Null test 88.2/24 and 44.1/16

[crenca]

1 hour ago, semente said:

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?

 

40 minutes ago, bachish said:

I have to admit, you did make me chuckle. Point well made, though, in a somewhat smart @$$ way. Haha

 

 

 

What I find interesting about your analysis @bachish is not your results, but how expected and non-controversial it is.  The core "debate" about digital audio has largely sidestepped and ignored the robustness and repeatability of digital, really by itself, before you even append the qualifier "audio" on the more engineering oriented and computational side of things.  How could they not, for 1+1=2 is what it is, and is as certain as it is banal.  Like you point out and demonstrate, this modern software gives us near "perfect" results, trivial changes to the audio band, etc. etc.

 

However, there is this very large space where there is a debate about the last 10ft - what happens to digital once it is transmitted from what suddenly becomes a very noisy and influential desktop/laptop, through USB (or ethernet or whatever) to a DAC, which despite being a computer itself at least on the front digital side (i.e is a computer itself) is somehow in unexplained terms influenced by all these other factors that did not matter up until this point.  So you have a whole industry of "audiophile" computer gear that ostensibly solves these problems.

 

In any case this is your thread and I will honor your wishes, I just thought your efforts points to certain insights concerning this other "debate", the "sound" of digital which large numbers of Audiophiles claim they here which is apart from the formats (i.e. PCM of any sample rate, lossy vs bit perfect, etc. etc.)...

[mansr]

1 hour ago, bachish said:

It would be interesting to try it with DSD. DSD is a different way to capture the analog signal (super high sample rates at 1 bit) so the math would be different. 

Creating the DSD stream requires some additional maths, the sigma-delta modulator, but once that is done, the analysis is no different from regular PCM. 

 

1 hour ago, bachish said:

My understanding is that, unlike the past, editing can be done in DSD without converting it to PCM. 

Some software can do simple operations like splicing without converting the whole stream to PCM and back. Mixing, or even a simple volume adjustment, is impossible to do directly in DSD.

 

1 hour ago, bachish said:

Unfortunately, I dont have any DSD software. Otherwise, I would be curious to at least try a null test.

That's not possible. Each sample in a DSD stream can have one of two values, 1 or -1. The difference between two such samples can have four values. You can compute the difference, but it won't be DSD.

[bachish]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

 

What I find interesting about your analysis @bachish is not your results, but how expected and non-controversial it is.  The core "debate" about digital audio has largely sidestepped and ignored the robustness and repeatability of digital, really by itself, before you even append the qualifier "audio" on the more engineering oriented and computational side of things.  How could they not, for 1+1=2 is what it is, and is as certain as it is banal.  Like you point out and demonstrate, this modern software gives us near "perfect" results, trivial changes to the audio band, etc. etc.

 

However, there is this very large space where there is a debate about the last 10ft - what happens to digital once it is transmitted from what suddenly becomes a very noisy and influential desktop/laptop, through USB (or ethernet or whatever) to a DAC, which despite being a computer itself at least on the front digital side (i.e is a computer itself) is somehow in unexplained terms influenced by all these other factors that did not matter up until this point.  So you have a whole industry of "audiophile" computer gear that ostensibly solves these problems.

 

In any case this is your thread and I will honor your wishes, I just thought your efforts points to certain insights concerning this other "debate", the "sound" of digital which large numbers of Audiophiles claim they here which is apart from the formats (i.e. PCM of any sample rate, lossy vs bit perfect, etc. etc.)...

 

I didn't mean to come off as critical, crenca when I said your post was 'smart @$$'.  It was said more in humor!  I'm pretty 'live and let live'.

 

You do have good points.  I hadn't thought of how this little test would also pertain to the current debates amoung audiophiles.  And I admit I am not up on all the current debates or concerns in audiophile circles regarding digital audio so it is educational to read what you posted. My reading and online posting is more in the recording circles where, in some ways at least, things are less complicated (not that recording isn't complex). But you plug your AD/DA converter in and off you go. You use standard cables by Canare or Mogami, or similar such brands. Most of the big debates, in my experience, have to do with microphone placement.  The integrity of audio files as they pass through digital cables and get processed in the computer seems to be assumed in recording circles. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bachish]

59 minutes ago, mansr said:

Creating the DSD stream requires some additional maths, the sigma-delta modulator, but once that is done, the analysis is no different from regular PCM. 

