16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[esldude]

4 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

Well there you have it folks, GUTB has spoken...

 

GUTB, I give your pronouncements the exact same amount of merit I give those of Donald Trump...

I think you are giving GUTB too much credit in that case. 

[PeterSt]

21 hours ago, numlog said:

16 bits is just way to low.

 

What do you use for volume attenuation means ?

What DAC do you use ?

[rando]

When did this place suddenly become populated by 30 something females and their accompanying tastes in music?    (Think I scared off @rumpelstiltskin trying to briefly engage him in a conversation on how dramatic and coarse/negative influences are presented in the funkier side of the spectrum versus the classical genres.  Without completely interrupting a very active thread.)

 

One of my very first posts here was in regards to escaping PCM quality.  Purposely examining the righteousness of higher resolution multi-channel being inherently better.  Other than the rare SACD, technically has a CD and dual channel layer, this discarding of the physical compact disc from store inventories and mass reliance has seen me exclusively buying them.  The truly great modern recordings available through download in high resolution aren't going anywhere and are only going to get easier to acquire.  

 

The next assumption I plan to challenge is whether the same system can play both PCM and DSD equally well or if substituting components like DAC's will hold the greatest SQ.  10K cd's is still a ways off in the distance before that comes about.

[semente]

11 minutes ago, rando said:

One of my very first posts here was in regards to escaping PCM quality.  Purposely examining the righteousness of higher resolution multi-channel being inherently better.  Other than the rare SACD, technically has a CD and dual channel layer, this discarding of the physical compact disc from store inventories and mass reliance has seen me exclusively buying them.  The truly great modern recordings available through download in high resolution aren't going anywhere and are only going to get easier to acquire.  

 

The next assumption I plan to challenge is whether the same system can play both PCM and DSD equally well or if substituting components like DAC's will hold the greatest SQ.  10K cd's is still a ways off in the distance before that comes about.

 

Rando, I'm sorry to say this but your post lacks clarity. It could be the noise modulation, who knows, but I can't really understand what you are trying to say...

But I'm not an English language native so the problem might be in the conversion.

[rando]

I was plumbing the deep vein of female interest in audiophilia for starters.  Much of the music discussed in here is prime repertoire for the age group and sex I mentioned.  That was probably here nor there for the discussion.  

 

Beyond that was mainly noting the changes that happen as one learns to listen.  Perhaps @numlog would do well to get off the technological pinwheel long enough to reestablish something on this order.  Reaffirm the basis on which they judge recorded sound.  The very human subject of striving for perfection while benefiting from a certain amount of imperfection has been well covered.  No matter what the source material it will never perfectly represent the original article.  If he has reached the end of one road in his journey it might be time to explore down another or starting beating trail. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

19 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Rando, I'm sorry to say this but your post lacks clarity. It could be the noise modulation, who knows, but I can't really understand what you are trying to say...

But I'm not an English language native so the problem might be in the conversion.

 

5 minutes ago, rando said:

I was plumbing the deep vein of female interest in audiophilia for starters.  Much of the music discussed in here is prime repertoire for the age group and sex I mentioned.  That was probably here nor there for the discussion.  

 

Beyond that was mainly noting the changes that happen as one learns to listen.  Perhaps @numlog would do well to get off the technological pinwheel long enough to reestablish something on this order.  Reaffirm the basis on which they judge recorded sound.  The very human subject of striving for perfection while benefiting from a certain amount of imperfection has been well covered.  No matter what the source material it will never perfectly represent the original article.  If he has reached the end of one road in his journey it might be time to explore down another or starting beating trail. 

 

That clears it up then, bet you're glad you asked ??

[numlog]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

What do you use for volume attenuation means ?

What DAC do you use ?

Lossless volume control with UDA38Pro DAC

3 hours ago, semente said:

Or maybe it's the other way around, and you enjoy the "grain" of the PCM conversion which is or may be perceived as "sharpeness".

This is what I feel when I compare DSD 5.6MHz to PCM 384kHz with my DAC. But I'm am convinced that it could be very much DAC dependent.

 

No, I dislike the grain/ loss of detail of 44.1kHz to DSD64 conversion.

 I prefer native DSD64 over all PCM so it's not the DAC or a preference for so called PCM ''sharpness''.

 

5 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 What are the actual sources of both your Redbook and hi res recordings ?

e.g. are you ripping  CDs yourself , and Downloading Hi Res material ?

Dont have the equipment for ripping so only downloading and torrenting rips of CDs I already own from reputable site.

All the 24bit 44.1kHz albums would have been digital versions, most of 16 bit albums were CD rips.

Are you suggesting these rips could be 'bad'?

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, numlog said:

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

What do you use for volume attenuation means ?

What DAC do you use ?

 

3 minutes ago, numlog said:

Lossless volume control with UDA38Pro DAC

 

No, I dislike the grain/ loss of detail of 44.1kHz to DSD64 conversion.

 I prefer native DSD64 over all PCM so it's not the DAC or a preference for so called called PCM ''sharpness''.

 

 

I was fishing for digital attenuation in the digital domain and then using 16 bits only (which would be a cause !).

But I now guess that's not the culprit.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 minutes ago, numlog said:

torrenting rips of CDs <> from a reputable site.

 

Is there such a thing as a reputable torrent site ?

[numlog]

Just now, PeterSt said:

I was fishing for digital attenuation in the digital domain and then using 16 bits only (which would be a cause !).

But I now guess that's not the culprit.

I attenuate -3dB in HQplayer so it could be a minor factor. Though, for this DAC at least, I find it's a necessity for optimum SQ, even for albums that dont get too near 0dB.

[numlog]

9 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Is there such a thing as a reputable torrent site ?

Yes.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, numlog said:

13 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Is there such a thing as a reputable torrent site ?

Yes.

 

So their reputation is based on downloading the music you already own ?

[numlog]

Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

So there reputation is based on downloading the music you already own ?

No.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, numlog said:

9 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

So there reputation is based on downloading the music you already own ?

No.

 

So their reputation is based on downloading music you don't own ?

[Summit]

40 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Is there such a thing as a reputable torrent site ?

 

Maybe but perhaps not legal ?

[Rexp]

16/44 is fine, I have achieved great sound from such recordings...on vinyl. Hi res is a distraction IMO.

[tmtomh]

3 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Is there such a thing as a reputable torrent site ?

 

Putting aside the legal and ethical considerations and focusing on what I presume was the thrust of your question, the answer is Yes. There are some major private torrent sites with 10s of thousands of members, which have very specific rules about ripping logs - including automated log-checkers that can tell if a log has been modified by the uploader.

 

So the sites are reputable in that, aside from the occasional human error in identifying the year of release or a specific pressing, the rips they have are indeed from the actual CDs they claim to be from.

[Musicophile]

My rather useless 2 cents to the topic: there is quite a bit of music that I find unlistenable on my system. However, it’s got nothing to do with the file format but all with the music itself: e.g most of reggae, most of the top 20 of the last 15 years, everything One Republic has ever recorded, etc etc. 

 

I believe I do hear a bit of a difference especially on my headphone setup which is pretty decent between Highres and red book, and do buy a lot of highres, but music always comes first.

 

I’d rather have only early 1950 Karajan in mono coming from an MP3 128 played on above mentioned Sponge Bob radio than let’s say the complete collection of Justin Timberlake in DSD 512 played over Magico Ultimates. 

 

But that’s just me, a silly music lover. 

[jabbr]

10 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. 

Really? At DXD vs DSD128/DSD256 I have a hard time distinguishing. Do you have a specific tape transfer that highlights a difference? Note that I upconvert everything to DSD512 regardless.

[tmtomh]

RE the core issue of the thread: Personally, I have found SACD to sound modestly different, and better, than redbook CD at times. I often have wondered if SACD's PWM encoding and its rather aggressive noise-shaping vs CD's PCM encoding and less aggressive noise-shaping is responsible for the difference.

 

But the situation is complicated by the fact that hybrid SACDs don't always have the same mastering on their CD and SACD layers - sometimes they do and sometimes they don't, and it's not always possible to know by reading the production credits in the booklet.

 

Another issue, from what I understand, is that SACD 0.0 peak is defined as 50% PCM modulation (aka -6dB PCM), but some SACDs have peaks that exceed this level, and sometimes if the redbook layer of a hybrid disc is a downconverted version of the SACD layer (or of the DSD master), there can be some peak-limiting introduced by that process. I've seen waveforms from hybrid SACDs where the CD layer is louder and has some digital clipping or at peak limiting.

 

And then there's the question of the production chain. You can have analogue tape to DSD, and then SACD and CD layers from that. Or you can have analogue to PCM master (or just a PCM recording to begin with), then conversion of that master to DSD and a separate conversion (downsampling) of that master for CD. Heck, you can even have a DSD recording that got converted to PCM for editing/mastering, then back to DSD for the SACD, and then again back to PCM for the CD layer. So the sonics of the SACD layer vs the CD layer might also depend on whether the digital master began life as a DSD or PCM source, and what (if any) DSD-PCM or PCM-DSD conversions happened during mastering and production.

 

All of which is to say, I am far from certain that when I hear subtle improvements on SACD vs CD, that it's due to the format itself - I am not sure if it's due to different mastering, sub-optimal DSD-to-redbook conversion, or intermediate DSD-PCM conversion steps.

