|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.54.140.123
I won't go into specifics, but I can get any available album at any available quality for free. My point in stating this is not to ignite an argument about the morality or lack thereof of pirated music, but to make it clear that my observations are completely objective. I don't think that true objectivity is possible when you have hundreds or thousands of dollars invested in IMHO pointless technology.
I've compared about a dozen 24/192 tracks to their 16/44 counterparts. I went into this fully expecting the higher bit rate and depth tracks to sound better, but what I experienced was exactly the opposite.
The 24/192 tracks, over a wide variety of artists and genres, consistently sounded thinner and less musical than the 16/44 versions.
This could explain the dichotomy in the wide spread adoption of higher resolution video .vs audio formats.
Follow Ups:
You cannot be serious! Most on here will read what you have side with incredulity.
One possible explanation for the original poster's view is the following. I have the impression that most SACD's are cut at a lower level than most CD's: in order to get the same overall volume, I have to increase the volume control at the preamp. Perhaps they are made that way to accommodate large overall dynamic range. In any case, unless careful volume matching is done, it is easy to mistake lack of volume for lack of richness.
The levels for SACD (DSD) and CD (PCM) use different level setting criteria, which requires the mastering engineer to adjust volume levels. Similarly different playback circuitry is used in a player. Therefore it is to be expected that levels will change.
Making comparisons without accurate level matching (to within 0.1 dB or less) is a fools errand.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I just got a Mytek Brooklyn, and I am experiencing the opposite effect. All the music sounds very good. Red Book CD rips sound great, as does 24/96kHz.It's actually left me wondering, for a few weeks really, if the real issue with "high rez" music isn't the data, but the DAC's. Whether instead of hearing anything intrinsic to the data captured on file if we are in fact hearing differences in how well a particular DAC handles each format?
Part of this is whether we hear a difference at all. The other part though is how we interpret those differences. It's no secret that most listeners often think any difference is "better"
What if a supremely perfect DAC played back all of these formats with the same subjective quality? Would we then attack the DAC claiming it was not revealing enough no matter what?
Best,
Erik
Edits: 10/03/16
Whether instead of hearing anything intrinsic to the data captured on file if we are in fact hearing differences in how well a particular DAC handles each format?
Simple way to determine that - compare both versions of the same content using the same high quality DAC. I've done that with my Audio Research DAC8 and remain convinced that Redbook is inherently flawed at the top of the spectrum.
It's true that many, if not most DACs use legacy op amps for analog output which have never floated my boat. I greatly prefer those using discrete output devices supplied with a stiff power supply independent from the digital circuitry.
See, that's exactly what you can't do. You can't really tell if it's the music, or if the DAC itself is not performing as well.
As a matter of fact, my previous DAC was the ARC DAC 8, and that's exactly what it sounded like. The Mytek Brooklyn however sound great regardless of format between Redbook and 96/24. DSD sounds a tiny smidgen better.
So, if I say the Mytek sounds great with all formats, are you going to say it's not playing hi rez well enough?
Do you see the biases we are subject to?
BTW, I don't have an answer to this. I just don't think either position is provable.
Best,
Erik
So, if I say the Mytek sounds great with all formats, are you going to say it's not playing hi rez well enough?
Define "great". If you cannot tell the difference between a Redbook version of a recording and a truly high resolution version, then I would opine that something is wrong.
Do you see the biases we are subject to?
Not at all. With an open mind, I've compared about half a dozen versions of recordings in LP, Redbook and either 24/96 or 24/192. I observe what I consistently hear.
YMMV.
I believe your observations, but I think we have biases into what we ascribe the results to.We are both agreed on the following:
The ARC DAC 8 plays high rez files better than redbook.
Of the two of us only I have experience with the Mytek, but another Asylum member has agreed with this statement:
The Mytek DAC plays Redbook as well as High rez.
This is not something youy and I agree on, but let's agree to hypothesize this was true so we can get to bias in attribution.
You say the Mytek is clearly faulty. I say the ARC was faulty. :)
I'm just as guilty of bias as anyone else so I'm happy to also yield that point that my attribution is also the result of bias.
My point is, we are each attributing cause/effect in opposite ways, without any real way to resolve the discrepancy at this time.
Best,
ERik
Edits: 10/11/16
The Mytek DAC plays Redbook as well as High rez.
If that's true comparing the same recording using 16/44 vs. a true high resolution format, I would replace it.
My point is, we are each attributing cause/effect in opposite ways, without any real way to resolve the discrepancy at this time.
Ask any engineer who has compared the same feed captured in 16/44 vs 24/96 or 24/192. Like inmate Tony Lauck who has participated in this thread. He is both an engineer and music lover and creates his own recordings.
Ask him if he thinks that the Redbook standard is audibly identical to higher resolutions. :)
I could ask a thousand recording engineers.
What they could not tell me is which of the two issues are true:
1 - DAC's play Hi Rez files better because there's more data.
2 - DAC's play Hi Rez files better because the DAC's are performing differently.
If they listened to the Mytek, they may come to the belief that 2 is correct. If the ARC, that 1.
For me, Mytek has fixed Redbook. You say It's broken Hi Rez. :)
By the way, I find the Mytek superior to the DAC 8 in all formats. That's why I traded.
Best,
Erik
There are others who claim that high resolution offers no audible benefits.I am most certainly not one of them!
To each his own. :)
edit: Just curious. Which recordings have you compared the same content in both 16/44 and 24/96 versions?
Edits: 10/11/16
Interesting that you mention the Mytek Brooklyn. I last week listened to a system which employed the Mytek Manhattan DAC. Suffice it to say, I've never heard anything like the quality of sound produced, by that system, particularly the open, airy, shimmery highs such as cymbals. Also, the bass, oh my, the bass pressurization was so frigging deep and visceral. Now, granted that these were big speakers, but I've heard big speakers before.
And what was playing was "only" CD quality tracks on a pc connected to the DAC with a USB cable. I had just attended the symphony a few days earlier, and the cymbals produced by the system sounded the closest to what I heard at the symphony than any reproduced audio I've ever heard.
I really like the looks of the Manhattan. I've never heard one but it seems to have every type of input and output I would need including an optional phono stage. I was really thinking of buying one about a year ago but I didn't want to spend $5k.
I found another DAC that completely satisfies my ears and it cost 1/5th the price of the Manhattan. Besides being an excellent sounding DAC, it is also an autonomous digital player as well as a digital recorder. I bought it to copy vinyl to DSD-5.6MHz, but it serves as an excellent digital player, too. It is the TASCAM DA-3000 DSD recorder .
> I've never heard anything like the quality of sound produced, by [the Manhattan], particularly the open, airy,
> shimmery highs such as cymbals. Also, the bass, oh my, the bass pressurization was so frigging deep and visceral.
I feel exactly the same about my TASCAM DA-3000, but I don't know how it compares to the Manhattan because I've never heard a Manhattan. The TASCAM produces exquisite highs and deep, tight, natural bass. It makes very accurate and transparent copies of vinyl, the best I've ever heard. The best part about the TASCAM DA-3000 is that it costs only $1000. Therefore, if you're on a tight budget but you want high-end sound quality, check out the TASCAM DA-3000 DSD recorder. It is really much more than just a digital recorder. It is also an autonomous digital player that accepts a USB flash drive directly into its front-panel USB port for playback of PCM up to 24/192 as well as DSD-2.8MHz and 5.6MHz. It can also be used as a DAC for streaming from an external source.
Best regards,
John Elison
Right? It's a very good sounding DAC. My one concern however is that it sounds better new than after being broken in.... but i'm still unpacking and my living room is a horrible mess.
Best,
Erik
Usually when new it is bright. This always sounds initially appealing but not in the long run. You will adjust to the brokin in sound of the dac and eventually like it
Alan
I believe you, but it wasn't bright so much as cool.
First 24-48 hours it was hard. Then smooth and cool for the rest of the week, but still very "fast" sounding, especially with bass notes. Then that wore down as well.
Most interesting was the attack of notes. It was pretty dramatic, as if dynamic range was being expanded... but that wore down. Again, hard to tell if I'm just more used to it.
Again, it's hard to tell since I haven't listened in a stable acoustic environment, with boxes, furniture moving, etc.
In my experience, the quality of the original recording and its subsequent mastering is most important.
Although I enjoy SACD, I find no fault in the standard 16/44 CD!
Very good observation- jaydacus.
my experience is quite to the contrary. I'm not an apologist or contend that every title is better, but most every one in my collection is.
I find the difference lies mostly at the top of the spectrum. Most Redbook continues to sound sterile to these ears.
