Popular Post bachish Posted August 21, 2018 Author Popular Post Share Posted August 21, 2018 1 hour ago, pkane2001 said: Here's what my own DeltaWave software as able to determine from about a 2.5 minutes extract from the middle of the recording. The comparison is between the original 88.2Khz/24 bit recording and a downsampled version to 44.1Khz/16bit, then upsampled back to 88.2Khz/24 bit, as described by @bachish (thanks for the files!) By the way, the recording sounds excellent! I also listened to the difference between the two files, which is primarily white noise. I was able to hear occasional notes come through buried in the noise, but only with software digital volume adjusted to about 70dB gain and my DAC set to 0dB (max volume). The files were delivered with the upsampled version with inverted phase. Otherwise, the files match perfectly in level and phase, no phase offset or drift was found. First, a comparison of the spectra of both waveforms. Original 88.2/24 is in blue: The drop off do to downsampling/upsampling starts around 21800Hz at -92dB down. Here's the zoomed in portion where the cut-off starts. You can also see very tiny differences in level due to dither and computational error during resampling: Now the actual waveforms overlaid on top each other: Stats below show excellent correlation between the two: 76dB correlated null and -75dB difference (rms). Spectrum of the difference of the two files. Well below -115dB in the audible range: Spectrogram of the original 88.2/24 file: And spectrogram of the downsampled/upsampled file: Spectrogram of the differences of the two files: Interesting results in the cepstrum analysis of the two files: This shows that the downsampled/resampled file has some ringing/aliasing going on at a number of frequencies that are not present in the original 88.2/24 bit file. Probably the side-effect of the resampling process and filtering applied. I tried to label the main ones. Note that the vertical value (Y axis) is a correlation coefficient. It's an indication of how strong the ringing is in the measured file, while the X coordinate is the frequency at which this ringing was detected. While the artifacts of the resampling process are visible in the Cepstrum plot, they are not at all noticeable in any of the measurements or in listening to the differences between the two files. Super impressive, Paul. And that is your own software, correct? I can see how software like this would be good to test differing settings. There are a lot of options when re-sampling in the particular software I use, Izotope RX. For those of you interested, here is the preset for sampling from 88.2 to 44.1 in Izotope. It would result in some aliasing but my understanding is it results in less ringing. Paul would know more than me on that subject. If desired, you can set an ideal filter with a very steep slope, which results in no aliasing but more ringing. So my understanding is it's basically a balancing act between aliasing and ringing. So I imagine with good software and a reasonable setting, any ringing and aliasing would be kept so soft to render it inaudible. But I am kicking myself right now because I should have saved as a preset the filter I used because that would have been really interesting to compare it to Paul's analysis. If my memory is correct, I used just a bit of a slope and may have caught just a touch of aliasing in high frequencies. So I put it somewhere between the preset and an ideal filter, I am pretty sure. But what is interesting in Paul's analysis is that the amount of difference between the original and resampled version is well below -115 db. This was a question that i was very curious about. My understanding is that -80db below the signal is considered inaudible and covered by the masking effect. Again, I can see how an analysis like this would be helpful to determine settings used, even if just for conscience sake! Someone could spend hours trying different setting and running the results through a program like this. Very cool! What also stands out to me is that the Izotope RX is not outrageously priced ($399 for the standard version I use) and it can perform sample rate conversion that seems to really stand up to analysis. I remember back in the mid 1990s when you had to go to a mastering studio to get a smooth sample rate conversion. I missed the notes under the noise. But then again, I didn't listen to the every portion of the track. Perhaps I should have listened to the whole thing before posting. Again, very cool, Paul! Thank you for taking the time to do this! It is very beneficial. Oh, and thanks for the compliment on the recording! Out of curiosity, do you sell your software? crenca and PeterSt 1 1 Link to comment
bachish Posted August 21, 2018 Author Share Posted August 21, 2018 1 hour ago, pkane2001 said: Here's what my own DeltaWave software as able to determine from about a 2.5 minutes extract from the middle of the recording. The comparison is between the original 88.2Khz/24 bit recording and a downsampled version to 44.1Khz/16bit, then upsampled back to 88.2Khz/24 bit, as described by @bachish (thanks for the files!) By the way, the recording sounds excellent! I also listened to the difference between the two files, which is primarily white noise. I was able to hear occasional notes come through buried in the noise, but only with software digital volume adjusted to about 70dB gain and my DAC set to 0dB (max volume). The files were delivered with the upsampled version with inverted phase. Otherwise, the files match perfectly in level and phase, no phase offset or drift was found. First, a comparison of the spectra of both waveforms. Original 88.2/24 is in blue: The drop off do to downsampling/upsampling starts around 21800Hz at -92dB down. Here's the zoomed in portion where the cut-off starts. You can also see very tiny differences in level due to dither and computational error during resampling: Now the actual waveforms overlaid on top each other: Stats below show excellent correlation between the two: 76dB correlated null and -75dB difference (rms). Spectrum of the difference of the two files. Well below -115dB in the audible range: Spectrogram of the original 88.2/24 file: And spectrogram of the downsampled/upsampled file: Spectrogram of the differences of the two files: Interesting results in the cepstrum analysis of the two files: This shows that the downsampled/resampled file has some ringing/aliasing going on at a number of frequencies that are not present in the original 88.2/24 bit file. Probably the side-effect of the resampling process and filtering applied. I tried to label the main ones. Note that the vertical value (Y axis) is a correlation coefficient. It's an indication of how strong the ringing is in the measured file, while the X coordinate is the frequency at which this ringing was detected. While the artifacts of the resampling process are visible in the Cepstrum plot, they are not at all noticeable in any of the measurements or in listening to the differences between the two files. After I posted, I was looking again at your analysis and a couple questions occurred to me. In the Cepstrum plot, the y axis - I'm curious what measurement that is. Just trying to get a handle on just how loud the ringing is. You mention the level is pretty low, I realize. In the 'Spectrum of the difference of the two files. Well below -115dB in the audible range' the left side of the graph looks like the noise shaping of the dither applied, which would make sense. So essentially, that graph is showing that the difference between the two files is primarily in the dithering and the high frequency content from the original file. Am I reading that correctly? Thanks! Link to comment
Jud Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 7 hours ago, bachish said: My understanding is that -80db below the signal is considered inaudible and covered by the masking effect. If you were trying to hear noise, that's correct. But we're trying to hear music. How much very low level musical detail is the noise masking? (Maybe none, considering the noise level of a typical listening room, but it's the way of conceptualizing noise and masking that I'm thinking of.) One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Popular Post pkane2001 Posted August 21, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted August 21, 2018 8 hours ago, bachish said: Out of curiosity, do you sell your software? Not planning on it. When I'm happy with it, I'll probably make it available for free. jabbr, buonassi and MrMoM 1 2 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
Popular Post pkane2001 Posted August 21, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted August 21, 2018 7 hours ago, bachish said: In the Cepstrum plot, the y axis - I'm curious what measurement that is. Just trying to get a handle on just how loud the ringing is. You mention the level is pretty low, I realize. Cepstrum attempts to find repeating patterns in the frequency domain. The Y axis in the plot is a correlation coefficient. All it's saying is that a relatively higher value has a relatively greater amount of ringing (i.e., the pattern is better defined). It doesn't say anything about the level of ringing. Since it does point to specific frequencies, it might be interesting to see if the magnitude can somehow be dug up from the signal and noise in the frequency domain. Not sure that's possible, but I'll think about it some more 7 hours ago, bachish said: In the 'Spectrum of the difference of the two files. Well below -115dB in the audible range' the left side of the graph looks like the noise shaping of the dither applied, which would make sense. So essentially, that graph is showing that the difference between the two files is primarily in the dithering and the high frequency content from the original file. Am I reading that correctly? Right. Most of the differences are well below -115dB in the frequency domain. But, that represents an average over the measured period. For a time version of the difference plot, here is what it looks like in the time domain: You can see some peaks rising to about 0.02. In dB terms, that represents about -34dB level. But that's just a few peaks. Most of the difference is well below -100dB level. By the way, this is the waveform I listened to to hear the difference. Most of it sounds like noise, with a few very occasional notes coming through. Probably corresponding to some of the peaks in the above plot. So, there is some difference between the files, they are not a perfect match, but they are very, very close. Here's that same difference plot but with all the frequencies above 20KHz removed: MrMoM, semente and bachish 1 2 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 51 minutes ago, Jud said: If you were trying to hear noise, that's correct. But we're trying to hear music. How much very low level musical detail is the noise masking? (Maybe none, considering the noise level of a typical listening room, but it's the way of conceptualizing noise and masking that I'm thinking of.) I turned up the volume 70dB in digital processing, and turned my DAC to 0dB setting to hear the difference file. You'd never listen to a recording like this! There is a lot of static noise with a few musical notes coming through, occasionally. So, yes, there's some information that's in the original file that's not in the resampled one, but it is at a level where it is completely buried by noise. -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
bachish Posted August 21, 2018 Author Share Posted August 21, 2018 3 hours ago, Jud said: If you were trying to hear noise, that's correct. But we're trying to hear music. How much very low level musical detail is the noise masking? (Maybe none, considering the noise level of a typical listening room, but it's the way of conceptualizing noise and masking that I'm thinking of.) I think when talking about noise in these files, we need to realize that -100db is the equivalent to 0.001 % distortion in audio equipment. Highly unlikely we would hear this. MrMoM 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Jud Posted August 21, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted August 21, 2018 I fully agree with what you both are saying. Let me see if I can't also encourage you to think about this in a slightly different way, not necessarily for this particular example, but in general. You're with a friend at a restaurant. She wears a hearing aid. She complains about the noise of conversation at the other tables. You say "It's OK, it's not like we can overhear what they're saying." She replies, "But I'm not worried about overhearing them. They're making it more difficult to hear you." Later, she mentions the A/C coming on and the noise that makes. You say, "But the noise of conversation is louder." She replies, "Yes, but both of them are making it more difficult for me to hear." In other words: I'm encouraging thinking about noise masking music, rather than vice versa, since the music is what we're trying to listen to; and thinking about noise sources as additive, not as one excluding or drowning out another. Now it may well be that in a typical situation, any additional noise from filtering, especially with good software like iZotope, amounts to a fart in a hurricane compared to the noise level in a typical listening room, so though additive, its contribution might be utterly negligible. No problem with that at all. I just want to encourage a mindset that looks at ability to hear musical detail, rather than masking and whether we can notice audible distortion. crenca and semente 1 1 One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
crenca Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Interesting. When the OP transmitted these files to Paul over the Internet, was the EM/RF "noise" of your computer, your ethernet cables and switches/routers, etc. taken into account? Would "audiophile" networking equipment made any difference to any computational analysis? What if you retransmitted these files several times and due to the differing paths these filed traveled over the Internet backbone (as any tracert will tell you), an analysis was done to see the effects these differing routes had? Along these lines, what would happen if you took these files and transmitted them back and forth from your computer to an external HD connected via USB, say 1000, or 10,000, or 10,000,000 times? How would this computational analysis be effected, and would it matter if your USB connections used "Audiophile" USB cables, USB decrapifiers, and differing USB design implementations? PeterSt, barrows and Jud 3 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Jud Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 21 hours ago, Jud said: Right, just wanting us to remember that A/D is the flip side of what goes on in a DAC - first converted from analog to digital with sigma-delta modulation, then (with most ADCs) converted to PCM at 352.8 or internally/externally downsampled to the more common resolutions, 192 or 176.4kHz or below. So even the "hi res original" from the studio is almost always downsampled. Following up on this - Here are some recordings available from NativeDSD, and you can filter your search to come up with only those albums/tracks available in DSD256: https://www.nativedsd.com/new_browse @bachish, @pkane2001, I don't know whether you're able to do the same analysis with one of these tracks, but it would be interesting to see whether a recording that presumably had experienced less processing would show any greater difference to a 44.1kHz resolution downsampled file than the 88.2kHz original you used before. crenca 1 One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
