[gregorio]

  What does the pros/cons of binaural have to do with DSD?

 
There is a connection, although it's a tenuous, illogical one: Some/many of the more extreme audiophiles cannot accept the affect of perception and therefore worship the "truth" of the sound waves which enter the ear rather than the subjective attempts at the "truth" of what we actually hear. Caught in this fallacy, binaural mic'ing is the logical, obviously best method of recording what enters the ears. I've heard some excellent binaural recordings but those recordings still lack an absolutely truthful reproduction of a live performance if one listens repeatedly in fine detail. For those who worship only the "truth" of the actual sound waves present at the time, the only logical explanation is some deficiency in the recording/playback technology. This is of course true to an extent, as transducers are far from absolutely perfect but audiophiles will commonly go well beyond this appropriate extent and also focus on ever more esoteric, ethereal and sometimes even the downright ridiculous, in search of a solution and digital formats are often one of the main targets for this inappropriate focus. A fact which of course is not lost on audiophile equipment/content manufacturers or more precisely, their marketing departments! The marketing and high data density of DSD feeds in perfectly with the circular logic of these extreme audiophiles, a circle which is exceptionally difficult to escape without a REAL acceptance of the true meaning and importance of perception.
 
G

 

[watchnerd]

   
There is a connection, although it's a tenuous, illogical one: Some/many of the more extreme audiophiles cannot accept the affect of perception and therefore worship the "truth" of the sound waves which enter the ear rather than the subjective attempts at the "truth" of what we actually hear. Caught in this fallacy, binaural mic'ing is the logical, obviously best method of recording what enters the ears. I've heard some excellent binaural recordings but those recordings still lack an absolutely truthful reproduction of a live performance if one listens repeatedly in fine detail. For those who worship only the "truth" of the actual sound waves present at the time, the only logical explanation is some deficiency in the recording/playback technology. This is of course true to an extent, as transducers are far from absolutely perfect but audiophiles will commonly go well beyond this appropriate extent and also focus on ever more esoteric, ethereal and sometimes even the downright ridiculous, in search of a solution and digital formats are often one of the main targets for this inappropriate focus. A fact which of course is not lost on audiophile equipment/content manufacturers or more precisely, their marketing departments! The marketing and high data density of DSD feeds in perfectly with the circular logic of these extreme audiophiles, a circle which is exceptionally difficult to escape without a REAL acceptance of the true meaning and importance of perception.
 
G

 

 

[EmPathWalker]

 

   
There is a connection, although it's a tenuous, illogical one: Some/many of the more extreme audiophiles cannot accept the affect of perception and therefore worship the "truth" of the sound waves which enter the ear rather than the subjective attempts at the "truth" of what we actually hear. Caught in this fallacy, binaural mic'ing is the logical, obviously best method of recording what enters the ears. I've heard some excellent binaural recordings but those recordings still lack an absolutely truthful reproduction of a live performance if one listens repeatedly in fine detail. For those who worship only the "truth" of the actual sound waves present at the time, the only logical explanation is some deficiency in the recording/playback technology. This is of course true to an extent, as transducers are far from absolutely perfect but audiophiles will commonly go well beyond this appropriate extent and also focus on ever more esoteric, ethereal and sometimes even the downright ridiculous, in search of a solution and digital formats are often one of the main targets for this inappropriate focus. A fact which of course is not lost on audiophile equipment/content manufacturers or more precisely, their marketing departments! The marketing and high data density of DSD feeds in perfectly with the circular logic of these extreme audiophiles, a circle which is exceptionally difficult to escape without a REAL acceptance of the true meaning and importance of perception.
 
G

 

 
 

 
The connection is simpler than that. It's a recording discipline thing. Two ears, two mics and nothing more than topping and tailing each episode. The simplicity of both make them a good pair of strands to a life's work of listening and capturing.

 

[analogsurviver]

  What do the pros/cons of binaural have to do with DSD?

Simple. There is no other better way of proving DSD superiority over PCM than binaural - because binaural it is the simplest miking technique possible.  
 
Where else - or using anything else - can you LISTEN for yourself ; both to sound heard live and subsequently the reproduction - if not when using binaural mics on your own head/ears ? At the EXACT spot in any given venue, not even one single milimeter removed from it ? This, of course, does NOT allow for ABX - one can not wear microphones and headphones at the same time ! ( In theory and practice, one CAN - using JVC 200e Binaural Mics/Headphone combo; but even if and when you replace both mics and headphone drivers (or use IEMs instead of headphone part of the 200e), it is STILL , when aiming for the ultimate, an unacceptably compromised  solution ). Compare that  to any other miking technique ...
 
And, if one likes it or not - in such scenario, given the high enough quality of the anicillary equipment, DSD wins ower PCM. 
 
Or, put another way, the deficiencies of all other miking techniques can well, from partly to almost completely,  mask the difference between the DSD and PCM.
 
If you look at the ACTUAL results from using either the DSD or PCM from the REAL WORLD equipment ( A/D conversion and D/A conversion = recorder ) and observe the sqare wave response on FAST ENOUGH oscilloscope ( be it analogue or digital ), you are going to find SLIGHT advantage of DSD over PCM. It is damn hard to specify this difference in actual rise time(s), etc - because filtering, either for DSD or PCM, can vary - A LOT.  Many digital devices allow for the use of various filters - and one can well arrive to the filtering combination particularly beneficial to PCM and atrocious for DSD - and vice versa.  But given an about "equal" filtering treatment, DSD wins - as it is faster. It is usually in the around 2 usec ( two microseconds ) range, for DSD128 vs PCM 192/24, with the equipment I work with. As said above, this is equipment and setting dependable - but in principle, DSD is faster than PCM.
 
It is this audible immediacy that wins for me - and is nowhere as easily audible as with binaural recordings.

 

[watchnerd]

 
It is this audible immediacy that wins for me - and is nowhere as easily audible as with binaural recordings.

 
This is the Sound Science forum.
 
The "audible immediacy that wins for" you is not data.
 
Please provide data.  
 
Not stories.
 
Not anecdotes.  
 
Data.

 

[GuyUnder]

There is a lot of ignorance on the topic of high frequency audio. First of all, real instruments produce frequencies up to and above 100 kHz. The inconvenient truth is, non-lineararities matter. The other, 5 billion ton Godzilla in the listening room is that human beings DO receive high frequency sound, which our brains react to even though we don't consciously perceive it as sound.
 
Bear in mind that we are measuring electrical signals. We hear pressure differentials.

 

[analogsurviver]

analog, for those recordings you miked with binaural, I heard severe frequency-domain colorations stemming from such miking acoustics that were not corrected for. Headphones at large are designed for listening to regular stereo recordings and as such were designed with specific FRs that make listening to regular stereo recordings as natural an experience as possible. Raw binaural recordings are therefore NOT suitable for consumer consumption via headphones on the market--it's like applying the same effect twice in frequency aspects.

When I did my foobar headphone plugin, I accounted for this discrepancy by applying the time-domain effects of my measured HRTFs while effectively neutralizing all frequency-domain modifications via EQ. I believe, nay, my ears told me, that a similar process would have been required on your binaural recordings for them to sound good on headphones. This defeats your idea that unprocessed DSD recording should be used.

Joe, you are quite correct in saying that headphones at large are designed for listening to regular stereo recordings. For the very reasons cited.
 
I agree that in the long run, these matters should be standardized. Because EACH type of headphone requires different HRTFs with any given signal. The main reason is that >99% of all conventional headphones do not allow for the natural crosstalk between our 2 ears.
 
There is a reason why I preferred Jecklin Float at first, made my own, much improved version of it ( that adressed each and every deficiency of Float, but proved to be potentially deadly and is therefore in storage since the turn of the millenium ) - ultimately going with AKG K-1000. It is THE undisputed king with binaural - provided the recorded material is not too much for its limited bass capabilities. Great for choirs and chamber music, loud climaxes of symphonic music not being ecatly its cup of tea. Not to mention any electronic bass driven musical genres ... - woefully unacceptable. So, K-1000, as much as I love them, are not the answer for  listening to all types of recording and all types of music. Nor they are usable in anything but completely quiet surroundings.
 
Binaural is still at its infancy. Frankly, I do not expect the required standardization/certification ( say with criteria of compliance with standard - whatever it will be - analogous to that for home cinema ) in my lifetime; but, eventally, it will materialize - for the benefit of us all.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
This is the Sound Science forum.
 
The "audible immediacy that wins for" you is not data.
 
Please provide data.  
 
Not stories.
 
Not anecdotes.  
 
Data.

I agree that this is Science Forum.
 
But, science - or SCIENCE - has one, undisputable flaw.
 
It can not provide any answer to the problem it has never "heard" of.
 
Please note:
 
1.) I am 1 (in a word - ONE ) individual
2.) I am trying to eke out a living with what I like and TRULY believe in. And what is, generally, liked by the musicians themselves.
3.) I do not have financial means at the disposal that could support generating the Data.
      ( There is a published study by IIRC German university stating a statistically large enough group of young people /students/ could not differentiate in DBT ABX        between PCM and DSD ( SACD ?) recording - WITHOUT specifying exactly how those recordings were done, WITHOUT any data how much musical/listening training these students have been subjected to prior taking this test - yielding, IMO, the whole endeavour meaningless . To top it off, they DO have software that allows for DSD/PCM DBT ABX without any noises when changing from DSD to PCM or vice versa; something "we at large" do NOT have, so and so many years later after this German study )
 
4.), 5.) , etc, ad nuseaum - basically, "no mon(e)y, no funy"
 
So, please, at least, give me the benefit of posing the question  (albeit anecdotally arrived at ) - even if and when I am not in the position to generate the answer(s)/proof(s) that would be capable of satisfying all the criteria required in scientific circles.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

There is a lot of ignorance on the topic of high frequency audio. First of all, real instruments produce frequencies up to and above 100 kHz. The inconvenient truth is, non-lineararities matter.

What have non-linearities got to do with frequencies "up to and above 100kHz"?

The other, 5 billion ton Godzilla in the listening room is that human beings DO receive high frequency sound, which our brains react to even though we don't consciously perceive it as sound.

Bear in mind that we are measuring electrical signals. We hear pressure differentials.

And yet, as technology currently stands, we stand to screw up much more in the 0-20kHz baseband if we try to reproduce "above 100kHz".
http://www.head-fi.org/t/782131/why-high-res-audio-is-bad-for-music-take-2

Actually I turn my nose up and prepare my ears for an assault of bad sound every time I face a "hi-end" "bit-perfect" "up to 5.6MHz" sound system.

 

[analogsurviver]

  There is a lot of ignorance on the topic of high frequency audio. First of all, real instruments produce frequencies up to and above 100 kHz. The inconvenient truth is, non-lineararities matter. The other, 5 billion ton Godzilla in the listening room is that human beings DO receive high frequency sound, which our brains react to even though we don't consciously perceive it as sound.
 
Bear in mind that we are measuring electrical signals. We hear pressure differentials.

Bear in mind that we are not  measuring electrical signals ? We hear pressure differentials.

 

[watchnerd]

  I agree that this is Science Forum.
 
But, science - or SCIENCE - has one, undisputable flaw.
 
It can not provide any answer to the problem it has never "heard" of.
 
Please note:
 
1.) I am 1 (in a word - ONE ) individual
2.) I am trying to eke out a living with what I like and TRULY believe in. And what is, generally, liked by the musicians themselves.
3.) I do not have financial means at the disposal that could support generating the Data.
      ( There is a published study by IIRC German university stating a statistically large enough group of young people /students/ could not differentiate in DBT ABX        between PCM and DSD ( SACD ?) recording - WITHOUT specifying exactly how those recordings were done, WITHOUT any data how much musical/listening training these students have been subjected to prior taking this test - yielding, IMO, the whole endeavour meaningless . To top it off, they DO have software that allows for DSD/PCM DBT ABX without any noises when changing from DSD to PCM or vice versa; something "we at large" do NOT have, so and so many years later after this German study )
 
4.), 5.) , etc, ad nuseaum - basically, "no mon(e)y, no funy"
 
So, please, at least, give me the benefit of posing the question  (albeit anecdotally arrived at ) - even if and when I am not in the position to generate the answer(s)/proof(s) that would be capable of satisfying all the criteria required in scientific circles.

 
So you have an 'opinion'.
 
Opinions are not data.
 
Please provide data.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
So you have an 'opinion'.
 
Opinions are not data.
 
Please provide data.

OK, which part of "insufficient finances to generate data" you do not understand ?
 
You can agree or disagree with my decision - but whatever finances available, I prefer to use them to make as good recording as I possibly can, using equipment I think can best cater to the need of recording - instead of pouring ( waay insufficient) finances into proving something much larger organizations do not dare to tackle. 
 
I do not care particularly much if - eventually - there will be inscription on my tombstone, reading :
 
He was right.

 

[GuyUnder]

So you have an 'opinion'.

Opinions are not data.

Please provide data.

He did provide data. His experiences are a data point.

 

[castleofargh]

  There is a lot of ignorance on the topic of high frequency audio. First of all, real instruments produce frequencies up to and above 100 kHz. The inconvenient truth is, non-lineararities matter. The other, 5 billion ton Godzilla in the listening room is that human beings DO receive high frequency sound, which our brains react to even though we don't consciously perceive it as sound.
 
Bear in mind that we are measuring electrical signals. We hear pressure differentials.

 
to show that people can notice a difference, you need to show that people can notice a difference. duh. everything else is just admitting an inability to show actual evidence of hearing. first show that people can really discriminate ultrasounds under control at the levels usually found in music, then show that they can still do it with actual music at normal listening level, and only then then try to guess why and test for it.
instead you go out of your way to explain why people hear a difference, without a shred of evidence that they can. it's a logical fallacy not an argument. we don't care about how aliens kidnap people if we don't have evidence that aliens exist.
 
and so far blind tests about higher resolution have critically failed to show that ultrasounds matter for audibility.
 
 
 
 
@analogsurviver.  the inability to demonstrate something does provide an answer, and that answer is:  we don't actually know yet.
it's not "I know but I can't prove it yet".

 

[watchnerd]

He did provide data. His experiences are a data point.

 
Not that passes muster.