16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[gmgraves]

11 hours ago, numlog said:

So over the past few months I've improved my system in all areas, its not the holy grail of sound but any further improvements will be very subtle refinements.

DXD and DSD128 is pretty spectacular but redbook makes up 99% of the music. As the system improved the limitations of redbook really start to show which is a disappointing surprise.

 

Sample rate is important but I did not realise just how critical higher bit depths are, 16 bits is just way to low.

Even with the best 16bit recordings and I can now notice this distinct hazy and compressed sound , it's really surprising how clearly audible it is once you get to moderately high volumes.

 

Luckily 24 bit 44.1kHz are pretty common now but there is so much music, particularly electronic and hip hop, where its true essence will be lost inside this inferior format.

 

 

 

 

It's not the 16-bit recordings, exclusively,  it's your most likely either your CD deck or your DAC. Whatever the problem is, it's likely with your equipment not the CD. While some CDs do sound bad (often because of the way they were produced, not the format). But if they all sound bad, then either you buy only lousy sounding CDs (remember most pop music produced over the last 20 years are heavily volume compressed to make them sound loud), or your digital playback chain has a problem. The former is doubtful, so I vote for the latter. 

[gmgraves]

42 minutes ago, firedog said:

I still tend to buy recordings in high res if they were made that way, because I figure they might sound a tiny bit better in the original format; I also prefer DSD as a medium for tape converted to digital-I think it sounds more like the original.

 

One thing has nothing to do with the other. I've heard 16-bit/44.1 KHz recordings that sound magnificent, and I've heard DSD and high-res recordings that sound atrocious. It's not any one part of the process that guarantees good sound, it's the whole megillah!

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, firedog said:

And your point is? I didn't say anything about one medium being intrinsically superior to another. 

But I've compared such transfers of tape to both DSD and PCM - I like the DSD better and think it sounds more like the tape.  It's my perception. Why do you feel a need to chime in? I don't think you have the ability to tell me what I'm hearing. 

I'm not trying to tell you what you you're hearing! I wouldn't dream of it. You said that you will continue to buy high-res and DSD because you felt that they might sound better in the original format. I was merely commenting that my experience says t'ain't necessarily so! That buying in the original format is no guarantee that the recording will sound better. Awfully sorry for the confusion. And for what it's worth, I agree that DSD, done right, sounds very analog tape-like - only without the tape hiss, scape flutter, and low-level noise modulation.  

[gmgraves]

9 hours ago, semente said:

 

It's not just the mastering engineer that is to be blamed:

 

 

I agree and I didn't even have to listen to your example, to do so! I can imagine that it sounds just wretched - just from looking at the still frame picture, above.

[gmgraves]

10 hours ago, Don Hills said:

 

You may have missed the point of the video. Take the time to watch it right through.

No thanks, Don't want to hear that kind of music. But thanks for the correction.

[gmgraves]

18 minutes ago, mansr said:

It's clearly a parody, a joke. Mute the sound if you don't want to hear it. It's still funny.

OK. 

[gmgraves]

11 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

This is just a truism that hides the reality that high resolution is better.

 

Early digital recording is mostly trash. Indeed, even modern digital recording is trash -- that's why we audiophiles are stuck in our audiophile label ghetto that use high end digital recording techniques and employ talented studio engineers. 

 

Native DSD recordings are the best digital has to offer. Unfortunately digital doesn't like 1-bit sample rate because you can't do logic operations on 1 bits (without padding, ie, DSD-Wide), so these native DSD recordings can only do small ensemble / solo type music.

 

PCM sucks and nothing is going to fix it. However, it can be pretty good starting at 176/192. Redbook sucks.

You are aware that all DSD recordings have to be converted to LPCM to edit them, after which they are converted back to DSD?

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

Not necessarily. They can be converted to tape, edited, and converted back to DSD. Or the pyramix system can be used, which only coverts the very small place of the edit itself, and leaves the rest of the recording alone. 

Both of the above methods are in use. Obviously they aren’t used for multitrack recordings and others that require extensive processing.