crenca Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 @Jud, on the contrary very on topic. As much as I appreciate what the OP, Paul, have done and your cogent suggested expansion, the fact is most of this analysis has been done before and is (largely) non-controversial and accepted. In Audiophiledom however much is claimed about not only about the integrity of sampling/down-and-up conversations, etc. so much as how all this does not matter because it is over those (realtively) short USB connection (or ethernet, etc.) that all the Audiophile grade endpoints, USB cables, and internal EM/RF "noise" do their thang to the sound (positively or negatively). Suddenly, in this last 10FT or so of digital (analogue of course at the physical layer) transmission the "sound" of various files/connection method suddenly bloom up, including for yourself with whatever cheap USB mod your using currently. There is a rather large disconnect between your faith in your own experience and the faith you are putting in this topics computational analysis because the fact is these files suffered all sorts of EM, RF, poor cables, and other assaults that you claim you "hear" in the last 10ft.... Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Jud Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 10 minutes ago, crenca said: @Jud, on the contrary very on topic. As much as I appreciate what the OP, Paul, have done and your cogent suggested expansion, the fact is most of this analysis has been done before and is (largely) non-controversial and accepted. In Audiophiledom however much is claimed about not only about the integrity of sampling/down-and-up conversations, etc. so much as how all this does not matter because it is over those (realtively) short USB connection (or ethernet, etc.) that all the Audiophile grade endpoints, USB cables, and internal EM/RF "noise" do their thang to the sound (positively or negatively). Suddenly, in this last 10FT or so of digital (analogue of course at the physical layer) the "sound" of various files/connection method suddenly bloom up, including for yourself with whatever cheap USB mod your using currently. There is a rather large disconnect between your faith in your own experience and the faith you are putting in this topics computational analysis because the fact is these files suffered all sorts of EM, RF, poor cables, and other assaults that you claim you "hear" in the last 10ft.... I don't care. I'm just interested in the very nice analysis these two kind folks have done, and looking forward to anything further they're able to do along the same lines. But to save these people the trouble, if you have got a link to the types of measurements they've done, comparing a DSD256 recording and a 44.1kHz downsampled version, that would be great. If including DSD is a problem, there are the 2L comparison tracks that would enable comparative measurements of 352.8 and 44.1kHz files: http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html? jabbr 1 One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
crenca Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, Jud said: I don't care. I'm just interested in the very nice analysis these two kind folks have done, and looking forward to anything further they're able to do along the same lines. But to save these people the trouble, if you have got a link to the types of measurements they've done, comparing a DSD256 recording and a 44.1kHz downsampled version, that would be great. If including DSD is a problem, there are the 2L comparison tracks that would enable comparative measurements of 352.8 and 44.1kHz files: http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html? I care ? Another thought: during the recording, downloading, resampling, and analysis of these files on the OP's and Paul's computer(s), these files were transmitted back and forth from memory to HD(s) countless times. Yet, no "audiophile" grade cables or decrapifiers were involved (unless the OP and Paul wan't to correct me about the internals of their computers). The assault from the EM/RF inside these computers on the files in question can hardly be imagined. Clearly, their results are mere objectivist dreams... ? PeterSt and barrows 2 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Jud Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Just now, crenca said: The assault from the EM/RF inside these computers on the files in question can hardly be imagined. On the contrary, its analog is experienced in all the threads polluted by fruitless debates. It would be so very nice to keep this thread free of that sort of thing. crenca 1 One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
crenca Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 6 minutes ago, Jud said: On the contrary, its analog is experienced in all the threads polluted by fruitless debates. It would be so very nice to keep this thread free of that sort of thing. Pot, black, etc. from you especially. The OP can speak to rather he would like to discuss the "final 10ft" to DAC and is the usual audiophile claim that it is here (in this final 10 ft) that the differences between files suddenly become audible and obvious, at least to "audiophiles"... Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
semente Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 3 hours ago, crenca said: I care ? Another thought: during the recording, downloading, resampling, and analysis of these files on the OP's and Paul's computer(s), these files were transmitted back and forth from memory to HD(s) countless times. Yet, no "audiophile" grade cables or decrapifiers were involved (unless the OP and Paul wan't to correct me about the internals of their computers). The assault from the EM/RF inside these computers on the files in question can hardly be imagined. Clearly, their results are mere objectivist dreams... ? My knowledge is very limited but from what I have read the problem is not when transferring the digital data around but in the data stream which leaves the music playing/processing software to the DAC. If this is correct, what are the differences between moving data around and that stream which is fed to the DAC? buonassi 1 "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
bachish Posted August 21, 2018 Author Share Posted August 21, 2018 8 hours ago, pkane2001 said: Cepstrum attempts to find repeating patterns in the frequency domain. The Y axis in the plot is a correlation coefficient. All it's saying is that a relatively higher value has a relatively greater amount of ringing (i.e., the pattern is better defined). It doesn't say anything about the level of ringing. Since it does point to specific frequencies, it might be interesting to see if the magnitude can somehow be dug up from the signal and noise in the frequency domain. Not sure that's possible, but I'll think about it some more Right. Most of the differences are well below -115dB in the frequency domain. But, that represents an average over the measured period. For a time version of the difference plot, here is what it looks like in the time domain: You can see some peaks rising to about 0.02. In dB terms, that represents about -34dB level. But that's just a few peaks. Most of the difference is well below -100dB level. By the way, this is the waveform I listened to to hear the difference. Most of it sounds like noise, with a few very occasional notes coming through. Probably corresponding to some of the peaks in the above plot. So, there is some difference between the files, they are not a perfect match, but they are very, very close. Here's that same difference plot but with all the frequencies above 20KHz removed: OK, thank you for the more detailed information. It would be interesting to fine tune the conversion settings to see if those larger spikes couldn't be tamed. barrows 1 Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 3 hours ago, Jud said: Following up on this - Here are some recordings available from NativeDSD, and you can filter your search to come up with only those albums/tracks available in DSD256: https://www.nativedsd.com/new_browse @bachish, @pkane2001, I don't know whether you're able to do the same analysis with one of these tracks, but it would be interesting to see whether a recording that presumably had experienced less processing would show any greater difference to a 44.1kHz resolution downsampled file than the 88.2kHz original you used before. Sorry, Jud, no DSD support in DeltaWave It took me a while to code WAV and FLAC file support, until I found a library that could do it all for me. No DSD support, so it would have to be converted to PCM before I can process it and that would probably negate any analysis of the very low level details. Why do you think that DSD captures would be subject to less processing than PCM that @bachish captured and processed himself? -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
pkane2001 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 4 hours ago, crenca said: Interesting. When the OP transmitted these files to Paul over the Internet, was the EM/RF "noise" of your computer, your ethernet cables and switches/routers, etc. taken into account? Would "audiophile" networking equipment made any difference to any computational analysis? @crenca, I didn't realize your name was Alex??? PeterSt 1 -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
Popular Post bachish Posted August 21, 2018 Author Popular Post Share Posted August 21, 2018 5 hours ago, Jud said: I fully agree with what you both are saying. Let me see if I can't also encourage you to think about this in a slightly different way, not necessarily for this particular example, but in general. You're with a friend at a restaurant. She wears a hearing aid. She complains about the noise of conversation at the other tables. You say "It's OK, it's not like we can overhear what they're saying." She replies, "But I'm not worried about overhearing them. They're making it more difficult to hear you." Later, she mentions the A/C coming on and the noise that makes. You say, "But the noise of conversation is louder." She replies, "Yes, but both of them are making it more difficult for me to hear." In other words: I'm encouraging thinking about noise masking music, rather than vice versa, since the music is what we're trying to listen to; and thinking about noise sources as additive, not as one excluding or drowning out another. Now it may well be that in a typical situation, any additional noise from filtering, especially with good software like iZotope, amounts to a fart in a hurricane compared to the noise level in a typical listening room, so though additive, its contribution might be utterly negligible. No problem with that at all. I just want to encourage a mindset that looks at ability to hear musical detail, rather than masking and whether we can notice audible distortion. Ok, I see what you are saying. You'd like the perspective to be reversed. In other words, let's not talk about masking the distortion or artifacts with music but how much music is masked by the noise. Its a fair point. One thing that is rather cool in digital music, and you very well may know about it, is how one type of digital distortion, quantization distortion from truncating from higher bit depth to 16 bits, does actually block music at very low levels. There is a way to swap the quantization distortion with white noise (dither) which obscures the music far less. In fact, you can hear the music through the dither but not through the quantization distortion. The white noise is then shaped so it is not as noticable (moved to higher and lower frequencies where the ear is less sensitive). So in a way, this is looking at distortion and noise from the kind of perspective you ar talking about, i.e. what masks the music less. So yes, I definitely think there is a place to think about distortion and noise masking music as you say. semente and Jud 1 1 Link to comment
bachish Posted August 21, 2018 Author Share Posted August 21, 2018 4 hours ago, crenca said: Interesting. When the OP transmitted these files to Paul over the Internet, was the EM/RF "noise" of your computer, your ethernet cables and switches/routers, etc. taken into account? Would "audiophile" networking equipment made any difference to any computational analysis? What if you retransmitted these files several times and due to the differing paths these filed traveled over the Internet backbone (as any tracert will tell you), an analysis was done to see the effects these differing routes had? Along these lines, what would happen if you took these files and transmitted them back and forth from your computer to an external HD connected via USB, say 1000, or 10,000, or 10,000,000 times? How would this computational analysis be effected, and would it matter if your USB connections used "Audiophile" USB cables, USB decrapifiers, and differing USB design implementations? I have to admit, you did make me chuckle. Point well made, though, in a somewhat smart @$$ way. Haha Link to comment
mansr Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 14 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: Sorry, Jud, no DSD support in DeltaWave It took me a while to code WAV and FLAC file support, until I found a library that could do it all for me. No DSD support, so it would have to be converted to PCM before I can process it and that would probably negate any analysis of the very low level details. Shouldn't be difficult to add DSD support. What library are you using? Libsndfile or something else? This is off-topic here, but feel free to contact me by PM or email if you'd like to discuss it further. Link to comment
bachish Posted August 21, 2018 Author Share Posted August 21, 2018 4 hours ago, Jud said: Following up on this - Here are some recordings available from NativeDSD, and you can filter your search to come up with only those albums/tracks available in DSD256: https://www.nativedsd.com/new_browse @bachish, @pkane2001, I don't know whether you're able to do the same analysis with one of these tracks, but it would be interesting to see whether a recording that presumably had experienced less processing would show any greater difference to a 44.1kHz resolution downsampled file than the 88.2kHz original you used before. It would be interesting to try it with DSD. DSDis a different way to capture the analog signal (super high sample rates at 1 bit) so the math would be different. My understanding is that, unlike the past, editing can be done in DSD without converting it to PCM. Unfortunately, I dont have any DSD software. Otherwise, I would be curious to at least try a null test. Link to comment
bachish Posted August 21, 2018 Author Share Posted August 21, 2018 4 hours ago, Jud said: I don't care. I'm just interested in the very nice analysis these two kind folks have done, and looking forward to anything further they're able to do along the same lines. But to save these people the trouble, if you have got a link to the types of measurements they've done, comparing a DSD256 recording and a 44.1kHz downsampled version, that would be great. If including DSD is a problem, there are the 2L comparison tracks that would enable comparative measurements of 352.8 and 44.1kHz files: http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html? Thank you, Jud! Interesting. I'll have to check these out. Thanks. Link to comment
Jud Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 39 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: Why do you think that DSD captures would be subject to less processing than PCM that @bachish captured and processed himself? Hi Paul - I was thinking to capture the recording at an earlier stage of the A/D process. The way I understand the files from NativeDSD originate and are edited (@bmoura and @tailspn will know more), during editing either only the portions being edited or the entire file would be converted from sigma-delta modulated format to PCM for some operations, then the relevant portions or the entire file would be converted with a modulator to DSD256 format, and no additional conversions/decimation would have been done. Or with the 2L files, the "DXD" (352.8kHz) files would have come from the ADC already converted in their entirety to PCM, edited in that format, and no further conversions/decimation done from there. This would be in contrast to an 88.2kHz file, which I believe would have to be decimated from some higher PCM resolution. If all this is correct (and I'm not certain it is), then I'd be interested to know whether there's much (if any) more difference between one of these files and a 44.1kHz version, versus the 88.2kHz/44.1kHz comparison. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now