I have fallen in love with DSD. As such, I've decided to make all future copies of vinyl in DSD 5.6-MHz. Even the well recorded Hi-Res PCM albums I own are quite impressive. Of course, I own some very well recorded CDs, too, but the best of Hi-Res beats the best of Redbook in my opinion and on my system. However, the best of DSD is really outstanding. That's my favorite.
Best regards,
John Elison
In September 2007 the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial, in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and a compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) conversion of the same source material under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8% success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50% that would have been expected by chance guessing alone
The Meyer Moran tests have been widely criticized by thoughtful audio professionals on the basis of numerous biases and faults in the M&M methodology. There have also been other AES papers which differ considerably in their results. Meyer himself in response to valid criticism also said years later that his study had not really been a scientific one.
You could stop reading about any one else's critiques or other completely different tests which reached different conclusions, and just stick with M&M's results because they support your own mindset. Flawed tests happen all the time in many fields. Usually, that is not discovered until well after publication. It is a process called peer review. So, it is important to read and understand all of that, not just cherry pick the published result that you like.
It also happens years ago that I exchanged some correspondence with Moran. Yes, he attempted to defend the tests which bore his name, though I found his defense weak, myself. But, he told me he was also in the process of buying an SACD player for himself at the time. Apparently, he was not totally convinced of his own conclusions himself.
Do you actually know the methodology and layered assumptions behind the hilarious Rube Goldberg-esque Meyer and Moron study?
A far better way than using a $300 Pioneer player and content not established to truly be high resolution is to use the approach that recording engineers do: compare low and high resolution output taken from the same live source. A British study did just that and came to a different conclusion.
Pras - Guastavino AES study
Thanks for that. It's complicated reading, but worth it. Kind of goes with what I was saying about always attributing "different" with better, but it's really quite a dense article. It's got lots of different analysis, and findings. It's not just 1 story, like "Yes, tobacco causes cancer"
you can locate lots of in depth discussion of the methodology outside of this AA thread.Fundamentally, the study lacked any notion of controls. SACD content was chosen without any consideration as to whether or not it actually contained high resolution material. There were many systems used, much of it substandard including a $250 Pioneer universal player that JA found to have poor performance. They merely assumed that the ABX box was not blending the signals since most use common grounds. Why not just compare a live recording using two different resolutions as others have done?
There's a frequent poster here named Tony Lauck who makes high resolution recordings and happens to have been a college roommate with Meyer. He says while Meyer was a wealthy kid, he had crappy audio gear. :)
Edits: 10/04/16
It's also important to note that a lot of these "studies" have yet to be fully replicated. Usually in medicine for instance, 1 study is how things begin, then further studies build on, refute, or enhance it.
Saying 1 study proved or didn't prove X, Y or Z is usually difficult to back up. At best we can try to find multiple sources of information that overlap at some point or points we care about.
Like, how we decide what normal human temperature is. Every now and then that has to be revisited. :)
Another might be the Fletcher-Munsen curves. If not done already, it may be time for more research, to understand how they are holding up.
Best,
Erik
While the 1930s era research results are likely valid today for understanding the perception of various frequencies, I've always found compensation circuits to sound unnatural.
We perceive distance as a function of level. If I'm hearing an orchestra with a bass drum in row C, it will have greater level and impact than if I'm sitting in the back. Boosting the low end to *fix* the effect of distance has the effect (to me) of selectively moving parts of the orchestra forward while the rest of the players remain in place. Huh?
If you want more bass impact, get closer, i.e. turn up the level!
We don't always listen the same way. There are times when I'd like to listen at low volume but still hear it all.
Having those convenience features would be nice if they work well. I liked the "Loudness" knobs in the old Denon receivers a great deal.
Best,
Erik
Not to sidetrack the discussion, but the Fletcher-Munson stuff holds up pretty well from what I have seen. Other studies may disagree somewhat on the actual curves, but the concept has pretty well stood he test of time.
I never questions the principle of the curves, at all, but most of these studies have some sampling bias. I'm glad it's holding up!What I mean to question is how the study was done vs. the population you are trying to learn about. Do women have the same curves? Children? How about Hispanics vs. Latvians? Do their F-M curves look the same? Without testing I have no idea. :)
This is the sort of thing that isn't usually considered on the first studies, but we gain more knowledge of as time progresses. The first studies are usually done with whoever is at hand, and often in colleges that's young men and women of whatever the predominant genetic stock is there, so projecting their response to drugs, or hearing, onto the general population may or may not be accurate.
