[x RELIC x]

Wow, this could nullify many 'sound impressions ' on this forum . I wonder how many recordings, CD or otherwise that are 'damaged' by the upsampling/downsampling process end up being used as reference recordings. Could it be that there are more CDs out there that are 'original' than there are coming out of streaming or remastered downloads.

If so, this is the best argument I have heard so far for getting the MScaler/CD transport such as Blu2.

We should now be looking out for Studio Master-Bit Perfect labelling!

Putting away the sampling rates of different releases for a moment and focusing on re-masters, there are so many re-masters that are just terrible compared to the original. Much of the streaming music I've heard is re-mastered, and predictably dynamically compressed as well. It's called the loudness wars and it sucks.

This is a fantastic article that highlights the importance of mastering to maintain dynamic range:

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/ca-academy/dynamic-range-no-quiet-no-loud-r643/

And this is a great example in the article to easily hear good vs bad/compressed mastering:




Why jump in with this in the middle of the sampling rate conversation? Because in my experience the quality of the master is far more important than the subtleties of different sampling rates. Granted, I always feed the DAVE bit perfect (I don't have a Blu mk2), but I know that no re-sampling or high res can fix a bad master.... and bad masters are far too prevelant now. I mean, really terrible. Every single time I see 're-mastered' on an album I shudder. Shoot, even some original masters are terrible, like much of Adele's albums (a lot of distortion in her albums as well), yet her music is quite often used as a reference. Sometimes the studio gets it right but in general this is an exception with re-masters.

In the end I feel one should find the least dynamically compressed master of a good recording and then feed that bit-perfect to the Blu mk2/DAVE (what ever sampling rate it's in) rather than mess with altering what is already there to try and improve on it.

As far as nullifying 'sound impressions' I would say that quite often I see comments on gear sounding bad, but many times it's just the gear accurately showing the listener what's in the recording. Also, like Rob's reference above, many people simply have a preference toward certain sounds... even if it sounds bad.

 

[Christer]

An interesting event happened when I was in Tokyo for the International Audio Fair which is pertinent to this post. Hiroko, Chord's high-end distributor in Japan, took me to a demo supposedly showing the "superiority" of HD files, as they were using Dave to do this. The demo was conducted in Japanese; they first played the 44.1/16 version, and it sounded superb; transparent, deep sound-stage, and emotionally involving. They then played the HD version (I recall it as 176.4/24 but was definitely PCM), and the demonstrators started grinning like Cheshire cats; but the sound was much worse and very similar to your experience - it sounded unnaturally soft, warm and out of focus; and the sound-stage - which before was deep and very layered - now sounded flat with no real depth perceptive. I was shocked how much worse it was, and initially very puzzled. Then the demonstrators started talking more, and then it clicked as the word DSD kept cropping up.

Afterwards I asked Hiroko what was going on, and she said that the first CD was the original from the '90's; and the new HD recording was based on a DSD re-master from the original, then converted to HD PCM. And soft, over warm and bloated with poor depth is exactly what DSD sounds like; and the technical reasons why the process sounds the way it does I fully understand - there are very sound technical reasons for the over warm and flatter sound-stage of DSD.

So I am sure what you are listening too is not the same master, so this is not a pure test of CD against HD, as your observations mirrors my experience in this demo. I though have obtained two files where the 44.1/16 is obtained from the master - so can hear absolute difference from 44.1/16 against 96/24 - and the 96/24 (the original master) sounds very much better - deeper sound-stage, more transparency - than the CD version. Note that the higher the SR the more important it is to engage the HF filter. Indeed, I always purchase modern recordings as HD if I can be sure the recording is the original master.

As to whether the WTA filter being optimized for CD - actually this is not the case, as it is the identical filter with identical coefficients, and identical amount of stored data samples, and with the DSP cores running at exactly the same number of instructions per second. All that happens (for single speed 44.1 against double speed 88.2) the over-sample ratio is from 16 to 8 and half of the coefficients are not used (as the over-sample ratio is halved). The filter performance and character is identical (so if it was -3 dB at say 22.000 kHz it would now be -3 dB at 44.000 kHz for double speed).

So the rule of thumb is simple; you can't make meaningful observations of anything unless you know the exact provenance of your source or test.

With all the misinformation and wrong conclusions made by some here it is refreshing to once again hear from Rob himself the following:
"I though have obtained two files where the 44.1/16 is obtained from the master - so can hear absolute difference from 44.1/16 against 96/24 - and the 96/24 (the original master) sounds very much better - deeper sound-stage, more transparency - than the CD version."
Like Rob I also have quite a few actual masterfiles directly from sessions I attended in some cases and as downloads from several labels that can be trusted regarding what they actually sell these days.
And let me also make it VERY CLEAR that there is NO DOUBT whatsover provided that you have a system that is able to resolve the extra information in well recorded hi res that the master always sounds better than the downsampled 16/44.1.
And better in exactly the respects Rob mentions.
This nonsense being spread here that rbcd sounds as good as or better than hi res is absolute nonsense and anybody at least in the classical music business knows this very well since many years.

 

[Articnoise]

Putting away the sampling rates of different releases for a moment and focusing on re-masters, there are so many re-masters that are just terrible compared to the original. Much of the streaming music I've heard is re-mastered, and predictably dynamically compressed as well. It's called the loudness wars and it sucks.

This is a fantastic article that highlights the importance of mastering to maintain dynamic range:

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/ca-academy/dynamic-range-no-quiet-no-loud-r643/

And this is a great example in the article to easily hear good vs bad/compressed mastering:




Why jump in with this in the middle of the sampling rate conversation? Because in my experience the quality of the master is far more important than the subtleties of different sampling rates. Granted, I always feed the DAVE bit perfect (I don't have a Blu mk2), but I know that no re-sampling or high res can fix a bad master.... and bad masters are far too prevelant now. I mean, really terrible. Every single time I see 're-mastered' on an album I shudder. Shoot, even some original masters are terrible, like much of Adele's albums (a lot of distortion in her albums as well), yet her music is quite often used as a reference. Sometimes the studio gets it right but in general this is an exception with re-masters.

In the end I feel one should find the least dynamically compressed master of a good recording and then feed that bit-perfect to the Blu mk2/DAVE (what ever sampling rate it's in) rather than mess with altering what is already there to try and improve on it.

As far as nullifying 'sound impressions' I would say that quite often I see comments on gear sounding bad, but many times it's just the gear accurately showing the listener what's in the recording. Also, like Rob's reference above, many people simply have a preference toward certain sounds... even if it sounds bad.

I totally agree, most re-masters are made with dynamically compression and sucks and any changes in sampling rate conversation is of much less significates IME, still matter thou.

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

With all the misinformation and wrong conclusions made by some here it is refreshing to once again hear from Rob himself the following:
"I though have obtained two files where the 44.1/16 is obtained from the master - so can hear absolute difference from 44.1/16 against 96/24 - and the 96/24 (the original master) sounds very much better - deeper sound-stage, more transparency - than the CD version."
Like Rob I also have quite a few actual masterfiles directly from sessions I attended in some cases and as downloads from several labels that can be trusted regarding what they actually sell these days.
And let me also make it VERY CLEAR that there is NO DOUBT whatsover
And better in exactly the respects Rob mentions.http://www.piega.ch/en/service-und-...ownload/1159_b128d73cbfaea23573a07fbf6e75882f
This nonsense being spread here that rbcd sounds as good as or better than hi res is absolute nonsense and anybody at least in the classical music business knows this very well since many years.

Christer
I doubt anyone here questions that 96/24 (properly mastered) should improve on RB.

I think the pertinent question though is "how many of the hi res files currently available (at significantly higher prices than RB) are free from detrimental mastering processes? As Rob has pointed out, it is not good enough to assume a hi res file will be an improvement on the RB equivalent.

At the same time Blu MkII has raised the bar in regard to the quality of streaming required to make streaming a worth while alternative to CD in terms of SQ. Making the jump to a file based audio system is not a small commitment after all. It makes sense to me that people would first validate the margin of improvement and also quantify the availability of worthwhile recordings before making a commitment. If for instance there are only 50 worthwhile recordings of interest to a particular party then at £20 per recording and say £4,000 to pay for the system the cost would be £100 per recording! Is it worth 20x the cost of a CD equivalent? I don't think the industry has come close to delivering sufficient availability of files yet and that's without the arguments on quality.

Ease of use is of course another story. I cannot argue with that and for some people it may be worth the investment.

 

[Malcyg]

Christer
I doubt anyone here questions that 96/24 (properly mastered) should improve on RB.

I think the pertinent question though is "how many of the hi res files currently available (at significantly higher prices than RB) are free from detrimental mastering processes? As Rob has pointed out, it is not good enough to assume a hi res file will be an improvement on the RB equivalent.

At the same time Blu MkII has raised the bar in regard to the quality of streaming required to make streaming a worth while alternative to CD in terms of SQ. Making the jump to a file based audio system is not a small commitment after all. It makes sense to me that people would first validate the margin of improvement and also quantify the availability of worthwhile recordings before making a commitment. If for instance there are only 50 worthwhile recordings of interest to a particular party then at £20 per recording and say £4,000 to pay for the system the cost would be £100 per recording! Is it worth 20x the cost of a CD equivalent? I don't think the industry has come close to delivering sufficient availability of files yet and that's without the arguments on quality.

Ease of use is of course another story. I cannot argue with that and for some people it may be worth the investment.

Very good response Dave. I don't see anybody here asserting that rbcd is categorically better than hires files. But there are a number of different variables that may conspire to make that the case, be it source file, system issues or others. Finding out answers to these questions is what we're here for isn't it?

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

I notice from the Polish review of Blu MkII that the reviewer mentioned a number of times that the tone was dark. I wonder, is this how existing Blu MkII owners here would describe the overall tone?

 

[Triode User]

I notice from the Polish review of Blu MkII that the reviewer mentioned a number of times that the tone was dark. I wonder, is this how existing Blu MkII owners here would describe the overall tone?

No. But for me the first impression on hearing the Blu2 was the improvement in the bass. However, this does not mean that there is more emphasis on the bass and indeed it may be that the improved top end is also having an effect on the apparent quality of the bass, ie more detail etc.

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

No. But for me the first impression on hearing the Blu2 was the improvement in the bass. However, this does not mean that there is more emphasis on the bass and indeed it may be that the improved top end is also having an effect on the apparent quality of the bass, ie more detail etc.

Thanks TU
Perhaps the reviewer had was used to a brighter system

 

[Malcyg]

No. But for me the first impression on hearing the Blu2 was the improvement in the bass. However, this does not mean that there is more emphasis on the bass and indeed it may be that the improved top end is also having an effect on the apparent quality of the bass, ie more detail etc.

Yes, I think that it is the deeper and more focussed bass combined with the greater transparency, clarity and analogue like smoothness that perhaps is behind that comment. I think when people compare digital with analogue, then digital would generally be deemed to be brighter due to the harder edges.

 

[stvc]

Just got my blue MII.... all I can say now is get a pair of good BNC... the original BNC just...

 

[Triode User]

Just got my blue MII.... all I can say now is get a pair of good BNC... the original BNC just...

Just what? Stopped working?

By the way, we have been through what 'good' means in the context of Blu2 and Dave connection. It does not mean exotic.

Glad you have got your Blu2 though. What do think of it so far?

 

[stvc]

The original BNC cable from blue sound veiled. With my own BNC now I'm very happy with it.

 

[Malcyg]

Just got my blue MII.... all I can say now is get a pair of good BNC... the original BNC just...

Great - enjoy it. I have a few pairs of different BNC cables coming in for evaluation. I have two very cheap ones which I bought just to evaluate the Blu and decide whether to buy it or not. That was quite an easy decision, but I feel that there could be a bit more to be had from the right cables.

 

[Triode User]

Great - enjoy it. I have a few pairs of different BNC cables coming in for evaluation. I have two very cheap ones which I bought just to evaluate the Blu and decide whether to buy it or not. That was quite an easy decision, but I feel that there could be a bit more to be had from the right cables.

I would be interested to hear about your conclusions. Are the cables you are getting sensible priced ones or are they silly money? Also, what length are they?

 

[Malcyg]

I would be interested to hear about your conclusions. Are the cables you are getting sensible priced ones or are they silly money? Also, what length are they?

They range in price from reasonable to a price that I will probably not be prepared to pay. And I stop short well before silly money territory. All are 1m.