Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United Kingdom

About Andyman

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Location
    Brighton, England

Recent Profile Visitors

2734 profile views
  1. Bringing HQP back into the conversation (it is the paradigm for such discussions and presumably what you are using?) I occasionally glance at his software thread and all anyone ever asks is "which filter should I use?" I'l bet you've measured more than one filter. Would be interesting to know if you have noticed a correlation purely between linearity and perceived SQ? And what else, if anything, have you measured that you feel might be notable...
  2. Presumably the intention of all DSP is to improve something. But excepting those algorithms which preclude bit perfection, in what way do they differ with respect to accuracy? Mine's more perfect than yours? No need to take HQP out of this. I have no doubt Miska knows what he's doing and why.
  3. In reverse order... My logic is usually pretty sound (?!) However I fear you are conflating two subtly different arguments. 1) Whether playback via DSD upsampling is (inherently) superior (to plain pcm playback (upsampled to higher rate pcm or not)) Here the jury is still out but I raise you Mans (if he's still around - probably been banned for being a bit of a wanker at times but can be funny and knows a fair bit). Moffat too (two?) Probably mad Peter also but not entirely sure. 2) Whether playback via DSD upsampling provides a more a
  4. Easter's coming. And you're casting Chris as Pontius Pilate?
  5. You're still not getting it. No studios convert to DSD* The commercial release was mixed and ok'd via pcm chain Converting to DSD alters the sound (or why do it). Thus, by converting to DSD on some audio systems we get further from the sound of the delivered recording If we don't convert to DSD on some systems, the sound is precisely what was OK'd for the commercial release. Geddit? (what are the chances you read Private Eye) (*maybe there is one?)
  6. Of course I know this. Perhaps I'm not explaining correctly. Hendrix (or whoever) was in his studio with his mastering engineer. What they heard coming out of the speakers was the sound they wanted. This is already a once (or more) remove from "the recording". How do you reproduce that? Maybe high end is all just bollocks after all (Acid, weed, whiskey may help!)
  7. I have a Gumby so no option. Perhaps it's a philosophical point. Do you suppose that if Hendrix were gifted a cleaned up, remastered, digitised version of Little Wing, upsampled to dsd played back via class d amps and Magicos, he'd go "Wow!" I somehow think not.
  8. ? Think your responses are getting mixed up. But you do sound surprisingly similar to Minnie Ripperton.
  9. I think I could have a fair guess as to both the position and momentum of your brain cells just now...!
  10. Chris. Not sure if you're being a bit thick here or wilfully misunderstanding? We're talking of upsampling specifically to dsd. The mix in the studio which was signed off was not upsampled to dsd. Your appeal is that upsampling to dsd removes distortion. But this "distortion" just like any other effect is inherent in that which has been signed off. If you remove it you are no longer hearing what was heard (and signed off) in the studio (I won't go quite so far as to write QED)
  11. No. More accurate to what? The creators will have been in a studio listening to pcm. If upsampling to dsd alters the sound (and if not why do it) it is by definition less accurate.
  12. Interestingly (and particularly with Miska's involvement here) it is odd that so many CA members upsample to DSD. As the number of recording and mastering engineers, artists and whoever, listening to final mixes via dsd, must approximate to zero, then any files so upsampled and presumably sounding different (adherents obviously claiming "better) must by definition be less accurate than the pcm original. Might as well just throw a valve in somewhere 😊.
  • Create New...