Best,
Erik
Edits: 10/04/16
Okay so I changed player software and got .dsf files working.For anyone unfamiliar with .dsf files they are basically a direct SACD DSD rip. To me this type of file sounds AT LEAST as good as the .flac files containing 16/44 sound.
Specifically I listened to "Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon" and "Eagles-Hotel California". Compared to their CD sourced counterparts they seemed to sound more like the vinyl versions of each, minus the crackle, groove noise, inner groove loss of resolution, etc. That being said I could not hear a huge difference difference between the two and I could imagine easily failing an ABX test comparing them.
Looking at the SACD catalog I am disappointed to see that virtually all releases are classical, jazz, and 60s-80s pop/rock. My interests only include the third one and nothing from those time period has really great holographic imaging or inner detail. Its not like I'm going to find "Hellyeah", "System of a Down", or anything current on SACD. The fact remains that SACD did not replace CD because it failed to wow anybody in a way that CDs didn't. I know someone said that SACD is more aimed at audiophiles, which I will agree are few in number, but what about the vast number of tube amplifiers that are mostly only of interest to that group? I would argue that there are more makes and models of tube amplifiers in existence that there are albums that have been released in SACD or any other high resolution format for that matter. BluRay Audio? Really?
The fact remains that SACD did not replace CD because it failed to wow anybody in a way that CDs didn't.
It failed because it wasn't widely supported by the music industry and became a more expensive niche product.
I would argue that there are more makes and models of tube amplifiers in existence that there are albums that have been released in SACD or any other high resolution format for that matter.
And you would be mistaken. HD Tracks has 5890 titles on 24/96 alone . Acoustic Sounds offers 1635 SACD titles.
.
Of course, that may not matter if you don't mind paying hundreds of dollars per OOP title! ;-)
Wouldn't it be nice if all of those titles were downloadable?
I understand the whole kiss-your-elbow-rip-to-ISO thing, but it would be nice in today's computer based market if that content could be more widely available.
Even though I'm inclined to ascribe these results to chance (49.8% is TOO close) I'd really like ALL of the 1/2 who 'got it right' to take ANOTHER battery of tests.
Repeat the test with the OTHER half and AGAIN compare results.
If their is some way to tag each result with a 'confidence level', that would be even better if they were RIGHT.
If they can 'repeat' their original performance, even maybe 30% or 40% of 'em, I'd have to start 'believing'.
Too much is never enough
Well, if you believe the test is valid, it simply proves that hi-res sounds the same as low-res. In other words, it disproves your stipulation that low-res sounds better than hi-res because the test shows you really can't hear the difference. On the other hand, if you believe you can hear the difference, then you're simply wrong that low-res sounds better than hi-res because I can hear the difference, too; and I know hi-res sounds better! ;-)Good luck,
John Elison
Edits: 10/04/16
. . . half the listeners in the test got the results correct. So perhaps this result means that some listeners (approximately half) can't hear the difference between hi-rez and CD-rez, while others (also approximately half - in this case the other half) can. I'd like to hear a lot more details about that test before I would be comfortable concluding anything.
Having said all this, I've heard some VERY well recorded CD's out there! ;-)
I don't think anyone got the test results correct. The test showed that no listener had a success rate better than about 50%, which means nobody could prove they could hear the difference.
I'm afraid the article will require me to take a closer look, but as I read it, they go through a number of findings, not just 1 conclusion.
One that I thought was interesting was that trained listeners could hear a difference, but they guessed which was the high rez version incorrectly.
Best,
Erik
I don't doubt your findings but extrapolating your experience into a global trend is heading for Real Housewives territory.
13DoW
It might help us appreciate your perspective if you let us know the specific albums you used in your comparisons, what you listened for as you auditioned them, and whatever you know of the provenance of your 24/192 tracks (derived from native 24/192 masters, downsampled transfers from DXD, upsampled Redbook, etc.).
My observations differ markedly from yours, based on comparisons done on two different systems here with Exact Audio Copy-ripped Redbook, one at extreme nearfield, the other at about eight feet from the speaker plane (in both cases, the result is the same). The program material ranges from classical to jazz to vocal standards, and the hi-rez sources encompass native DSD, DXD, 24/192, 24/96, and analog masters. I find that, overall, the hi-rez versions outpoint their Redbook counterparts in fleshing out detail, instrumental body, and spatial cues. I hear no perceptible difference in hi-rez transfers from 16/44.1 sources. And in no case do I hear the thinning out you allude to when listening to the hi-rez tracks.
