 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
210.54.39.53
Darko shares his thoughts.
"11) 2 + 2 = 9. The maths stings harder still when a hi-res download is put next to Tidal Hifi or Deezer Elite. Would Sir/Madam prefer a sole download-to-own album in 24bit/192kHz or would he/she prefer a month's access to stream millions of albums in CD quality? When a mainstreamer facing this conundrum learns of the need for a decent hifi/head-fi setup that may only reveal single digit percentile SQ differences (at best), inconsistent recording/mastering studio practices and HRA's razor thin library, which option do you think remains the most attractive?"
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Follow Ups:
My subjective opinion is that the recording is 85-90% of the sound and is more important than PCM/DSD; vinyl/tape/digital; moving coil/moving magnet; tube/solid-state; class A/AB/D; USB/SPDIF; FLAC/WAV; BLAH/BLAH/BLAH.
I go back to the day when vinyl or tape were the only choices. The bottle-neck to good sound was the recording, then as now.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich
Agreed - it puzzles me all the arguments over the technology - the technology is a means to an end. If a given album sounds better on vinyl then you buy vinyl - if it sounds better on DSD - then get a DSD capable DAC.
If it costs too much to get the source player that makes the version sound "the best" then you have decisions to make on whether it's worth it to you or not. A better record player might be worth it to a fellow who has 10,000 LPS but it may not at all be worth it to someone who owns 3 records (or zero records).
But today - most people can afford each of the various technologies. Source disc is primary.
.
Hi-rez should be considered the "icing on the cake", nothing more.
Seems to have made quite the comeback with 2x and 4x sample rates.
Below are comments posted by Mike Moffat's were posted on Headfi.
"I have never published my DSD opinions. Here they are. I say opinions because the design of audio gear should adhere to hard science. The user's response however, is totally in that user's psyche. When I worked in Peru, there were tribes in the Amazon region who spoke in vocabularies limited to grunts and delighted in eating insects they found under logs. Then there are people like myself who prefer meat, coffee, dairy, sometimes things green or fruity, starches, and lots of salt.
In the early days of digital audio, multibit reigned. It was suitable, but expensive, derived as it was from weapons guidance and medical science. Note the use of the word science. Analog numbers were converted to digital, and the reverse yielded the same number. Nothing was averaged, no noise was added, no economic engineering geniuses were allowed to make anything cheaper with smoke and mirrors.
The earliest DACs were pretty marginal, but natural selection led to the Burr-Brown PCM-63, an amazing multibit DAC, still pretty good today. About that time, Burr Brown was sold to Texas Instruments. There began to appear delta-sigma dacs, which is a fancy name for reduced bit width DACs which used the above alluded to tricks of averaging and noise shaping to make up for the data they threw away. Soon we had TI, Wolfson, Crystal Semiconductor, Phillips, and many more manufacturers of these (now marketed as audio - read dogschiit) DACs. Why stoop to make them?? Simple - they're cheaper! Never mind they can't be used in medical imaging or defense applications because of their inherent data loss/hallucination. Too late, the audio customer had far cheaper gear. The chip makers sold lots of parts.
Enter DSD, the ultimate extension of this idea. More noise and less bitwidth. You get for free with the bargain, the elimination of the nasty anti-alias filter effects used in the recordings. Cool, huh. This idea works well just as soon as every recording studio on the planet switches over. When that happens (right), what about the old recordings like all of those from SACD days of yore!! Oops, they are already recorded with the filter in place... Unfortunately, they are the bulk of the current DSD catalog available. Can you get DSD from iTunes?? Download DSD from Amazon?? Oh...
What about 1, 2, 4, or 87.6x native DSD recordings. Yeah there's a few - I really loved the Folsom Prison Castrati Singers doing Handel soprano motets. My all time fave is the Orkney Island shepherd's Poems and Cries of Ecstacy with the sheep. The plaintive cries and bleats of all involved were immaculately suspended in perfect panoramic image. Even the subtle sounds of the shepherds gently placing the sheep's rear legs in their boots were clearly audible.
Nobody ever explained to me how to design a multi-rate 1x, 2x, etc DSD DAC without a real expensive adaptive filter. Do you optimize it for 1X? 2X? 5.76X? Trouble is, then all of the other rates are compromised. Maybe the over $10K DACs do that. I haven't figured out how to make an over $10K DAC yet, maybe someone will teach me.
In conclusion - this is opinion, mine with respect to DSD: How can I express just how underwhelmed I am. Adjectives such as stillborn, faith-based, and ludicrous come to mind.
But wait - I actually built the Loki DSD DAC! How can I be such a hypocrite! The answer is that I will try almost anything once. If I don't like it, I won't do it again. But I could be wrong - if servers ever get big/cheap enough that iTunes and Amazon offer DSD downloads AND major label music providers begin to provide native DSD recordings in substantial numbers - then I will cook and eat a crow at RMAF. Meanwhile, all you DSDers - enjoy the grubs!! Buy a Loki!"
Proof is in the Sound for me.
DSD 128 is great.
So many Haters, it Can't Work, so I'll ignore it.
Stereo review said all amps sound the same.
Do you believe that too?
Granted Mikie Moffat obviously is not a fan of DSD but I respect his knowledge and accomplishments. I don't have any DSD and probably 99.5% of my collection is standard resolution. That ratio is not going to change significantly in the near future. I'm not hating on DSD. It's just not relevant for me now. That's why I didn't buy a DSD capable dac. That's what worked for me. You apparently have followed a different path. Happy listening.
Started by Sony to sell hardware and re-released software from their SACD days.
It was all a pipedream - 'We can get rich selling new boxes and old recordings we don't even have to create media or packaging for!'.
And of no benefit to the consumer at all. One of the most callow and dishonest bits of hype I've ever seen from the hi-fi industry. And the competition in that 'callow and dishonest' category is pretty intense.
"To Learn Who Rules Over You, Simply Find Out Who You Are Not Allowed to Criticize."
-Voltaire
/
Guessing he took WAY too many pucks to the head. ;-)
..do you realy not know who Mike Moffat is?
It's what he SAYS not what he THINKS.
If I manufacture tube amps only, sand amps suck. If I manufacture SS amps only, tube amps are noisy distortion generators that can't control a well designed modern speakers.
In other words, he's just 'Talking his Book'.
The only universal truth that I've been able to find regards audio is:
"Turntables are optimized for music, computers are optimized for porn!"
Obviously you don't. This is a fruitless exchange aas you appear to have difficulty in expressing yourself without resorting to profanity and confrontational behavior. I don't know why you're reacting so aggressively. This is a hobby that many of us enjoy. You are overreacting. Chill out.
And yes, I do know who the Mike Moffat you referred to in your original post is (OK, not the hockey player I pictured in my post above, also named Mike Moffat) and yes I have read (and enjoyed) his humorous comments posted on the FAQ of his website and yes, he was kind enough to allow me to listen at length to his top two products in his DAC and balanced headphone amp range (YGGDRASIL/RAGNAROK) at the last RMAF.
And, in fact, the combo sounded VERY good(as I have posted on AA in the past), especially with HiFIMan's new mega-buck HE-1000.
In fact, it may well be equal in SQ to my Audio-GD Master 11 DAC/Headphone amp, which ALSO is a multi-bit DAC which will NOT play DSD! Folks who have heard both side by side in the same system claim they are in the same class.
But then, even though I do not even own a system that will play DSD files, other than an SACD player which hardly counts, I am NOT taking a hard, cold position that DSD, or any other digital format(OK, maybe DAT tape), has no value because...
I know better.
And so does Mike Moffat.
But he has the YGGDRASIL to sell, so...
Oh, and at $2299, it sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
Oh, and me being profane and aggressive?
My first reply had a 'smiley face' ;-0
And I not the founder of a company named SCHIIT!
OK, I DO OVERUSE ALL CAPS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!
My bad. :-(
I happen to think what he says makes a lot of sense. Ultimately, beauty is in the ear of the beholder. Anyhow, let's move on. I'm sure your Audio-GD Master 11 DAC is a fine piece. Happy listening.
.
Their loss.
Maybe there should be a DSD Forum.
You know, just for me and the 2 other guys here into DSD...
In my experience, and from discussion with fellow music-lovers and audiophiles, the whole DXD, DSD, quad-this, double-that circus immediately falls down as an USP when audiophiles learn that most workflows revert to PCM at some point along the line. My audio friends simply ask, why can't we just have better-mastered PCM/Redbook CD?
Even if there are established non-PCM DSD workflows used by publishers with decent libraries, the confusion has been sown and the damage done. It doesn't help that the key-influencer target market for hi-res is likely older than the pop market (please correct me if I've misread that) and has been around the digital block a few times.
We've been burnt before, with endless digital hokum and questionable publishing practices. We've seen CD playback continue to mature, and like what we hear. There are still vast amounts of CDs around to buy and will be for some time. You see the problem, surely?
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
> > why can't we just have better-mastered PCM/Redbook CD?
I'll second that motion. I've heard a few back-to-back comparisons of CD recordings with their hi-rez counterparts and frankly, the differences are subtle, or more often undetectable. If someone says they hear a dramatic difference, I'd ascribe that to one of two things: either the two recordings have been mixed/processed/mastered differently, or we have another classic example of audiophile hyperbole. There is no shortage of either.
I have some CDs that are simply wonderful recordings. Right there I know that a well-done CD gives me about everything I need for musical enjoyment. But, thanks to the recording fads & fashions that are popular these days, the capabilities of the CD format are wasted. Why would I want to spend extra for any of the hi-rez formats?
And given the huge improvements most of us can make to our systems in other areas (set-up, room acoustics), one has to wonder if the DSD emperor has any clothes at all, be they disc-based or streamed.
Look, I'm not against innovation, and am glad to see R-2R multibit continuing to mature. I used to own a Sony SCD-1 (I was stupid enough to trade a Marantz CD7 to try it). I just think the hi-res crowd could admit that acountancy-led digital improvements have finally reached a cultural cup-de-sac from which there is no escape. Then we can get back to the fidelity part of High Fidelity, as opposed to continuing to endure what has become a kind of torturous High Mendacity digital audio.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Many audiophiles know a lot about DSD and PCM. Some of us have even heard master files recorded by Jared Sacks of Channel Classics played on VERY good sounding DSD DACs.
Yes, for 99% of my listening, a multi-bit DAC with lots of PCM1704U-K will do fine, thank you BUT...
I'm not so foolish as to diminish or ignore the good work many like Jared and who knows, I may one day have a DSD DAC in my system.
I bow to no one in my admiration of Jared's DSD-originated recordings. (And he's even been over to my house to demo some of them!) But he's not the only one making great recordings these days, and other engineers can get comparable results using PCM IMHO.
your experience aside, how does that affect the market? If, as you say, "99% of your listening" is with a multibit DAC, doesn't that speak to your own decisions about the market penetration of DSD content and/or opportunity?Like you, I have heard great DSD, but it was a rare experience and not because it's hard to build great DSD digital systems. You may well buy a great DSD DAC. So might I. Does that mean more DSD discs/files will appear that I actually want to buy?
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Edits: 11/21/15
Unless you count the one in my SACD player, so that alone explains the 99% part.
Plus I rarely if ever purchase downloads anyway.
Have an offer from the folks at PS Audio for a one week demo of their latest and greatest Direct Stream DAC which I may do just to see the difference. Did make it clear that I likely would NOT spring for it but they seem to want to get a few into the hands of serious, influential audiophile like me. OK, that can't be it so who knows?
That said, if Jared Sacks were to gift me copies of his entire catalog of DSD recordings I might spring for a decent $5000 DSD DAC just to listen to them!
Until then, a lot are up for streaming on TIDAL and QOBUZ, albeit in PCM. :-(
to read about your experience with PS, perhaps compared to your 1704 DAC. I've managed to compare a PS DAC with an Accustic Arts DAC from Germany (1704) in a dealer system but not at home. For me it was unconvincing but maybe you'll have an epiphany.
I must be some kind of digital fundamentalist, or some such, which makes me intellectually uncomfortable. But R-2R and New Multibit (boutique, discrete) seems to deliver sound that's so much better, compared to the current crop of 'I-can't-believe-it's-not-multibit' DSD/bitstream pretenders, it's almost depressing!
In an ideal world, the likes of Metrum, Soekris, EC Designs and others, would rapidly begin to license out their designs to other high-end or audiophile manufacturers to use in their own DACs.
Fingers crossed.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
I own the Monarchy M24 DAC, which contains the mighty PCM-63, and have heard extensively the Monarchy NM24 DAC, which has the PCM-1704. The digital filter (DF1704), receiver chip and analog output stage are nearly identical (different resistor values for the IV conversion, which is passive). You know which one actually SOUNDS better? The original with the PCM-63. Really.
I don't have an opinion about this DSD stuff yet because the last player I actually heard was a modified SACD 777 that had Vacuumstate level 5+ mods (all new analog outputs installed). That was really good but I cannot say it was better than the best PCM I have heard.
I hope to try some native DSD with a true DSD DAC soon though.
I've been deliberately avoiding the PCM63. I think it'll be great but they're even harder to reliably unearth than PCM1704s! They're no longer made, is that right?
I'd like to hear a couple of the new boutique, discrete multibit DACs first (EC Designs, Soekris). If I have no joy, I have no doubt I will retreat back into vintage DACs until the next round of DAC development.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Well, I have never heard of one dying...
I too would like to hear a new discrete DAC like this Soekris...intriguing but not necessarily better for 16/44... 24/188 ok.
Buy as many as you want (but not cheap!)
Link below: Stock up now and sell them as NOS when they're gone.
Like you, I've thought about such plan. May still do that at the end of the year, beginning of next. To make this effective though, I imagine I will need to squirrel away the concomitant filter as well, the DF1704. Could be a substantial investment...
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Do yourself a favor and get one of the Schiit Multibit Dacs. Greatr equipment!
I hope to hear an Yggdrasil one day. But there's a lot of new multibit loveliness going on right now, which is great.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
That said, I've been around audio long enough to have learned that just about the time I begin to think in absolutes, something come along to prove me wrong.
Love to spend a few hours with the DAC pictured above. Who knows, might nevr think about DSD again! =:-0
"Must sound heavenly"
Absolutely! After all what can beat "Absolutely pure sound"?
Remind me again, just what ARE the units of sound purity, and, for that matter, what establishes their upper limit? I think he's pulling our legs at the least... And what makes it work is that I can't tell for sure!
Rick
My current DAC uses four PMC1704U-K's and Trinity DAC uses 16 so it must sound at least four time better, right?
Must sound heavenly, that Trinity DAC. ;-)
Modern digital is too confusing. Mastering aside, I have almost no engagement with DSD - nor seek it. Personally, I prefer to find more great music rather than better sound, if forced to choose, but the best of both worlds for me is properly mastered CD (or CD quality).
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
It's how Faith survives.
Again, I'm not knocking DSD per se and there are plenty of great recordings in this format.
DSD downloads are what - .05% of the market?
If that?
"To Learn Who Rules Over You, Simply Find Out Who You Are Not Allowed to Criticize."
-Voltaire
HQ Player will convert any File to 2x DSD ( and no PCM Conversion-Step)., my favorite format.
I don't understand the hostility to DSD encountered here!
. . . there are certain types of listeners with a psychology whereby they don't want their listening "contaminated" with PCM. You see their posts over on SA-CD.net, but there are even a few of them here on AA. And when SA-CD,net had the effrontery to include blu-ray audio discs in their listings and discussions, many of these folks began to boycott that site. I have some great SACD's in my collection (many of them from PCM masters however - LOL!), but, frankly, I'm sorry that the DSD/SACD technology arose. All it did was to confuse the public, thereby causing the spread of hi-rez PCM to become slowed down. Today DSD has its little niche in the classical world, but it's practically non-existent as far as other genres (genera) are concerned. That's my two cents anyway.
so much hate directed at DSD.
Some without even listening, I'm sure.
And your point about PCM Masters on SACD, that says it all to me.
You can play ANY Format in DSD, it will sound great.
Unless you don't think so.
The debate seems to center on Ideas and Opinions, not Sound.
I was referring to listeners who are so worshipful of DSD that they can't abide the presence of PCM anywhere in the chain. Talk about hate! ;-)
I think the hostility is toward the marketers (mine is) as the root of high quality sonics is not in the format we buy and associated new whizbang equipment we shell out for, but how well the original content was recorded and mastered.While there are many CDs that sound like crap, it's not the fault of the 16/44.1 CD redbook format, IHMO. It's in the recording and mastering as I also own some CDs that sound fantastic and barely distinguishable from their 'hi-res' or DSD counterparts.
Edits: 11/21/15
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Where is the software? Hardly a comeback if you have a few DACs manufactured with 2x or 4x DSD capability and there is roughly nothing to play on them. Even considering just plain 'ol DSD then there is still very little repertoire available even if you have a taste for the obscure (which you will need - no current major artists/recordings/labels as far as I can tell). In regard to true DSD (i.e not just sample rate converted from PCM originals or old analogue sources), even less.
my understanding is that there is quite a bit out there. Clearly not as much as plain old cd or vinyl but still a substantial amount. I admit to not being fully informed on DSD software availability though.
Looking around the interweb there seems to be a total of around 750 albums available currently as "real" DSD downloads. Most are, however, pretty obscure titles even given the predominately specialist repertoire. There are a handful (count 'em) of DSD 128 recordings available on the small 2L label. That's all I can find. No doubt there may be a few more but they won't add up to much as a commercially viable format.
That is tiny in the great scheme of things and probably represents fewer releases than SACD could manage at a similar stage of its introduction. It is certainly vastly smaller than a single month's release schedule of CDs even at this reputedly dying phase of the medium.
Yep. Because even if the original recording medium was DSD it will most likely have been converted to DXD for editing.
Which makes sense, because their recent releases have been 2-disc sets that include an audio-only Blu-Ray disc with the program in 192kHz PCM stereo, etc., as well as the SACD/CD disc.
JM
That is, you only need to sample at twice the frequency you intend to reproduce to capture that frequency perfectly. And very, very few, mostly very, very young people can hear 20kHz much less higher. Thus the adequacy of the 44.1kHz Redbook standard.However the trick part, I would surmise, has always been the filtering of frequencies above the maximum target frequency, (22kHz for Redbook), that are just noise. The advantage of high resolution is in this realm, i.e. it is easier to design filters with fewer artifacts, (such as phase shift or ringing), when the digital frequencies are higher to begin with.
I might suggest, as a non-expert, that advances in DAC design are almost entirely a matter of filtering with fewer artifacts. BTW, I'm extremely pleased with my Schiit Bifrost Multibit with its "closed form" filtering; the level of realism is astonishing, at least at that price point.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich
Edits: 11/19/15 11/19/15
"That is, you only need to sample at twice the frequency you intend to reproduce to capture that frequency perfectly. And very, very few, mostly very, very young people can hear 20kHz much less higher. Thus the adequacy of the 44.1kHz Redbook standard."
Maybe in theory, but a lot of us can hear the time domain distortions at HF, even if it's below 20 kHz.... If we couldn't, there wouldn't be a large group of people who believe no filtering (non-oversampling or "NOS") was the best approach to CD playback. I prefer "short" filters personally.... Which don't adhere to Nyquist as well as "long" filters, but I prefer how they sound.
"However the trick part, I would surmise, has always been the filtering of frequencies above the maximum target frequency, (22kHz for Redbook), that are just noise. The advantage of high resolution is in this realm, i.e. it is easier to design filters with fewer artifacts, (such as phase shift or ringing), when the digital frequencies are higher to begin with."
If the sample rate is high enough, I think all filtering could be analog, which would significantly simply the process.....
"I might suggest, as a non-expert, that advances in DAC design are almost entirely a matter of filtering with fewer artifacts. BTW, I'm extremely pleased with my Schiit Bifrost Multibit with its 'closed form' filtering; the level of realism is astonishing, at least at that price point."
At the 44.1 kHz sample rate, there is no filter that is "good enough" to where it would be indistinguishable from 15 ips analog tape.... The filters have advanced to where the obtrusiveness at HF has become tolerable in a lot of cases. But still not completely transparent. (Vinyl tells me this whenever I listen to it.) Schiit is one of the better recent products.
Had the CD been sampled at 48 kHz, we may not have had half the problems we've been having.... The Nyquist frequency would have been high enough (24 kHz vs. 22.05 kHz) where the HF artifacts could have been significantly lower.
The high-rez movement was based on the notion that the resolution of 16/44 Redbook CD wasn't sufficient for true high-fidelity audio playback. I agree with that notion personally, but I've yet to experience a high-resolution digital format that I prefer over CD.
Feanor: " However the trick part, I would surmise, has always been the filtering of frequencies above the maximum target frequency, (22kHz for Redbook), that are just noise. The advantage of high resolution is in this realm, i.e. it is easier to design filters with fewer artifacts, (such as phase shift or ringing), when the digital frequencies are higher to begin with. "Todd: " If the sample rate is high enough, I think all filtering could be analog, which would significantly simply the process....."
This is the approach take by the new PS Audio NuWave DSD; it oversamples, does DAC using delta-sigma, then uses an analog filter.
Feanor: " I might suggest, as a non-expert, that advances in DAC design are almost entirely a matter of filtering with fewer artifacts. BTW, I'm extremely pleased with my Schiit Bifrost Multibit with its 'closed form' filtering; the level of realism is astonishing, at least at that price point. "
Todd: " At the 44.1 kHz sample rate, there is no filter that is "good enough" to where it would be indistinguishable from 15 ips analog tape.... The filters have advanced to where the obtrusiveness at HF has become tolerable in a lot of cases. But still not completely transparent. (Vinyl tells me this whenever I listen to it.) Schiit is one of the better recent products.
...
The high-rez movement was based on the notion that the resolution of 16/44 Redbook CD wasn't sufficient for true high-fidelity audio playback. I agree with that notion personally, but I've yet to experience a high-resolution digital format that I prefer over CD. "The Schiit approach is quite different from PSA's NuWave approach. Schiit oversamples and uses a "closed-form" filter that preserves the original PCM data points, then uses a high-accuracy R2R (ladder) DAC. I haven't heard the NuWave but the Bifrost Multibit is remarkably good, especially with 16/44.1. I'd love the hear Schiit's more up-market Gungnir Multibit or Yggdrasil that use the same principles, but they are out my price range unfortunately.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich
Edits: 11/22/15
I am extremely pleased with my Schiit Gungnir Multibit. I have never heard 44/16 sound so good. However, the sonic benefits of true hires recordings are very discernible (listen to the sampler from AIX records). Having said that, the reproduction of redbook standard music by the Gumby is so enjoyable that I don't feel the need to rebuy stuff I already own. I do occaisionally buy hires for new releases that I can discern the provenance of the recording but I'm very satisfied with the sound of well recorded music from my existing redbook digital library.
For the multibit upgrade.
nt
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich
is that the signal fed to AD converter has no component above half of the sampling frequency.
So filtering technique is also needed in A to D conversion.
It is this theory about high sample rates for facilitating filtering that has informed my current digital player, I think.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
friends of family that give a crap about hi rez. About the only reason I like hi rez is not about the sound, it's about the furthering of technology that will eventually benefit music reproduction. Currently, I'm quite content with a well mastered redbook cd/file or lp.
They told the public it was perfect. The public believed them and then they told the public they needed something better. Better than perfect?
Dave
I only have half a dozen hi-res albums downloaded and still don't know why there is so much hype about it. To me a good red book recording far surpasses them in SQ and with over 500 cd's, that is how I do most of my listening and I have never felt that I was missing something by doing so!
Totally agree! Well recorded CDs sound great with clarity, detail, dynamics and attack. An example, is Miles Davis "Amandla" and many audiophile recordings that received better Mastering and CD pressing. Check out some very good quality recordings from http://www.fideliomusique.com/.
For HiRez file downloads, I was able to compare three versions of the same Album (WAV, Flac, aiff) and one sounded better in terms of detail and musicality. So, just because the file is a high-resolution does not mean great sound.
t.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
In my humble opinion.....If high-resolution digital audio playback were as enjoyable from a music perspective as good vinyl playback or the best CD playback, the high-resolution formats would have taken off to the stars......
There is an artifact with all active high resolution digital playback that in my opinion really hinders the enjoyment of the music..... Whenever I listen, the focus after 10 minutes shifts from the music to how irritating the experience has become..... After 15 minutes, I have to shut it down.... My ears feel like they've undergone a root canal..... I have to wait at least half an hour before listening to more music, in any format..... I've yet to experience active high-rez digital audio playback devoid of this problem. (I experience this to a lesser degree with a lot of CD playback too, but not so much with better CD playback.)
If there is a secondary problem, it's that over 90 percent of today's popular music does not command high-fidelity sound reproduction. Due to excessive processing and diminishing standards in mastering. (Truly great recordings are becoming rare as hen's teeth.) I think Auto-Tune is the biggest culprit, it is very irritating to listen to at higher resolutions, even on vinyl. In my opinion, this is by far the worst thing that has happened to music during my lifetime. (People seem amazed that I can recognize Auto-Tune in as little as three seconds. But they wouldn't be amazed if they just learn to recognize it themselves.)
So for high-resolution audio, it's a double whammy. I think these two reasons tower over those mentioned in the article.
Edits: 11/18/15
It's pretty clear you do not like the digital formats for music. That's
OK. I don't like vinyl for music, and that's OK too.
What it comes down to is this: you prefer the sound of distortions
peculiar to vinyl; I prefer the sound of distortions peculiar to digital
formats. You're preferences are not somehow superior to mine, nor mine
to yours.
"It's pretty clear you do not like the digital formats for music."
I don't like high-resolution digital formats.... The format I listen to most often is CD...........
I do prefer vinyl, but with the maintenance, I end up playing CD because the dropoff of a good CD rig from a good vinyl rig is small enough to where it's a tolerable compromise. (The problem was finding a good CD rig.... It took me years to find one.)
I'm sorry you are wired like that. Quite limiting.
"I'm sorry you are wired like that. Quite limiting."
I think of that experience I had at a computer lab in Tucson about 15 years ago.... This was back when monitors were all CRTs, one of the 30 monitors running in the lab had a big problem in the flyback transformer, it "screamed" a high-frequency whistle, I was bolting out of the room along with a few other people, a tech in the room was wondering what the commotion was all about..... He didn't hear it at all.
Not everybody hears things the same way. Even with some CD playback, I don't take it very well.
But I do agree about the second. We're all wired differently.
Great Post!
+1
What he said.
Meat; It's the right thing to do. Romans 14:2
If high-resolution digital audio playback were as enjoyable from a music perspective as good vinyl playback or the best CD playback, the high-resolution formats would have taken off to the stars......
Not necessarily. The problem has nothing to do with sound quality and musical enjoyment, IMHO. It has more to do with unawareness among the general public. Most people know what vinyl records and CDs are. Hardly anyone knows what "hi-res" is, nor do they care.
CD is and was the only format available since its inception. If you want the music, this is how you get it.
If SACD had been priced more competitively and had been embraced more widely, it may not have been related to niche status.
Actually, vinyl is the format from inception. Not CD. Sony official stated recently that only about 30% of music ever made the leap to CD.
Starting in the 80s when the CD format was released, the vast majority of music was available on CD and after the cassette format died, the only format.
Today, some content is also released in vinyl, but for the most part, you simply cannot find high resolution versions of currently released content.
I generally feel similarly. I prefer CD to hi-res, but I don't know why since I predicted theoretically a different experience.
By auto-tune, you mean the singers, right? To me, that means that they are not good singers, so I don't listen to them.
"By auto-tune, you mean the singers, right? To me, that means that they are not good singers, so I don't listen to them."
Not necessarily..... Auto-Tune is being added indiscriminately to even classic singers on remasters. Frank Sinatra has been a big victim here. (On another forum, someone stated he mistook Sinatra for Michael Buble.... I'd bet he listened a remaster with Auto-Tune applied. I think nobody would mistake unadulterated Sinatra for another singer, especially an Auto-Tuned one.) The producers/engineers think nobody would notice, but we notice it, and I've actually tossed CDs in the trash......
I've also heard Auto-Tune applied to violinists and symphony orchestras ..... Anything where deviations from perfect pitch is an issue. Once again, not necessarily poorer performers. But indiscriminately, the engineers think they're doing the listeners a favor, where they're actually doing just the opposite.
In some cases, some of us disagree with you about this assertion. ;-)
"VAT? 'Le Tune Automatic'?
"Nay, Nay!!"
"In some cases, some of us disagree with you about this assertion. ;-)"
There was an Auto-Tuned clip of Sayaka Shoji (my favorite violinist currently performing), but it was yanked from YouTube...... )^; I would have used that clip if it were still available.
Some of Hilary Hahn's stuff was Auto-Tuned too.........
I keep learning about new frauds; there seem to be no limits.
I also recognize autotune and hate it. A mastering engineer told me 95% of the masters hegets have used autotune. Even big artists because they don't even know that it is being used when they record. There is a low level crud or distortion on vocals I immediately hear with autotune. Vocals lose there absolute clarity
Alan
/
I have heard 24/192 and DSD on the Sony and not as good as Tidal streamed thru my Audio-GD Master 7 from a MacBook Pro using Amarro
Alan
I don't listen to 100% of today's popular Music.
It just smells bad.
Of course
ET
Yep, just resting.
Norwegian Blue.......beautiful plumage!
ET
But now we got PONO selling 'Hi-Rez' up-samplings of Redbook content.
Even a lot of the so-called 'Hi-Rez' streams on ClassicsOnlineHD are 24/44.1, which tells a tale.
QOBUZ is in financial trouble (have been for a while) and I'm not sure how long TIDAL will hold out with their 'new' ownership.
MOG > Beats > Apple Music has been a nightmare for early adopters of streaming, even at it's 320kbps mp-3.
I'm hanging in with QOBUZ, TIDAL and ClassicsOnlineHD, but to be honest hear little or now difference in the higher 'rez' if ClassicsOnlineHD, but do love their classical catalog and search function irrespective of 'rez'.
Where do we have Pono selling upsampled material? A few albums may have gotten thru. Once Pono finds out it has always been corrected. That has been my experience. Love their hi res. Not a huge fan of CDs.
I think the winners will be Spotify and Deezer..... What I found interesting is that when someone posted the new Teac Player/DAC that the two supported streaming services were just that. And Throw in Pandora for people that just don't care.
Cut-Throat
I agree
"I'm hanging in with TIDAL and ClassicsOnlineHD, but to be honest hear little or now difference in the higher 'rez' if ClassicsOnlineHD, but do love their classical catalog and search function irrespective of 'rez'."
Don't have Q0buz. I hear they are having financial troubles
Alan
Nah ! Something is dead only when there is no alternative to replace it.
Any number of us "Old Schoolers" never "hook,line & sinker" bought completely into depending on Downloads or Music Services as our only means of getting music
Shame on anyone if they depend on "Mainstream" trends to dictate how they will be able to
do anything they value doing. I'm not ready to play "Chicken Little: The sky is falling" over something that is a non-issue due to the fact I normally plan ahead ! (You can always go on
Facebook & play. Chicken Little there. I would imagine there is never a.shortage of whinners
over there)
No intention to stop any time soon.
I think CDs are the best overall value in music today. Amazon's own compromised downloads cost as much and sometimes more per album than a CD. Sadly the cost of vinyl is getting rather high, the last new LP I bought a month ago was $ 18.00, a bargain considering most are priced at $ 25.00 or higher. Same applies to SACDs.
By the way, I've had really good luck buying used CDs through Amazon, all so far have been in the exact condition they were advertised.
Best regards, Ralph
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Great music, great prices.
We're living in the golden age of CD's, especially for classical fans.
"To Learn Who Rules Over You, Simply Find Out Who You Are Not Allowed to Criticize."
-Voltaire
So many bargains in any music genre, dirt cheap classical CD box sets, no need to worry about storage, crashing and backing up the computer, they are full bandwidth, and you can resell them or give them as gifts. Try doing that with a download.
The thrift stores in my area are selling them for a buck each. There is a lot of good stuff. There is also the occasional SACD and DVD-A. I also have Marantz and Pioneer Elite universal players that I bought from a thrift store to play them on. Never adopt a technology until it is obsolete!
Dave
Thanks to Blu-Ray, the Marantz DV-9500/DV-9600 series are now cheap multi-disk spinners and just as good for CD/SACD as they were when they sold for approx. $2K.
This was the lesser DV6600, but it was only $15. Still a very good deal IMO. I would love to find a DV-9500/DV-9600 anywhere near that price, but the DB6600 does surprisingly well on Redbook. It is no giant killer, but it does the job.
Dave
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