 

Some software can do simple operations like splicing without converting the whole stream to PCM and back. Mixing, or even a simple volume adjustment, is impossible to do directly in DSD.

 

That's not possible. Each sample in a DSD stream can have one of two values, 1 or -1. The difference between two such samples can have four values. You can compute the difference, but it won't be DSD.

Ok good info. 

 

For a test betwen DSD and 44/16 I was thinking one could convert DSD to PCM 96/32 then downsample and dither to 44/16 and back up again to 96/32 and finally to DSD and see how it compared to the original file. 

 

My hypothesis is...it probably would compare quite well to the original in the audible range much like this test did.

[bmoura]

4 hours ago, Jud said:

 

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.

 

 

 

In some cases DXD (24 bit, 352.8 kHz PCM) is used at splice points to bring together DSD recorded music.  Or to do more extensive processing of DSD recorded sessions. 

 

In other cases, like the Eudora recording of Confluences with Pianist Josep Colom, there is no PCM processing used.

As Producer and Recording Engineer Gonzalo Noque describes in a blog post on the recording and preparation of that album:

 

Quote

To bring you the full benefit of this native DSD 256 recording, all the DSD files for Confluences at the NativeDSD Music store use DSD rendering from the master DSD 256fs Stereo and Surround Sound recording.  No DXD conversions, balancing and processing are present on this release. 

I hope you will enjoy the music!

Gonzalo Noqué

 

http://blog.nativedsd.com/gonzalo-noque-introduces-confluences/

https://eudora.nativedsd.com/albums/EUDDR1703-confluences-bach-chopin

 

[Jud]

10 hours ago, bachish said:

 The integrity of audio files as they pass through digital cables and get processed in the computer seems to be assumed in recording circles. 

 

There are a few folks in recording circles who fuss about such things, but they are definitely outliers. 

[Jud]

9 hours ago, bachish said:

 

My hypothesis is...it probably would compare quite well to the original in the audible range much like this test did.

 

I personally have little doubt of it, but I'm curious to see whether there's any difference, and if so, where. 

[mansr]

10 hours ago, bachish said:

Ok good info. 

 

For a test betwen DSD and 44/16 I was thinking one could convert DSD to PCM 96/32 then downsample and dither to 44/16 and back up again to 96/32 and finally to DSD and see how it compared to the original file. 

 

My hypothesis is...it probably would compare quite well to the original in the audible range much like this test did.

I have software that can be made to compare DSD files. If someone suggests a freely available source file in DSD format, I'll be happy to run the test.

[cookiemarenco]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

I have software that can be made to compare DSD files. If someone suggests a freely available source file in DSD format, I'll be happy to run the test.

 

We have a "Test your systems" page for free downloads.  One song, 4 formats.  It's free.  The source file is DSD256 recorded to DSD256 and no conversion to PCM / DXD for the DSD256.  The other DSD, WAV, FLAC files were made from the DSD256.

 

Here's the link at Blue Coast Music

https://bluecoastmusic.com/free-downloads

 

I recorded it so I'm familiar with the processes used if you have any questions.

BTW..  we have found ways to keep the editing process in DSD on the Pyramix.  It involves mixing through an analog mixing console.  Sounds great.

 

Enjoy!

Cookie Marenco

founder and producer

Blue Coast Records (produces and owns music) and Music (store for all high resolution labels)

https://bluecoastmusic.com/

 

 

 

[bachish]

7 hours ago, Jud said:

 

There are a few folks in recording circles who fuss about such things, but they are definitely outliers. 

 

Ok, interesting. I suppose it isn't too hard to test. I could take an original recording that is on the SD card in my field recorder that hasn't been transfered yet, upload it to the computer, load it into programs and export over and over, transfer between external hard drives, many times, and upload and download from OneDrive several times. 

 

I could then take it, flip the phase and load it into my DAW and load, just one time, the original from the SD card into the DAW and see if they null. Would be interesting.

