16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[PeterSt]

7

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

have a background hiss easily discernible until the music starts, at which point it is no longer noticeable.

 

Nice theory.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Nice theory.

What's that supposed to mean?

 

That practice is different.

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible, the sound of the original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the Compact Disc can reveal limitations of the source tape."

 

Something ain't right there.

Would feel the same as : this hi-res digital recording of the LP can reveal limitations of the source LP.

[PeterSt]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

4 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Something ain't right there.

Would feel the same as : this hi-res digital recording of the LP can reveal limitations of the source LP.

 

And is there anything wrong with that statement if the LP were the source for the digital recording?

 

Yes, same thing. That is, if you look at it in the context of : hey, the CD shows anomalies the LP (or tape for that matter) did not, just because CD is so high resolution.

This is BS.

 

Not that I ever saw through that back in the days ...

 

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

Sounds like your projecting. 

 

No ...

 

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

The CD could show odd frequency response because the CD was inherently flat in response.

 

I rather don't understand;

 

I think it was In this very thread we talked about the recording of LP and playback through the same chain (as far as it goes) being indistinguishable from playing the LP directly through the chain.

 

What changed to that ?

(yes, that the subject became tape )

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

I don't see a conflict in those ideas.

 

But listening to the CD version from a source which is tape reveals deficiencies of the tape ?

we must be talking about different matters. As how I read it :

 

Quote

We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible, the sound of the original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the Compact Disc can reveal limitations of the source tape.

 

... we'd have to compare with the source itself, which is tape. So now, suddenly (what you imply if we compare this head to head) the CD shows deficiencies of the tape itself does not. And that, out of all, because the CD has such a high resolution. So yeah, it can capture tape hiss the tape itself does not show.

Right.

Not.

[PeterSt]

24 minutes ago, esldude said:

I don't know, but you seem to have this idea the implication is CD would reveal tape deficiencies that wouldn't be heard listening to tape.   I've no idea where you thought I or anyone else was saying such a thing.

 

Either

a. you learn Dutch better;

b. you read better;

c. I write better.

Maybe all of it.

 

IOW of course not. 

 

Quote

 

So yeah, it can capture tape hiss the tape itself does not show.

Right.

Not.

 

 

Was that so difficult to grasp ?

 

Now with the promise that I will try to read your American better, it is you who suggested this in the first place. Not me.

But let it be. We agree anyway. 

[PeterSt]

So re-set.

 

"The Music on this Compact Digital Disc was originally recorded on analog equipment. We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible, the sound of the original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the Compact Disc can reveal limitations of the source tape."

 

I claim this is BS. You seem to disagree with me saying this is BS.

How ?

 

(and I say it again : this is supposed to come forward from a head to head comparison with the tape itself and a replay of a digital recording of it)

 

Mind my emphasis because that is how it should read.

If the "however" would not have been there, we are supposed to read it all differently and it would NOT be BS.

The "however" suggests something (more) negative. And this is not so at all. Instead it will show the very same as how the tape did (sounded).

 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, semente said:

I think that they mean limitations of tape recording vs. digital recording. Things like hiss, wow and flutter, modulation, etc.

 

Riccardo, yes. That is obviously how it is supposed to be read. But you know, I am from those days (like many), and this wasn't the gesture. This merely was about "digital is better than analogue" (to be read as a commercial) and I see it in this context. What we most certainly did NOT know back in the days is how we in the future would be able to prove that digital (16 bits !) is so good that you would not be able to discern the recording's playback from the direct playback. Heck, even today this is difficult to bring across (didn't I try myself early in this thread ?).

So I (seem to) know, but for 95% etc. of people this is not obvious at all; they's need to believe the few who really tried (with appropriate equipment).

 

 

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, Andyman said:

No- one is referring to a comparison of original tape vs cd.

 

It is exactly about that and what I tried to say. No-one WAS doing that, because it couldn't happen (OK, I had a couple of DAT recorders). But today we can and today the disclaimers does not make sense. Not to me.

 

Quote

Maybe you’re having a niggly Dutch morning!

 

That is undoubtedly so, with a couple of servers out of the air because of some DNS subscription expired without me being notified about it.

But I think it is not related - haha.

 

Thank you Andy.

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

I find it hard to believe there is this much problem agreeing on what the disclaimer means from reading it.

 

Exactly as you now indicated : that it was a commercial. And we dug it. But we also did not believe it much because it didn't sound the best at all (my father experimented with te digital video recorders for audio back at the time (14 bits I think) - he hated it all).

 

So one more time and only to smoothen my mood :

 

I find it hard to believe there is this much problem agreeing on what the disclaimer means from reading it.

 

When I read that text you put up, I recognized it from back then. I read it a 1000 times and btw the software for registering my catalog I had back at the time, also registered the AAD, ADD, DDD (ADA). I wondered some times,  but couldn't really deal with it. To far from my bed (but was educated in ICT right from the start).

So ... today I read that text again, and immediately see : what a BS statement.

 

And that is really all. It has no value. Not worth debating.

But a bit fun for me.

 

Right. Now we can move over to the what's better : DDD or AAD etc.

Oops.

 

I think i never liked the DDD. Back then.

But so much has changed. And today (with Tidal and such) I don't see the icons any more ...

[PeterSt]

17 minutes ago, esldude said:

 

 

[PeterSt]

Changing the subject ...

 

 

(this was from Recording Engineers : You molest our recordings ! back in 2010)

 

What I never told back then - because it wasn't a subject, is that this recording of the drum kit was done deliberately with 16 bits. And well, after I created "the speaker" for it (see sig) everybody (blindfolded) would unconditionally tell that there was a drum kit in the room playing (while it were loud speakers). This (obviously) includes all the feel in the stomach from the kick drum and all, and also the various cymbals and means of hitting them. Mind you, this is not sooo easy, but anyway I did it for the purpose and in the end the speaker (building).

 

So, 16 bits.

 

Now the fun - and this was mentioned indirectly in the thread - I also took 24 bits recordings, but regarding my "purpose for life" (improve on 16 bits) I never worked with it, or really listened to it (or let people listen to that version(s) for that matter). However, the 24 bits version did sound different and actually better on one and one only component : the cowbell.

Yes, who would have thought that.

 

The moral : when people listened to this, I'd take them upstairs and show the real drumming, and back downstairs again. WOW this and WOW that, obviously. Nobody, including me, would ever claim the cowbell not to be 100%. But this is only because of the too large distance because of walking the stairs etc. and the memory not being sufficient to "see" any difference. But compare the playback versions (16 vs 24 bits) would reveal it; the 16 bit cowbell sounds a tad more harsh (read : not 100% real life).

 

Conclusion : of course 24 bits matter. But as long as people can't even discern the real life "almost impossible drum kit thing" from a recording with 16 bits, 16 bits sure can do a hell of a lot more than most would imagine.

 

Another moral would be that me myself and I apparently is not able to destroy a recording (btw over a run of 50m or so XLR) which turned out to be so infinitely better than anything I have on CD (or 24 bit digital) that we can trust that we are not able to judge for real, without an experience like this. Reading the link I gave above could be interesting for those who never saw it, knowing in advance that Barry Diament and Cookie Marenco contribute to it largely in a such eye opening fashion that ... well, you should read it (but it is from old forum software and quotes etc. can be difficult to discern from normal text). For me, what they both laid out, was quite a revelation.

[PeterSt]

28 minutes ago, semente said:

And don't you need to add HQ Player to get the best sound quality?

 

Oops. I wasn't aware that I need that !

Do I ?

 

[PeterSt]

 

 

11 hours ago, PeterSt said:

12 hours ago, semente said:

And don't you need to add HQ Player to get the best sound quality?

 

 

10 hours ago, semente said:

11 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Oops. I wasn't aware that I need that !

Do I ?

 

 

Do you use Roon's processing engine?

 

No ? Why would I (or anyone) need that ? (question is serious - nothing sarcastic)

 

 

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, semente said:

 

I know that you dislike HQPlayer, because you said so a few times.

 

I don't recall that I said this anywhere, even a single time. What I do say some times though, is that everybody with a NOS1(a/G3) can chose for playback software what he wants and that this is not HQPlayer. You can say that this is logical for a DAC which has been explicitly made to adhere the time domain mostly while the XXHighEnd filtering anticipates just that. In the end this is not about "disliking" as such - it just doesn't sound better (no matter the filter choice).  

 

Quote

So I will ask instead: do you think that you can achieve the same performance using Room as a player/processor (oversampling and filtering) as you get with your own software?

 

No way. This time it doesn't even make it to the filtering subject, because it first is about streaming and what that implies for bad sound. For that matter, XXHighEnd does not stream (does not allow for it) and instead buffers everything fully (and plays it off line). And might you ask further : no, Roon does not allow for this as it doesn't provide an API for that. So let's remember, when XXHighEnd plays music, it has shut off the Internet and a 1000 things more. All for the better SQ.

 

Thus two reasons all together : the dedicated filtering and the streaming which is bad to SQ.

 

10 minutes ago, semente said:

probably because it feels nice to sting your competition. I'm OK with that.

 

That was in your mind somehow, not in mine.

 

11 minutes ago, semente said:

Is it possible to Phasure software as the processing engine for Room?

 

To make it hopefully clear better : This isn't even related to Tidal (which Roon streams). I could also say : yes, all the way (including MQA). But it really isn't applicable. The problem is Roon as the control point. So what you select in Roon can not be passed to XXHighEnd which next would act as Tidal endpoint (this latter thus just works). So Roon is a bit "stupid" not to pass the data (via an API); it would sell as much licenses and more, and it would perform better. Roon could be just the music-selecting software and leave the playing to any random playback software.

 

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

Perhaps it's just as well that it's about 3.16AM in  The Netherlands ?

 

 05:07:35 am now. Measured in 16 bits though.

[PeterSt]

@diecaster, assuming you are not just a troll ...

Alex is right.

 

I mentioned Tidal - out of the context of Roon - for a reason, because if you understand what needs to be done to produce the best SQ, you'd see that any streaming disallows that. Notice please that this in itself is in the context of knowing the reference and if you don't know that, then 

 

Quote

Ethernet based server to endpoint streaming has resulted in the best sounding music I have ever heard coming form my 2 channel system.

 

this would be correct, but this makes you the know-it-all ? So yes, you will be correct on this for your own environment and reference, but please know it isn't the best what is possible. By far not.

Do I care that you miss out ? of course not. Do I miss out then ? also not. So what's the problem ?

 

Well, that really numerous people (countless over time) ask me whether XXHighEnd can play in the midst of a Roon set up. @sementewas coincidentally one of them. It could (the HQPlayer way), but it would preclude the existence of XXHighEnd in the first place. And please, this is not related to any DAC.

 

Btw, try to find people who use Roon + HQPlayer who compare(d) with HQPlayer on its own - who do not say that HQPlayer on its own sounds better; it always does. It's the same thing; streaming just deteriorates SQ, no matter we don't want that. Already satisfied with the streaming active ? then be happy.

 

So to be clear about what needs to be done to integrate with Roon : it can't. It can't because Roon does not allow it. Only the way HQPlayer does it, and this is not integrating - it is merely stealing the stream and process ("manipulate") it. Still know JPlay and the way it "integrates" with e.g. JRiver ? Same thing. One exception : JRiver did not even like that and JRiver prevented (prevents) JPlay from doing that. And tbh, it is a quite moot thing to do so and it is only a commercial action (of in this case JPlay) to put it forward like this.

And might we have missed it, I thus do *not* with XXHighEnd, probably because I am not the commercial guy. It's SQ I am after.

 

It is not all so easy to grasp which piece of software does what, and it is also easy to misunderstand what "stealing the stream" means. Thus, HQPlayer does it in an all positive sense because it now can process (upsample/filter) it the way it would do with local data and all is fine. JPlay however, does not process anything, but claims the SQ will be better because "it is just there". This will be true for a small percentage only, but the say 95% overhead it causes will diminish SQ instead of improve on it. That's how such software works (out); if you're there to make all as lean as possible and have the best SQ realized with that means, then you're not throwing yourself into a pool of 100x more processing (which JPlay against JRiver would be). Same with Roon but worse.

 

Was this anything against Roon ? if so, I don't recognize it. Do you like Roon for its better processing ? then use it for that reason (but never say that this processing together with HQPlayer would even be the better option, because the combination would virtually not exist). Would you like to use it with something like XXHighEnd ? sorry, it can't. It can't because Roon does not give us the option to pass on what you selected for playback. It wants to play itself. All we can do is accept the streaming and its downsides for SQ for that reason alone (hey, says me and *if* you notice it in the first place) but be able to pick up the stream from there and process it.

 

Lastly, the using of the upsampling/filtering for better SQ (which could be called "technical SQ") is a completely different means from making the OS and its environment lean for audio. Roon does not do that, HQPlayer does not do that, Btw Audirvana does this to the possible extent in the OSX environment, JRiver does not do that. XXHighEnd does so and JPlay does do as long as it is stand alone. XXHighEnd does not allow anything else but stand alone.

 

I hope this works a bit for explaining. But it is all part of the 16 bits subject because it is about how 16 bits can sound like 24 bits, might we see the subject in that realm. And coincidentally now the upsampling/filtering is crucial, because this is actually only about 16 bits source material. It is one big nest of "matter" and about how difficult it is to let 16 bits sound "the best". And "the best" is always up to you and will live in your contexts.

[PeterSt]

 

48 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

05:07:35

 

19 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

how much is that in hex?

 

05:07:35

 

That was wrong. Here :

 

05:07:23

 

 

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

And all this recent posting is about 16 bits how????

 

IMO Yes :

 

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

I hope this works a bit for explaining. But it is all part of the 16 bits subject because it is about how 16 bits can sound like 24 bits, might we see the subject in that realm. And coincidentally now the upsampling/filtering is crucial, because this is actually only about 16 bits source material. It is one big nest of "matter" and about how difficult it is to let 16 bits sound "the best". And "the best" is always up to you and will live in your contexts.

 

... Unless you were responding to the 16 bits time in Hex. 

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, diecaster said:

That would seem to suggest that this "audio PC's" CPUs are adding noise to the USB output and making the audio less true to what it should be. That, by definition, is NOT higher fidelity.

 

Strange how you are capable of twisting things the other way around. So Yes, your suggestion is correct.

Now what ?

Each PC does that. The trick of the "audio PC" is that it makes less of it.

 

Of course now it is your turn to claim that PC's don't add noise anywhere, and that they all sound the same.

Of course you will add that any PC which adds noise has not been properly designed.

Of course.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, diecaster said:

Streaming doesn't disallow the best sound quality. That is just you wanting to say your solution is the best. That's okay though. I don't expect you to be unbiased.

 

Let's not forget what this thread is about.

Let's also not forget that there's one person only who works on the 16/44.1 cause and that he does this quite very 100% explicitly because there's infinitely more around of that than anything else.

 

Is my solution the best now ? I don't know. But it is to be expected once I am the only one working on it, explicitly.

But you are right, maybe I failed on it.

 

Anyway, let's not miss the subject : 16 bits is so-called "not it". I claim : it 100% is. But it takes a few things. It really doesn't go by itself.

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, diecaster said:

How are CPUs supposed to apply "crazy emphasis" in certain frequency ranges?

 

The expected answer : I don't know.

 

The maybe unexpected attempt of explanation : the whole (server) environment is so much more robust (it is) that anything not explicitly made robust (a CPU) becomes now better audible for it's own processing. It always did, but now the remainder is more "quiet" (in the noise department).

 

All is relatively easy to judge (once you're in this league) by means of MoBo USB tweaks to normal boards bringing a quite similar solid sound as these MoBos do without tweaks. And btw, by now threads full of these tweaks exist on CA while over at Phasure "we" talked through these matters (and really worked them out) say 8-9 years ago.

 

Something else is that nobody will readily understand what "crazy emphasis" on a frequency range means. It can not be explained other than an album of e.g. Air (with quite distinct sound) being completely unrecognizable from the 20 times you played it previously over the time span of say 5 years. Play it with this "10/20" processor and you'll say "uh, what ?!?" and play it the next day with a 14/28 and you again will say "uh, wuh, WHAT ?". If said emphasis changes, then melodies come forward which were non-existent previously, or rhythms become noticeable because fragilely buried in the song.

This kind of thing always has been so, but for a PC (or USB cable, or software setting) at a general level, while now it only needs the change of a processor.

 

Let me tell you : the change I talk about, I'd rate 100x more than 16 bits vs 24 bits. And I try not to exaggerate. But let's make it 10x because 100x is so much. 

[PeterSt]

12 hours ago, mansr said:

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

As PeterSt would be happy to point out, the tiniest, tiniest variations in how the data is dealt with can be enough to make an audible difference

 

Well, he has a business interest in maintaining that position.

 

Sure. And thanks.

What is my business, you say ?