Pedanticism, thy name is Firedog! The point was that DSD cannot be edited as DSD, It has to be edited in another format. There is nothing that says that the DSD file couldn't be converted to 33.3 RPM stereo lacquer transcriptions to be A/B roll edited (like video tape) to a third 33.3 RPM stereo lacquer transcription, before being converted back to DSD. But I'm reasonably sure that a similar number of record companies do that as transfer their DSD recordings to analog tape to edit them. 

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

Hence native DSD recordings. You can only do basic mixing/editing on these without destroying the benefit of DSD.

Believe me, I'm well acquainted aware with that particular shortcoming of the format. 

[gmgraves]

23 hours ago, fas42 said:

I don't have a problem with mp3 at all - at one stage I got very interested in trialing this format, and played quite a bit with the settings of LAME, to see what happened with the SQ. Yes, one can hear the alteration, but it's not a disaster - perfectly acceptable, in the same way as a slightly different mastering is acceptable. Creating a diff file showed how little was lost, compared to the large variations that can occur for other reasons.

 

If I was forced to listen to only good quality mp3 from now on, it wouldn't be hell on earth ...

Good luck with that, Frank! I'm glad somebody doesn't have a problem with it, but that somebody isn't me! I find anything lower than 128 kbps to be unlistenable! The combination of pre-echo and ringing coupled with the noise modulation makes for a very unsatisfactory listening experience. at 192 kbps, I find listening on speakers to be acceptable but it requires a bit rate of 320 kbps to be acceptable to me on headphones. BBC3 is using AAC nowadays to stream classical music and I have to say, I have heard no artifacts on either speakers or headphones yet.  

[gmgraves]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, I was talking of using the LAME encoder at the very highest quality settings, and 320 kbps, when doing these experiments - it just demonstrates that the process can get the job done, if you absolutely have to have compressed sound.

 

Also, a key step is that the mp3 is decompressed offline - I'm actually playing a WAV file, which has been through the encoding/decoding mill - some people will say this makes no difference, but I found otherwise, on the gear I was using.

It still seems that AAC is better. The BBC3 stream is very nice to listen to on speakers and headphones!

[gmgraves]

10 hours ago, firedog said:

Well, if there are multiple record labels doing exactly what I described on a regular basis, I don't think I'm being pedantic. Maybe you are unaware of them. Maybe you don't know the definition of the word "pedantic".

 

In fact it might fit better to your previous post, where you pedantically pointed out something and stated it as an untrue absolute about ALL DSD recording. 

Of course I know the word pedantic, I consider myself an educated man.  I brought up the pedanticism because my point was that it's extremely difficult to edit in the DSD format, I didn't think that the point needed expanding. But you are right, I didn't know that some record companies convert their DSD to tape to edit it and I thank you (for what it's worth) for the information. My reaction to that is why bother? Why not capture the performance on analog tape, edit it with a razor blade, and then transfer the edited tape to DSD? That certainly makes more sense than doing a double conversion. Of course DSD recorders are a lot smaller than a pro analog tape deck, and that might be a legitimate reason for capturing a performance in DSD. I don't think it's anything I'd ever do, but then, I record live performances and don't do much in the way of editing, so that point is moot with me.:)

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

I was referring to going from DSD to tape and back to DSD, as mentioned by esldude. Sounds like you sometimes do that, and sometimes you skip the tape and record the analogue mixer output directly to DSD.

It's very difficult for the average music lover or audiophile to pin down exactly what the practical virtues are of high-res audio. The reason is because the results of the various formats is all over the place! There are red book CDs that sound better than either hi-res LPCM or DSD, There are DSDs that sound head and shoulders above the Red Book release of the same material (often on the same disc) and just the opposite is sometimes true. With the quality of all the formats so variable, all we can know for sure is what the formats are supposed to sound like, and the reason for those sonic characteristics. 

[gmgraves]

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

You should ask someone like Cookie or Jared Sachs, but I'd assume that it's quicker and easier recording in DSD, and also possible they like the final sound better with this process. 

It's gotta be something like that. I've always heard that one should avoid double conversions from one format to another, if possible. 

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

If tape can be avoided entirely, you won't have to deal with flutter and hiss. The degradation caused by encoding to DSD twice is minor in comparison.

True, but aside from the stability of digital, if you are going to convert it to analog tape, you lose any advantage, sonically that SACD might enjoy over other digital formats. You might as well capture in 16-bit/44.1 KHz. Analog tape has very little over 15 KHz and even with Dolby A or DBX, the dynamic range of analog tape is barely better than 70 dB - and that's for half-track 1/4" at fifteen inches/sec (38cm/sec)! Multi-track tape has narrower tracks and the dynamic range of a 1" 16 track at 15ips, is more like 64 dB. 

[gmgraves]

22 hours ago, mansr said:

Better than what?

You took the words right out of my mouth - er, keyboard, mansr!

[gmgraves]

21 hours ago, Rocky Bennett said:

I have not read any of the comments left after this post but I would suggest that the problem is psychological and not factual. A really good system should render a well mastered 16 bit file to sound pristine, and the resulting playback should sound nearly identical to a 24 bit file of the same material with the same mastering.

This would only be true, all other things being equal. In the world commercial music releases, this is seldom the case. We buy high-res formats expecting to get the best technology can provide. In reality, the results are all over the place. Phonograph records that sound spectacular and SACDs that sound lousy. Decades old CDs that sound merely OK and High-res downloads of the same performances that we spent a lot of money on that sound exactly like the decades old CD! It's a craps shoot!

[gmgraves]

8 hours ago, numlog said:

Question: How many people use planar magnetic headphones here?

I do. I have 4-pairs of planar magnetic headphones, all from HiFiMan.

HE-560

HE-1000

Edition X

HE-400s

Just last night, I listened to the BBC3 Binaural feed of the First night at the Proms 2018 with my HE-1000s. They played Vaughan-Williams "Toward the Unknown Region" and Holst' "The Planets" and Meredith's "Five Telegrams". The binaural sound was recorded live on July 14 at the Royal Albert Hall in London, and the binaural sound is uncanny! If you have a good pair of 'phones, I strongly suggest that you give it a listen. Here's the URL:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b94d97

[gmgraves]

20 hours ago, esldude said:

I don't listen too much to headphones.  I've owned some Stax Lamdas, Koss ESP9's and some more normal dynamic headphones like DT880s.  

 

I listen to Soundlab ESL speakers.  Don't know how that compares to planar magnetic headphones not having listened to any.  I would think the electrostat phones could work as well as planar magnetics.  They have some advantages in speakers over planar magnetic speakers like Magnepans.  

Soundlabs are extremely good, like marvelous. I f I were still working and not retired, they would be my first choice in speakers. They sound like music, period! As it is, I have to be content with my Martin-Logans, but I'm not complaining. While not as close to perfection as the Soundlabs, they are good enough that I find them very clean and color-free. I agree with you that as good as Magnepans can be, a good ESL speaker system is better  (although I haven't heard the MG-30.7s which are in the same price range as some of the Soundlabs models. So I don't know how they would compare. 

Planar Magnetic Headphones are actually better from a number of standpoints over ESLs like Stax's. I had the chance to compare the HifiMan HE-1000s with a pair of Stax SR-007s MKII powered by an SRM-T8000 "energizer/driver". I found the HiFiMan 'phones to be less veiled, with far better bass than the Stax provided. They are also far more practical. I can drive my HiFiMan Edition-X phones and HE 400S phones with an iPod-like device and my HE-1000s and HE-560's with any decent headphone amplifier. I own a Schiit Asgard2 headphone amp an find it excellent it's clean, pure class A and has a lot of drive. I also have, at the moment, a Benchmark DAC3 DX, and it's headphone amp is likewise brilliant. Another advantage of Planar Magnetic 'phones is that they require no special cable and any standard headphone extension cable will work fine. I can move freely about the room while listening on phones, something that's awkward, at best, with ESL phones even with a dedicated ESL extension cord (which ain't cheap!).

[gmgraves]

On 7/21/2018 at 1:40 AM, semente said:

Yesterday I was listening to Tchaikovsky's 4th Mravinsky/LePO (DG Originals CD version).

The tape hiss (~ -57dB) is clearly audible in the end of the Scherzo at my normal listening level which is quite low in audiophile terms (90dB peaks at the listening spot, 2 metres away from the speakers, 15.75m2 room):

 

That -57 dB tape hiss is fairly normal for analog recordings made before the advent of Dolby A or DBX companding. How old is the CD remaster? Because most reissues today of older analog recordings, are autocorrelated and the equipment to do that is quite adroit at differentiating between noise and music.

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, semente said:

 

It's this one: https://www.deutschegrammophon.com/gb/cat/4775911

 

Int. Release 02 Feb. 2006

Ⓟ 1961 Deutsche Grammophon GmbH
© 2006 Deutsche Grammophon GmbH
Recorded at Wembley Town Hall, London, September 1960

Yeah, 1961 pre-dated Dolby A and DBX by almost a decade. But 2006 for the CD release is well into the era where autocorrelation technology can seamlessly remove tape hiss. I wonder why DGG didn't use it?

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, R1200CL said:

 

Roon does that without tagging. 

 

Roon can show you your library by format, version, or almost anything you can think about. Use the focus function. 

I'm sure that Roon is everything that it's cracked up to be. But their business model leaves me cold. I do not "subscribe" to software. It's a strategy born of greed as far as I'm concerned. In some cases, it's done to make it possible to develop truly universal software that runs inside of a browser. That's why, I believe, that Adobe went to a web-based pay-as-you-go model. Before, Photoshop, et al, had to be developed for both Mac and Windows and that took a lot effort. Now they develop ONE version of their entire creative suite and people on Windows, Mac, Unix, Linux, Chromebook, and various tablet technologies can all use the software. That's probably good, but I don't like to have to pay annually or monthly for any software. Want to buy it and be done with it. That's why I'm still using Creative suite 6. It's old, but it still works and it does everything I need for it to do and it's MINE!

JRiver's Media Center does much of what Roon does (but I have "test driven" Roon and I know that it is better than Media Center) but it's a lot more fiddly and arcane and has a pretty steep learning curve, but you pays your $50 or so, and it's yours. If you don't want to upgrade to the next version, that's your choice, but if you do, the upgrades are reasonable at about $25-$30. With Roon, IIRC, it's $100 every year or $500 for a lifetime license. I'm sorry, it's just not worth it. It's not THAT much better than JRiver! 

To be honest, iTunes would be good enough for me IF they supported high-resolution formats without the addition of third party software. 

 

[gmgraves]

17 minutes ago, diecaster said:

Because noise reduction is NOT seamless. I would rather they leave the tape noise....

It is seamless if it's done right. Go listen to any of the RCA "Living Stereo" reissues in SACD. They are as quiet as a church mouse with no artifacts - even on good headphones. And believe me were there any funny business as a by product of the autocorrelation (such as noise modulation, pumping, or other artifacts, I'd hear 'em on headphones even if they were not noticeable on speakers. 

[gmgraves]

25 minutes ago, diecaster said:

If you are going to use Roon just like you use iTunes, why would would you buy it??

That's just the problem. One doesn't "buy" Roon, one rents it and the rent is high!

 

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Where I would worry about noise reduction is that they throw the baby out with the bathwater - noise is reduced, but also low level acoustic, ambience information. I have compilations of old material, where some tracks have had the noise reduced - and the losses of richness, and sense of the event, compared to what exists in the "noisy" ones, are a poor tradeoff.

I agree, but modern, computer controlled autocorrelation algorithms are pretty good at seamlessly being able to remove the hiss without attenuating the highs. I have lots of ADD and AAD some of it 24/96 and all of it has used modern autocorrelation to remove the hiss. And these recordings are old. Many of them were mastered on Scotch 206 and the Ampex equivalent and believe me, the masters are noisy. Yet if you listen to many of these reissues of this material, it's really uncanny how good modern studio techniques can make these 60 year-old, half track (some of them staggered head, half track) 15ips (38 cm/sec) acetate master tapes sound.