 

 

 

 

[bachish]

4 hours ago, cookiemarenco said:

 

We have a "Test your systems" page for free downloads.  One song, 4 formats.  It's free.  The source file is DSD256 recorded to DSD256 and no conversion to PCM / DXD for the DSD256.  The other DSD, WAV, FLAC files were made from the DSD256.

 

Here's the link at Blue Coast Music

https://bluecoastmusic.com/free-downloads

 

I recorded it so I'm familiar with the processes used if you have any questions.

BTW..  we have found ways to keep the editing process in DSD on the Pyramix.  It involves mixing through an analog mixing console.  Sounds great.

 

Enjoy!

Cookie Marenco

founder and producer

Blue Coast Records (produces and owns music) and Music (store for all high resolution labels)

https://bluecoastmusic.com/

 

 

 

 

Thank you, Cookie! I'll check it out 

[Jud]

Just now, bachish said:

 

Ok, interesting. I suppose it isn't too hard to test. I could take an original recording that is on the SD card in my field recorder that hasn't been transfered yet, upload it to the computer, load it into programs and export over and over, transfer between external hard drives, many times, and upload and download from OneDrive several times. 

 

I could then take it, flip the phase and load it into my DAW and load, just one time, the original from the SD card into the DAW and see if they null. Would be interesting.

 

 

And/or you could ask Cookie.   

 

Whether I agree with what she thinks on various matters (bearing in mind she's an experienced producer, I'm just some guy), I really like the quality of the recordings she produces. 

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, bachish said:

 

Ok, interesting. I suppose it isn't too hard to test. I could take an original recording that is on the SD card in my field recorder that hasn't been transfered yet, upload it to the computer, load it into programs and export over and over, transfer between external hard drives, many times, and upload and download from OneDrive several times. 

 

I could then take it, flip the phase and load it into my DAW and load, just one time, the original from the SD card into the DAW and see if they null. Would be interesting.

 

 

What is the cabling/bus tech of your "field recorder" (i.e. how does it connect to your computer)?  USB?  

 

Much of the Audiophile debate is centered around the bus tech implementation (USB, etc.) to DAC tech.  I have thought about writing a little batch script that copies an audio file back and forth between my computer through my cheap USB cables and "noisy" USB bus, letting it run for a while (say a month), and then doing an analysis such as yours.  So far I have been too lazy... ?

[bachish]

6 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

And/or you could ask Cookie.   

 

Whether I agree with what she thinks on various matters (bearing in mind she's an experienced producer, I'm just some guy), I really like the quality of the recordings she produces. 

Yes, I'm sure she does excellent work. I'm definitely going to take a listen.

 

You mean ask her to do the test or ask her opinion?

[bachish]

Just now, crenca said:

 

What is the cabling/bus tech of your "field recorder" (i.e. how does it connect to your computer)?  USB?  

 

Much of the Audiophile debate is centered around the bus tech implementation (USB, etc.) to DAC tech.  I have thought about writing a little batch script that copies an audio file back and forth between my computer through my cheap USB cables and "noisy" USB bus, letting it run for a while (say a month), and then doing an analysis such as yours.  So far I have been too lazy... ?

 

Yep, I just connect it with a regular 'ol USB cable. The cable from my ADC is just a $30 Cambridge Soundworks digital interconnect. 

 

But even if someone objects to the USB cable, it would be the same for the whole test so it shouldn't matter I would think.  The file that is transfered the most on that cable should be more corrupted than the one that is transfered only once. At least that is what I am thinking. If the files null, then there are no problems. If it doesn't null then we know there's a problem but won't know where it originates.

 

Your way sounds more sophisticated than mine.  

[Jud]

14 minutes ago, bachish said:

Yes, I'm sure she does excellent work. I'm definitely going to take a listen.

 

You mean ask her to do the test or ask her opinion?

 

The various things she thinks make a difference to eventual sound quality.

[crenca]

28 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

The various things she thinks make a difference to eventual sound quality.

 

If I recall correctly, and @cookiemarenco can chime in herself of course and correct/confirm me, she believes she hears a difference between WAV and the same file encoded to FLAC.  @bachish, this belief I would argue would be an "audiophile" assertion, because those who know the math behind FLAC encoding will tell you that there is no difference (i.e. perfect, not just near perfect, null).  Someone then mentions the computational overhead necessary to decode a FLAC encoding vs. a WAV file and your off to the audiophile races about what can or can not be "'heard" in a digital file...