 

As for redbook PCM vs high-res PCM, I am certainly open to the idea that the two can sound different. If you load up high-res and redbook versions of the identical mastering in an audio editor and try to null them out - for example by downsampling or upsampling one to match its resolution with the other, then inverting one and mixing them together - you will often find that the differences between them are more audible, and sound a lot more like music, than one would expect.

 

But to say that one version sounds better than the other - I would urge extreme caution there. For example, if you take a 24/96 PCM original and downsample and dither it to redbook 16/44.1, you often will find that the redbook version reads as slightly more dynamic on the DR meter - because the downsampling and dithering slightly randomize the peaks. (The same is true for mp3s or AACs produced from lossless redbook PCM, btw).

 

Similarly, if you downsample a high-res source to redbook using different filters, you will find that the various redbook results will sound slightly different than each other - which to my mind supports the idea that it's the filtering, not the bit depth (noise level) itself that really makes most of the audible difference.

[kumakuma]

51 minutes ago, Musicophile said:

My rather useless 2 cents to the topic: there is quite a bit of music that I find unlistenable on my system. However, it’s got nothing to do with the file format but all with the music itself: e.g most of reggae, most of the top 20 of the last 15 years, everything One Republic has ever recorded, etc etc. 

 

I believe I do hear a bit of a difference especially on my headphone setup which is pretty decent between Highres and red book, and do buy a lot of highres, but music always comes first.

 

I’d rather have only early 1950 Karajan in mono coming from an MP3 128 played on above mentioned Sponge Bob radio than let’s say the complete collection of Justin Timberlake in DSD 512 played over Magico Ultimates. 

 

But that’s just me, a silly music lover. 

 

Couldn't agree more. The music, performance, and recording/mastering quality are so much more important than the resolution.

[tmtomh]

21 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Couldn't agree more. The music, performance, and recording/mastering quality are so much more important than the resolution.

 

Same here. I always find it curious when the response to "how could I get my stereo to sound better" jumps right over room treatments and speakers and goes to "try a different USB cable." Similarly, I find it curious when discussion of album sonics jumps over recording, mixing, and mastering and goes right to 16-bit vs 24-bit and the misguided "low level detail" argument against 16-bit.

[kumakuma]

11 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

Same here. I always find it curious when the response to "how could I get my stereo to sound better" jumps right over room treatments and speakers and goes to "try a different USB cable." Similarly, I find it curious when discussion of album sonics jumps over recording, mixing, and mastering and goes right to 16-bit vs 24-bit and the misguided "low level detail" argument against 16-bit.

 

The expression "Majoring in Minor Things" comes to mind...

[Blackmorec]

On 7/13/2018 at 1:29 PM, 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.

 

 

 

 

Hi Numlog,

Well I’ve got good news for you. If your 16/44.1 is sounding hazy and compressed, you’ve still got some major improvements to make because those results indicate some major shortcoming somewhere.  On a well set up and well optimised system, even Internet Radio should sound very good; accurate and detailed, with a well defined soundstage, excellent focus and plenty of air and acoustic information and above all have very good PRAT and listener involvement.  Redbook CD files streamed or played from a server should sound mostly very good to stunning with very few absolute ‘duds’. 

Remember there are 4 areas that need to be optimised to get exceptional sound from redbook CD files.  

1. Internet supply and streaming network

2. Signal correction and de-noising

3. Digital signal processing

4 Analog amplification and replay

All you need is one area to be off a little and you can lose a lot in terms of SQ.  For example, plugging a SMPS into the same mains supply as the Hi-fi can play havoc with the system’s overall performance. 

If the improvement you make improve hi-res but only serve to highlight redbook shortcomings, you need to look at those areas unique to your redbook files. For example, if you are streaming redbook from the internet and playing hi-res from stored files, you need to make improvements to those areas unique to the redbook data stream. 

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

I often have wondered if SACD's PWM encoding and its rather aggressive noise-shaping vs CD's PCM encoding and less aggressive noise-shaping is responsible for the difference.

 

What are you thinking about “rather aggressive” noise shaping? The implication is that this is a bad thing. Wouldn’t you want to send quantization noise out into the MHz range?

 

Also SACD/DSD/SDM isn’t the same as PWM: pulse width modulation, the pulses are constant width whose width depends on the carrier frequency (50% duty cycle typically)

 

I like to think of this with a nice relatively gentle and high corner slope filter which doesn’t damage/change the audible spectrum. Noise shaping “pushes” the digital quantization noise out further above the audible spectrum and pushes this noise into a spectrum where the filter most effectively removes it.