ASR Audio Science Review forum YouTube Channel

[Samuel T Cogley]

Seriously, what was/is Chris thinking letting a thread about another audio forum persist and degenerate into this dung slinging festival?

 

No good has come of this thread, and never will.

[Samuel T Cogley]

On 3/15/2021 at 12:17 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

I try to let adults have discussions and frequently error on the side of non-moderation. Over moderating is the easy way. Finding balance is hard.

 

...or, this thread could be a stealthy way to malign ASR, with some apparently plausible deniability dressed up as "letting adults be adults"

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, Andyman said:

 

Easter's coming. And you're casting Chris as Pontius Pilate?

 

I just think it's bad form to trash another audio forum.  And that's what we're doing here, but there's enough off topic posts in the thread to make it seem like that's perhaps not the case.  But delete all those off topic posts, and this thread is just a way to trash ASR in particular and "objectivists" in general.

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

There has  already been more than enough trashing of A.S. and it's sponsors in ASR, however, 2 WRONGS don't make a RIGHT

 

I wouldn't know.  I look at measurements at ASR, but I steer clear of the religious discussions.

[Samuel T Cogley]

45 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

All digital audio goes through DSP to get more accurate to the recording.

 

Hi Chris.  I've looked at this every way I can think of, and it still comes across as gibberish to me. Can you please elaborate?

 

Speaking of digital captures of analog sources, the closest you'll get to the original is the capture.  Further processing pushes it further away from the original.  But DSP "to get more accurate" is an oxymoron. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Sam, no worries. 
 

We have to step away from the old analog way of things, straight wire with gain. Digital is far different. 
 

Every DAC must use a filter either inside the DAC or outside the DAC through something like HQPlayer. Filters are digital signal processing (DSP). As part of this process almost all DAC use upsampling / oversampling to at or nearly at the DAC chips max rate. This is DSP. Many current DACs also convert to DSD internally. More DSP. 
 

The reason for this DSP is to increase accuracy of the reproduced audio signal. 

 

 

I think you're way off on this.  What you describe (and I'm an avid user of HQPlayer) is a method to work around the upsampling filters in the DAC using a desktop machine with much more computing power than the DAC's built in filter(s).  But HQPlayer is a workaround (and a good one!), not an "accuracy increaser".

 

Another use I have for HQPlayer is to feed a Yggy DSD recordings.  It sounds wonderful (you have to know what you're doing in terms of bit depth for the DAC), but what I'm feeding the DAC is a significant deviation from the original DSD input file.  In other words, quite the opposite from an "accuracy increaser".

 

What you're describing sounds a bit like MQA marketing.  No offense intended. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Isn't HQplayer reducing errors by use of a more powerful CPU and better implementation of the filter. If so, then can we call it "more accurate". We do that by bypassing the internal filter and use the HqPlayer filter. No/Yes?

 

Being able to use better filters in the decoding process is one thing, but characterizing that as "more accurate" is at least confusing, if not unintentionally misleading.  HQPlayer is not an "accuracy increaser".  It is mostly a way to bypass your DAC's digital filters with presumably better filters using much more CPU (and electrical power).  I think it sounds better, but I've never thought of what I'm hearing as "more accurate".

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, Racerxnet said:

Does HqPlayer reconstruct the wave form more accurately??

 

How would you make the comparison?  What would you use as your "accurate" sample?  I think the whole "accuracy" trope is what got MQA in trouble in the first place.  I'll say again HQPlayer sounds better to me than any DSD DAC's builtin filters.  But more accurate?  How could "more accurate" ever be measured?

[Samuel T Cogley]

10 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Reproduction of signal with lowest distortion in frequency and time domains?

 

So you're in the "HQPlayer provides 'more accurate' playback" camp as well?  Doesn't it really depend on the source material and the DAC?  I've never seen HQPlayer marketed as "more accurate", and a quick check of the website confirms this.  Zero instances of "accura*"

 

Are HQPlayer's filters high quality?  No question in my mind.  But to make the leap of logic that this makes HQPlayer an "accuracy increaser" it a fool's errand IMHO.  It's precisely the flawed logic that MQA used.

 

EDIT: to the "accuracy", isn't this what the Closed Form filter is for in HQPlayer?  Do you like the way it sounds?

[Samuel T Cogley]

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It’s all measurable. 
 

Think about it without HQP. Your DAC has filters. Without them the sound is horrible and inaccurate. 

 

I don't know Chris.  You guys seem pretty sure of yourselves.  I generally run my Yggy with unadulterated PCM.  When I use a DSD DAC, then HQP.  And that one limited use case (DSD to Yggy), I use HQP as well.  But no DSD DAC sounds as good as the Yggy to my ear.  And I'm able to sustain that elusive "EC" noise shaping now.  HQP is better than ever, but since there's no practical way to measure how "accurate" what I'm hearing is, it just seems like pomposity to declare my use of HQP makes my playback chain "more accurate".  Others might not hesitate though.  🙂 

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

No no no, somehow this got off on the path of all DACs all the time etc...

 

I started by saying some DACs. 
 

Your Yggy uses Mike’s super burrito DSP. Great stuff I think. It’s DSP and proves my original point about DSP equally more accurate sound. 
 

I don’t use any external DSP with my Yggy. 

 

To really put a point on it, Moffat makes accuracy claims that Miska does not.

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

14 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Are you suggesting better measurements and shifting noise way up into the inaudible band isn’t more accurate?

 

But that's a really good point, Chris.  Which HQP filter is the "most accurate"?  Based on my limited understanding of digital filters, I think it's the Closed Form filters, which not many like.  How about you?

[Samuel T Cogley]

21 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

What makes the closed-form filter better than others?

 

I never said "better".  Closed-form is non-apodizing.  I think the whole "accuracy" claim in this context is more hubris than science.

[Samuel T Cogley]

7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Not hubris, mathematics. 

 

I'm not getting this.  I have no desire to proclaim the "accuracy" of my playback chain based on the use of HQP.  But that claim seems to be of great import to some.

[Samuel T Cogley]

4 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I think we are talking about different things. I make no claims about HQP filters or the overall chain.

 

A filter is a mathematical construct. It works better or worse for the purpose of reconstructing sampled audio depending on design and implementation. This accuracy can be measured and/or evaluated mathematically -- this is an objective measure, not a preference. Whether or not this is audible, or whether you like or dislike its effect, has little to do with mathematical accuracy. A poorly designed filter can cause all kinds of distortions and errors in the signal. A well-designed (mathematically accurate) filter should not. 

 

 

Which is the most "mathematically accurate" HQP filter?

[Samuel T Cogley]

On 3/17/2021 at 7:19 PM, JoshM said:

 
Have you read ASR’s views on other forums? For better or worse, it’s pretty normal for publications and communities occupying similar spaces to compare themselves. Sometimes it can go too far. But on the spectrum of inappropriateness, I think this thread is pretty tame. 

 

This thread stopping being about ASR like ten pages ago...

[Samuel T Cogley]

Anyone who has ever had neurofeedback therapy knows that the brain can do things "under the radar" of cognitive awareness.