Jim
http://jimtranr.com
It might also be helpful if we knew what equipment he uses.
Alan
here...
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/28/288100.html
Jim
http://jimtranr.com
is dramatic. No glassiness or flatness, instruments far more fleshed out. At a little over $2 a track, I can offer Universal nothing but gratitude. Now, if you're talking about upsampling from native 44/16, I confess I can't hear a difference either. Seems like a waste of effort to me. PCM to DSD as well.
And DSD! Please tell me you can tell a difference there.
Edits: 09/26/16
The difference is most likely do to the remastering, not the format
Alan
.
I now do all my listening by streaming from Tidal and classicsonlinehd
Alan
Well, I Meant to try.
Oh, this is so perfect.An anonymous internet blowhard with proclaims there is no benefit to 24/192 digital music. A blowhard who does not list his system, and admits to being a deadbeat who STEALS music instead of paying for it. I am sure you have a million justifications for it.
So now the case closed, 24/192 offers NO benefit over CDs because YOU say so. You, the unemployed deadbeat who steals hi rez files from torrents and "evaluates" them on your phantom system. Probably cheap plastic computer speakers.
Gotta love it.
Edits: 09/24/16
You sound like Mr. Lebowski. The old rich guy not the Dude.
Amp-Yaqin MC-13S. Yeah Its Chi Fi, but highly rated and has NOS input tubes and Mullard Reissue Output tubes.
Speakers- Klipsch KG3.2 with Bob Crites Tweeters, premium wiring, and rebuilt crossovers.
Raspberry Pi 3 with PiFiDAC+ running Moode
Speaker cables and RCA cables from Blue Jeans
I bought and paid for thousands of dollars worth of records, tapes, and CDs before those things became obsolete. No I don't feel obligated to keep repurchasing my music as new formats come along. That's a fools game and the real point of higher rez formats. Just a new way to sell you something that you already have by convincing you that it is better in some way.
If there was really anything there then explain why DVD-Audio and SACD largely failed.
Because the mainstream market doesn't care about audio quality
Alan
DVD-A and SACD failed? Well that is BIG news to the folks still producing them and the consumers still buying them. ANY audiophile format is going to "fail" on a mass level. Failure means ceases to exist. So Eh, WRONG.
So you side step the fact you are a thief.
And again, so you list your system, and provide no specifics about comparisons between CDs and 24 bit and DSD downloads.
File under, "Worthless Opinion Pretending to be a Grand Definitive Statement". Which is what audiophiles specialize in.
I simply expressed an opinion based on an observation that I had made. I was perfectly open to opposing opinions, observations, and maybe a change of perspective based on new evidence and farther guided experimentation.
It was not my intention to enter into a digital dick measuring contest, but that was where you decided to take it. Thank you for all of your constructive sneers and criticisms. I will go on and listen to what actually sounds good. You are free to enjoy your confirmation bias, wishful thinking, and theory trumps real world experience fueled superior technology to your heart's content. You have earned it. Enjoy it.
Shaking down the consumer? A 96/24 download of, say, a 3 mov't concerto runs about $7 to $8. And one isn't forced to pay for tracks he or she doesn't want.
What 96/24 download have you compared with its CD incarnation?
Are you sure they were derived from the same master?
I'm asking this because Redbook is a very popular format.
Hence is must sound good everywhere.
Most of the time this translates into substantial dynamic compression.
As 24/192 is not a popular format, it might have the original dynamics.
The Well Tempered Computer
The format does not cause the compression. The mastering engineer does.
Alan
The format is correlated with the market. People who pay premium prices for 24/192 recordings are likely to have premium quality systems that are properly voiced and capable of full dynamic range. They are likely to appreciate the dynamics of live music. Accordingly the mastering engineer (on his own or as directed by the producer) is much more likely to choose to use less compression when working with high quality recordings.
Technically, there are valid reasons for mass market production of highly compressed music. Compression increases subjective loudness without requiring high power playback. This can make for better sound on inferior systems. Compression also eliminates musical dynamics that may be inappropriate, as a result of an inferior musical performance, which is typical of popular music with players chosen for sex appeal rather than musicianship.
So there is a cause and effect relationship here, but it's a complex one involving marketing.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I listen mainly to 16/44 and I have a premium quality systems that is properly voiced and capable of full dynamic range. I appreciate the dynamics of live music. Most recordings that are available from 16/44 to 24/192 are usually derived from the same master
Alan
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: