Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: 24/352.8 is what reads out on my DAC too! [nt] ;-) posted by Chris from Lafayette on July 11, 2017 at 10:24:46
via the USB input (Amanero Combo384 Module).
Not sure I get the benefit of the 24 bit depth but who needs to hear 'Brownian' motion? :-)
As the DXD file is FLAC I will need something to convert it with.
Any suggestion for freeware and is there any other CODEC other than FLAC that will store 24/352.8?
I used to use a product called "Max" - although never for DXD. It also ran afoul for me when converting multichannel Chandos flacs to aiffs. (Two-channel flacs were always OK. And even with the multi-channel problems I had - with the wrong signals ending up in the wrong channels in the converted files - ONLY Chandos flac files were affected - the conversions from BIS flacs were always fine - go figure!)
I also have a conversion app called XLD, but I haven't used it yet and I don't know what its capabilities are. I also think that dbPoweramp might work too.
I don't understand paying more money for a DXD file and then converting it to something else in order to play it.
24/96 flacs converted to 24/96 aiffs.
I only have a couple of DXD files (so far anyway), and I play them as flacs (i.e., as downloaded).
Or are you talking about ivan? I'll let him answer for himself.
No, It is my understanding that Channel masters in dxd and then will sell you different versions derived from the DXD master. Seems overly complicated
in Stereo or Multi-Channel.
Sadly, this is NOT the case with most other Channel Classics releases. :-(
Some listeners have personal preferences for one format or another, and are willing to argue about it for years! ;-)
I actually applaud Jared for trying to accommodate these different types of listeners in this release.
To me it looks like these various formats are just a lot of technical hype for marketing purposes. It raises the price of distribution, and ultimately the price to the consumer. I don't believe you can go from one format to another without losing something! Whether it's audible or not, and to whom, might be the issue.
If they wanted to give us the very best, the "mix" would have been in the original miking as was done on the so called "non-commercial" DSD256 version written of above. If DSD64 is what they were working in (and I guess it could have been DSD256) that could have been the principal release. In the glory days of vinyl, were not many recordings made that way? (Too many mikes these days?)
So then they convert to 352.8KHz/24bit PCM (DXD). Question: If they felt they eventually need to go to the Pyramix, why did they not use 352.8KHz/24bit PCM (DXD) for the original live recording? Then they could have done the "required" mixdown with no conversion and that would represent the best that it would be possible to offer. [But they would lose the marketing cachet of having recorded in DSD v. the "old fashioned" PCM.]
But having converted to 352.8KHz/24bit PCM (DXD), how could the fidelity improve by doing yet another conversion? I would have to conclude that 352.8KHz/24bit PCM (DXD) is the best they can now make available.
Given the sophistication of the playback equipment likely used by those considering either the 352.8KHz/24bit PCM (DXD) or one of the DSD versions, is it likely that a DSD version will play back more accurately than the DXD? Is it not accuracy that is the goal? Or is it meeting the personal preference of an end user unfamiliar with the original recording experience?
Finally I might express the view (which a multi-channel listener could feel free to correct) that those of use who listen in just two channels may feel a greater need for accurate aural cues for the space and placement of instruments.
In this case, I would conclude that too, but, as I mentioned, not all listeners feel the same way.
in the recording industry is that Jared actually reveals how he makes the sausage.
You can record in DSD but you can't mix in DSD so you convert the DSD to the very best PCM format available which I trust Jared uses in the Pyramix.
On can argue all day long about formats, PCM vs. DSD and bit depths and sample rates but the truth of the matter is, the problems are largely DECODING issues in the various DACs and NOT in the information contained in the various formats.
In other words, if the recording engineer got the recording part right and it wasn't screwed up in the mixing board, it's on YOU to figure out the best way to play it back.
I've heard Jared's recordings played back on Gigabuck gear and can safely say he is producing some of the best recordings being produced today.
"In other words, if the recording engineer got the recording part right and it wasn't screwed up in the mixing board, it's on YOU to figure out the best way to play it back."
Interesting, and just how are we to figure it out, aside from theoretically, to wit, the DXD files.
I appreciate the samples and I downloaded 2 of them, the DSD256 and the DXD. Problem is that the DSD file has little more than adjusting the bass drum sticks. The DXD has more. Perhaps I should try others. But these do not represent the miking and mix of the final product.
Better still if Jarad would distribute a six minute sample of the final mix that he thought best illustrated his work, and in the various formats.
IMNSHO, it's gotta be user hardware dependent.
There are so many choices in how to decode a digital file that I doubt anyone would ever agree.
I use a multi-bit ladder DAC that likely has a real bit depth of about 18 bits or so. It's based on 8 each PCM1704's and would by many be considered obsolete as TI doesn't sell the chips anymore.
Others have DSD DACs fully capable of decoding DSD-512, some use software to up-sample to that rate, some DSD DACs up-sample internally to even higher sample rates and even deeper bit depths and on and on and on.
Who is to say what's best for you?
I use iTunes with a $10 Bit Perfect plug-in so WTFDIK
You're correct, the free samples on NativeDSD are not the micing and mix of the released album, but are a single take snippet using different mics, recorder, and placement. But the samples do provide accurate comparitive examples of the different formats (PCM/DXD and DSD rates) as how they will play and sound on different playback systems.
Your's is a reasonable request of providing a six or so minute sample of the released Channel Mahler 3 recording in the various delivery formats/rates, so we'll see how best to distribute these.
Thanks for your suggestion!
I spoke with Jared, and he'll add the Mahler 3 5th Movement to the NativeDSD Just Listen label page, in all the deliverable forms next week. This movement is particularly useful as a format comparison, as it is very rich sonically containing not only the orchestra, but the women's and children's chorus as well as the alto Gerhild Romberger.
I'll keep you all informed.
and iTunes with the Bit Perfect plug-in won't play FLAC. The nativeDSD site does not specify which file type the download.
DXD is 32/352.8k PCM and it doesn't necessarily have to be a .flac file, could just a easily be a .wav file and it would remain a DXD file and would still be 32/352.8k PCM
See link below:
Or, it could even be a 24/352.8 aiff file. ;-)
if there is such a thing?
My freeware conversion only goes to 192 :-(
Do all these different formats really sound significantly different or are they small. For me it is still the original quality of the recording that matters. For example I really don't care for the sound of the Channel Classics recordings. The don't have the immediecy of for instance the old Decca, RCA and Mercury recordings. I think they are using to many mikes.Read a review of one of there recordings which said they used 17 mikes. Now it is really up to the mixer to create the sound they are looking for.
if they are truly lossless.
The real issue here is with the playback software you use, will it even play it, how much CPU time it takes to convert it to play, how much space the particular lossless CODEC takes on the hard drive, how much it can be compressed for streaming or downloading, etc.
They're very small - as I always say, it's like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (FLAC files are losslessly compressed, whereas AIFF and WAV are usually uncompressed.) And you're right that it is still the original recording quality which matters most, regardless of the particular incarnation.
Yeah, I like the old Decca, RCA and Mercury (and EMI!) recordings too. But OTOH, I believe that great recordings can be made with different microphoning philosophies, and, certainly (or at least IMHO), Channel Classics invariably gives us outstanding examples of their recording philosophy with each new release - really state of the art for their particular approach.
We can't possibly be defining state of the art dependent on what recording method is used? Can we? State of the art should be the absolute best, period!
You say that "State of the art should be the absolute best, period". And yet you also ask "We can't possibly be defining state of the art dependent on what recording method is used? Can we?". If we're talking about absolute best, then I guess we'd have to say that, yes, one and only one recording method must be superior. (Or, one and only one microphone set-up - or whatever.) I don't believe this myself, so I guess my definition of "state of the art" is not as narrow as yours?
I don't really disagree with you. There are a lot of great recordings out there. Having listened to tons of recordings and also recorded both multi mike and the 3 mike Decca tree method I think there are more great sounding recordings using 3 mikes than any other system. The move away from 3 mikes as the technology changed was the famous statement Will fix it in the Mix. Works sometimes and also fails sometimes. As far as multi mike recordings go I think Reference Recordings have done the best work.
or buy what you can play.
which I understand is a fairly common occurrence or there wouldn't be all of that conversion software available.
But the conversion freeware program I use won't go past 24/192 and I'm not certain what file type I should be using.
Bit Perfect WILL handle up to and including 384kHz sample rates, all I have to do is figure out how to get it into iTunes in a format that Bit Perfect can play it.
iTunes is for folks with two ears, not five. :-)
lossy 256k content. :)
will play just about any sample rate you choose, up to and including DXD. But not from a FLAC file.
But I also have an Audirvana plug-in that plays nice with iTunes
of being 'with Kal'. :-)
his previous comments of course. :)
I do run an Acoustat based MC/HT system although the only stats are the mains.
I'm trying to sell my original non-PX cores to a guy with three U-1s and spare backplates who wants to create a five channel SL system. Not quite as much panel area as Ray Kimber's ten Prostat 922 multi-channel system, but still a bunch!
I've got too many coffin sized boxes in storage. :)
Worth the drive to Denver (I lived in Utah just down the road from Kimber Kable during many of those years).
If you're gonna do multi-channel, I guess ya gotta do it right!
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: