Productions made a few recordings for Deutsche Grammophon. However, I assume (and I could be wrong) that the requirements of a major label are different than the requirments of an audiophile label or a recording company who strives to make the most natural sounding recordings they possibly can.

 

Deutsche Grammphone tends towards a particular German approach to recording (understandably) that is the opposite from the minimalism of many of the 'audiophile' labels, but I think every bit as valid. The German 'Tonmeister' way tends towards many more microphones and spot mics. The advantage? A more detailed capture for sure with an added excitement. You can hear at times the rattling of the string against the fingerboards in Beethoven. With minimalist recording techniques, the mics have to be further back to get a good balance and blend. And since air absorbs high frequencies, the further back you go the more you lose the softer and higher overtones that I don't think can be fully regained by a high-frequency lift in the mics - a technique often used with minimalist micing. The closer mics allow for a full capture of the complexities of the timbre of the expensive string instruments. Is there a sacrifice in the Tonmeister approach? Of course. You lose the some of the natural stereo imaging and soundstage present in more minimalist techniques. But you gain detail, excitement, and tonal complexity.  Recording, like most things in life, has its trade-offs and pros and cons. What you like is dependent on your priorities.

 

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

A while back I read an interview with an engineer who has worked for both commercial and audiophile labels. And he does what his client asks as they are paying him. It's up to the client (record company, artists, etc.) if they want a natural minimalist recording or a big production with EQ., limiting, compression, etc. He records popular, jazz and other non-classical music. It's possible that outsourced engineers are given more freedom with classical music, I don't know. At any rate I'm sticking with audiophile and boutique labels in high resolution.

 

Yes, the clients have their taste as well and you have to do what they like.  I personally don't think very gentle processing done with excellent software or hardware is ever out of the questions.  Minimalism only fully works in an ideal setting (acoustics, for example). In a less than ideal setting, the recording engineer has to grapple with all sorts of annoying problems that can be improved with some processing. If you like the sound of a label, by all means, enjoy! I'm definitely not trying to convince you to like something - just trying to open your mind a tad :)

 

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

I don't own the Telarc Carmina Burana you mention, but I do have the first movement (O Fortuna) on Telarc's SACD Sampler No. 1 and I just played it and the 2:33 excerpt sounds excellent on my system. I don't own the complete SACD as I am not a fan of classical singing styles, I prefer folk, rock, pop, jazz for the human voice. 

 

If it's the same recording, we definitely have different ideas of a good orchestral recording! Way to dry for my taste!  Maybe it's a different release.  Not sure

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, bachish said:

If it's the same recording, we definitely have different ideas of a good orchestral recording! Way to dry for my taste!  Maybe it's a different release.  Not sure

 

 That is indeed possible. Perhaps Teresa can tell you the album number ?  

However, to fully understand where you are coming from in general, it would be helpful to know what the system you are using consists of.

For example, is it hardware based, CD/DVD player etc. or are you using a PC for playback ? 

IF you are using a PC for playback, (This IS Computer Audiophile Forum) are you playing from System Memory using a highly regarded S/W player such as jRiver ?

if not, what S/W are you playing the music with , and are you using A.S.I.O ?

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 28-06-2020

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...