[bachish]

3 hours ago, crenca said:

 

If I recall correctly, and @cookiemarenco can chime in herself of course and correct/confirm me, she believes she hears a difference between WAV and the same file encoded to FLAC.  @bachish, this belief I would argue would be an "audiophile" assertion, because those who know the math behind FLAC encoding will tell you that there is no difference (i.e. perfect, not just near perfect, null).  Someone then mentions the computational overhead necessary to decode a FLAC encoding vs. a WAV file and your off to the audiophile races about what can or can not be "'heard" in a digital file...

 

Hmmm, extra computational overhead effects the sound...I'm pretty sure computers excell at computation. 

[bachish]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

The various things she thinks make a difference to eventual sound quality.

 

I would be interested in her recording techniques. I need to listen to her recordings...

[cookiemarenco]

5 hours ago, crenca said:

 

If I recall correctly, and @cookiemarenco can chime in herself of course and correct/confirm me, she believes she hears a difference between WAV and the same file encoded to FLAC.  @bachish, this belief I would argue would be an "audiophile" assertion, because those who know the math behind FLAC encoding will tell you that there is no difference (i.e. perfect, not just near perfect, null).  Someone then mentions the computational overhead necessary to decode a FLAC encoding vs. a WAV file and your off to the audiophile races about what can or can not be "'heard" in a digital file...

 

Hello and thank you for the mention, 

 

First I'd like to mention that I applaud anyone buying music, especially in high resolution and disc format.  Streaming rate payouts will never support a robust ecosystem of varying music genres.  We want to support you all and the format of your choice.  What ever works best for you, in your listening situation and to fit your budget.  Your continuing enjoyment of music helps support us making new music.  Thank you.

 

Math vs listening tests.... Arguments that could arise from our differences are not often understood by the main stream music listener and even professional audio engineers.  I've been in the pro audio side of thing since opening a commercial facility in 1982.  I left active participation with pro audio to create an audiophile music label in 2007.  99% of the professional audio community is still recording in 44.1/24 or 16 bits.  99% of the music we receive for evaluation, mixing and mastering arrives as 44.1 files.  If you ask 99% of the record labels (and I include the major labels here) for the multitrack masters or even the final mixes pre mastering...  you'll get a look of horror.  They don't know where they are.  This is a tragedy. 

 

I suspect the thought of learning something new or managing large files or spending more money on gear during a time when audio engineering jobs and commercial studios are dying off and labels going out of business, is not really a pleasant consideration.

 

What and how we listen is a personal decision.  When I'm at home and in my office, I listen to youtube, CDs, SACDs, and DSD.. depends on my mood and what I'm doing.  I listen to the baseball games on a 20 year old transistor Sony radio, by the way.

 

What I record to is a different story.  I record to 2" tape and DSD256, no PCM.  If you have more questions, feel free to ask.

 

Do we hear the difference between FLAC and WAV?  yes.  We have repeated this test dozens of times, blindfolded and can teach people how to hear the difference.  Do we hear the difference between the conversion of various levels of FLAC?  Yes, and we optimize our conversions to create the best sounding FLAC.  Do we hear the difference between a FLAC made from a DSD256 and from WAV?  Yes.  Do we hear differences in USB and Ethernet cables?  Yes... for another discussion.

 

In the early 80's we were beta testers for the first digital audio workstations.  Part of my job was to do rigorous listening tests.  For more than 30 years I've been paid by dozens of audio manufacturers (both pro and consumer) to test their gear.  We got started in this because we complained about digital audio conversions.  When engineers discovered we were right, they hired us to test.  

 

But hey, if you want to believe the math, that's cool.    I wanted to believe the math when I started distributing downloads in 2008.  We were told that FLAC sounded the same.  Sure, the files would be smaller, easier to download, cost less to host, etc.  But, before we hosted hundreds of FLAC files, I suggested we do comparative listening tests. As the owner of the business, FLAC was a more financially advantageous file to deliver.

 

My "oh s*&t" moment came when we heard the difference.  WAV sounded better.  We couldn't lie to our customers about what we heard.  It's not a big difference but we heard it... test after test after test. It was going to cost more money to deliver WAV but we promised our customers the best files we could deliver at the time... and we still do.

 

Bottomline... we sell the FLAC, DSD and WAV... we sell all formats available to us at Blue Coast Music.  Buy what makes you happy.  Math?  I love math.  But ...... 

 

This has been a great article.  I'm going to submit it to DSD-Guide.com where you can read more about the tests we do and why.

https://dsd-guide.com

 

Enjoy your listening and support your favorite musicians, 

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Music

https://bluecoastmusic.com

 

[cookiemarenco]

3 hours ago, bachish said:

 

I would be interested in her recording techniques. I need to listen to her recordings...

 

Sure!  What do you want to know?  I've moved to smaller, chamber acoustic recordings that are live in the studio without headphones or overdubs.  Much harder than having unlimited tracks, isolated rooms and control over the sound and performances.  

 

I don't mix in the box (computer).. instead I run through an analog mixing console.  Have great stories about recording Ladysmith Black Mambazo, Charlie Haden and Quartet West,  Max Roach...  what do you want to know? 

 

Thanks for asking

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Music

https://bluecoastmusic.com

 

[bibo01]

34 minutes ago, cookiemarenco said:

 

Hello and thank you for the mention, 

 

First I'd like to mention that I applaud anyone buying music, especially in high resolution and disc format.  Streaming rate payouts will never support a robust ecosystem of varying music genres.  We want to support you all and the format of your choice.  What ever works best for you, in your listening situation and to fit your budget.  Your continuing enjoyment of music helps support us making new music.  Thank you.

 

Math vs listening tests.... Arguments that could arise from our differences are not often understood by the main stream music listener and even professional audio engineers.  I've been in the pro audio side of thing since opening a commercial facility in 1982.  I left active participation with pro audio to create an audiophile music label in 2007.  99% of the professional audio community is still recording in 44.1/24 or 16 bits.  99% of the music we receive for evaluation, mixing and mastering arrives as 44.1 files.  If you ask 99% of the record labels (and I include the major labels here) for the multitrack masters or even the final mixes pre mastering...  you'll get a look of horror.  They don't know where they are.  This is a tragedy. 

 

I suspect the thought of learning something new or managing large files or spending more money on gear during a time when audio engineering jobs and commercial studios are dying off and labels going out of business, is not really a pleasant consideration.

 

What and how we listen is a personal decision.  When I'm at home and in my office, I listen to youtube, CDs, SACDs, and DSD.. depends on my mood and what I'm doing.  I listen to the baseball games on a 20 year old transistor Sony radio, by the way.

 

What I record to is a different story.  I record to 2" tape and DSD256, no PCM.  If you have more questions, feel free to ask.

 

Do we hear the difference between FLAC and WAV?  yes.  We have repeated this test dozens of times, blindfolded and can teach people how to hear the difference.  Do we hear the difference between the conversion of various levels of FLAC?  Yes, and we optimize our conversions to create the best sounding FLAC.  Do we hear the difference between a FLAC made from a DSD256 and from WAV?  Yes.  Do we hear differences in USB and Ethernet cables?  Yes... for another discussion.

 

In the early 80's we were beta testers for the first digital audio workstations.  Part of my job was to do rigorous listening tests.  For more than 30 years I've been paid by dozens of audio manufacturers (both pro and consumer) to test their gear.  We got started in this because we complained about digital audio conversions.  When engineers discovered we were right, they hired us to test.  

 

But hey, if you want to believe the math, that's cool.    I wanted to believe the math when I started distributing downloads in 2008.  We were told that FLAC sounded the same.  Sure, the files would be smaller, easier to download, cost less to host, etc.  But, before we hosted hundreds of FLAC files, I suggested we do comparative listening tests. As the owner of the business, FLAC was a more financially advantageous file to deliver.

 

My "oh s*&t" moment came when we heard the difference.  WAV sounded better.  We couldn't lie to our customers about what we heard.  It's not a big difference but we heard it... test after test after test. It was going to cost more money to deliver WAV but we promised our customers the best files we could deliver at the time... and we still do.

 

Bottomline... we sell the FLAC, DSD and WAV... we sell all formats available to us at Blue Coast Music.  Buy what makes you happy.  Math?  I love math.  But ...... 

 

This has been a great article.  I'm going to submit it to DSD-Guide.com where you can read more about the tests we do and why.

https://dsd-guide.com

 

Enjoy your listening and support your favorite musicians, 

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Music

https://bluecoastmusic.com

 

Thanks for your participation to CA.

Could you please teach us how to listen for differences between FLAC and WAV?

BTW, do you find AIFF and WAV sounding the same? 

[PeterSt]

9 hours ago, crenca said:

Much of the Audiophile debate is centered around the bus tech implementation (USB, etc.) to DAC tech.  I have thought about writing a little batch script that copies an audio file back and forth between my computer through my cheap USB cables and "noisy" USB bus, letting it run for a while (say a month), and then doing an analysis such as yours.  So far I have been too lazy... ?

 

Are you now serious or are you the biggest hidden troll ever ?

As you may have noticed, yesterday I down-voted a couple of your posts (to off-topic) but I now start to believe you are serious with this.

Tbh I like to see you in a huge sarcasm role. But if that is your act, this now went too far (you are now fooling people with good intentions with it).

 

Btw, this is not related whatsoever to what Cookie is pleaing (with my notice that she now leaves out the transfer of the file in FLAC vs WAV (or I missed it) - which is a good thing).

[bachish]

2 hours ago, cookiemarenco said:

 

Hello and thank you for the mention, 

 

First I'd like to mention that I applaud anyone buying music, especially in high resolution and disc format.  Streaming rate payouts will never support a robust ecosystem of varying music genres.  We want to support you all and the format of your choice.  What ever works best for you, in your listening situation and to fit your budget.  Your continuing enjoyment of music helps support us making new music.  Thank you.

 

Math vs listening tests.... Arguments that could arise from our differences are not often understood by the main stream music listener and even professional audio engineers.  I've been in the pro audio side of thing since opening a commercial facility in 1982.  I left active participation with pro audio to create an audiophile music label in 2007.  99% of the professional audio community is still recording in 44.1/24 or 16 bits.  99% of the music we receive for evaluation, mixing and mastering arrives as 44.1 files.  If you ask 99% of the record labels (and I include the major labels here) for the multitrack masters or even the final mixes pre mastering...  you'll get a look of horror.  They don't know where they are.  This is a tragedy. 

 

I suspect the thought of learning something new or managing large files or spending more money on gear during a time when audio engineering jobs and commercial studios are dying off and labels going out of business, is not really a pleasant consideration.

 

What and how we listen is a personal decision.  When I'm at home and in my office, I listen to youtube, CDs, SACDs, and DSD.. depends on my mood and what I'm doing.  I listen to the baseball games on a 20 year old transistor Sony radio, by the way.

 

What I record to is a different story.  I record to 2" tape and DSD256, no PCM.  If you have more questions, feel free to ask.

 

Do we hear the difference between FLAC and WAV?  yes.  We have repeated this test dozens of times, blindfolded and can teach people how to hear the difference.  Do we hear the difference between the conversion of various levels of FLAC?  Yes, and we optimize our conversions to create the best sounding FLAC.  Do we hear the difference between a FLAC made from a DSD256 and from WAV?  Yes.  Do we hear differences in USB and Ethernet cables?  Yes... for another discussion.

 

In the early 80's we were beta testers for the first digital audio workstations.  Part of my job was to do rigorous listening tests.  For more than 30 years I've been paid by dozens of audio manufacturers (both pro and consumer) to test their gear.  We got started in this because we complained about digital audio conversions.  When engineers discovered we were right, they hired us to test.  

 

But hey, if you want to believe the math, that's cool.    I wanted to believe the math when I started distributing downloads in 2008.  We were told that FLAC sounded the same.  Sure, the files would be smaller, easier to download, cost less to host, etc.  But, before we hosted hundreds of FLAC files, I suggested we do comparative listening tests. As the owner of the business, FLAC was a more financially advantageous file to deliver.

 

My "oh s*&t" moment came when we heard the difference.  WAV sounded better.  We couldn't lie to our customers about what we heard.  It's not a big difference but we heard it... test after test after test. It was going to cost more money to deliver WAV but we promised our customers the best files we could deliver at the time... and we still do.

 

Bottomline... we sell the FLAC, DSD and WAV... we sell all formats available to us at Blue Coast Music.  Buy what makes you happy.  Math?  I love math.  But ...... 

 

This has been a great article.  I'm going to submit it to DSD-Guide.com where you can read more about the tests we do and why.

https://dsd-guide.com

 

Enjoy your listening and support your favorite musicians, 

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Music

https://bluecoastmusic.com

 

 

Hi Cookie,  Thank you for the post!

 

I don't know how much you read of the thread but here is the recording we used for the null test to give you an idea of the recordings I do. Excuse the compressed mp3 streaming. 

 

Here is a recording I did of myself on cello,

 

They are just as a point of reference! Sorry if it is a little too forward! 

 

My approach to recording is definitely minimalist, though I am not against the German 'tonmeister' approach of multi-micing. It's just another way, IMO. The above recordings were both with two mics only. I even prefer not to mix, if at all possible. I have a strong liking for Blumlein when it is appropriate. I also love the spacious sound of omnis (I mainly do classical and a little jazz), despite the poor localization.

 

For me, after good players and good instruments, the acoustic is next in importance for a good recording. After that I'd say the recording engineer, next I'd say the gear, and quite distant in importance, IMHO, is the conversion type (PCM vs DSD). For me, it just becomes irrelevant when the other factors are in place.  Both, when done correctly, sound spectacular. I personally use PCM.

 

With all due respect, your description of the professional recording world is not my experience at all.  Every professional recording engineer I know - in the classical world any way - is not recording serious projects at 44.1 and most definitely not at 16 bit. The vast majority are recording at higher sample rates, except perhaps for live recitals (and I agree with this - live recitals I record are at 44.1/24 bit).  And every classical engineer I know always records at 24 bit. It would be crazy not to, especially in classical recording with the extreme dynamics. 24 bit allows the engineer plenty of headroom to record at lower levels to avoid overs.  And, IMO, A/D converters sound better and more relaxed when not pushed anyway.  And I have never heard of professional recording engineers (classical anyway) providing a mastering studio with a 44.1 file, unless it was a special circumstance. Every book I have every read on the subject instructs quite the opposite. For studios that do a lot of mixing on computer, I can understand the use of 44.1, though (ready to be stoned now! haha).

 

But even if a recording is done at 44.1, assuming the other factors I mentioned above are in place, the recording will still be spectacular. The quality just doesn't hinge on 44/1 vs DSD vs. 96Khz.

 

And I'm also scratching my head at, 

 

"I suspect the thought of learning something new or managing large files or spending more money on gear during a time when audio engineering jobs and commercial studios are dying off and labels going out of business, is not really a pleasant consideration."

 

Many labels have been struggling, true, but recording in high res is pretty standard and not really new.  And most of the recording engineers i have come into contact with have quite expensive gear and wonderful mics. Just check out the conversations at gearslutz.com and read about the mics that are being used in the remote recording section.  Some of the newbies have less expensive mics, true. But the more experienced engineers are using very good equipment, amassed over the years, and are masters in their own right.

 

I'm sorry if I seem a bit indignant. But I notice those who use the title 'audiophile label' like to paint the world of recording engineers as mediocre, uninformed, half @$$ (haha), fools and...well... it just aint so. 

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Are you now serious or are you the biggest hidden troll ever ?

As you may have noticed, yesterday I down-voted a couple of your posts (to off-topic) but I now start to believe you are serious with this.

Tbh I like to see you in a huge sarcasm role. But if that is your act, this now went too far (you are now fooling people with good intentions with it).

 

Btw, this is not related whatsoever to what Cookie is pleaing (with my notice that she now leaves out the transfer of the file in FLAC vs WAV (or I missed it) - which is a good thing).

 

Serious as a heart attack.  I noticed you did not say anything of substance, only attacked personally.  What's the substance behind your "Lush" USB cable for example?  If the OP were to use it to copy his files from his field recorder to his computer, would the files test differently, or would they just "sound better"?

 

What's the explanation for your (or any other) for the "sound of an "audiophile" USB cable?