[WindowsX]

In some posts before, there's a guy stating he couldn't hear difference between CD and SACD, leading to discussion whether SACD will really give any measurable benefits comparing to CD. Today I'd like to present the paper that was published last few years ago about benefits of DSD below.
 
http://www.aes.org/technical/documentDownloads.cfm?docID=507
 

 The original DSD oversampling rate of 64 Fs (64 x 44.1 kHz, or 2.8224 MHz) has now been expanded to include both 128 Fs and 256 Fs. The main advantage of the higher rates is that the rise in shaped noise which occurs as a consequence of dynamic range processing in sigma delta modulators can be pushed considerably further out beyond the audio band (> 60 kHz), and with less quantization noise remaining in the audio band, than is possible with 64 Fs. The DSD signal is said to sound cleaner and more transparent at the higher data rates.

 
There's also other interesting topics about other high resolution audio formats to read too so enjoy reading and happy listening.

 

[castleofargh]

 help me a little here, try to make an actual point that is more than getting back at someone who didn't agree with you.
what are you saying with this topic? what are we supposed to discuss?
 
because what I see is that you call out one guy who said he couldn't tell DSD and CD apart by ear. ok, so what? I don't think I can tell CD from anything else aside from low rate lossy files. will you make another topic to say that?
next is a PDF that's talking about trends... suggesting that DSD doesn't measure the same as CD, again so what? I don't know of anybody who claimed that CD measured identical to DSD. even the "slowest" DSD ends up with practical resolution above 16/44.
 
so again, where are you going with this captain obvious topic?

 

[spruce music]

OP says this was published a few years ago.  Actually it was two years ago to the month.  You likely will find the veracity of his comments go down hill from there judging from recent experience. 

 

[WindowsX]

   help me a little here, try to make an actual point that is more than getting back at someone who didn't agree with you.
what are you saying with this topic? what are we supposed to discuss?
 
because what I see is that you call out one guy who said he couldn't tell DSD and CD apart by ear. ok, so what? I don't think I can tell CD from anything else aside from low rate lossy files. will you make another topic to say that?
next is a PDF that's talking about trends... suggesting that DSD doesn't measure the same as CD, again so what? I don't know of anybody who claimed that CD measured identical to DSD. even the "slowest" DSD ends up with practical resolution above 16/44.
 
so again, where are you going with this captain obvious topic?

 
Look, I asked about A+ feature before in here.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/832765/a-technology-in-daniel-hertzs-master-class-software-and-future-of-highend-audio
 
It got derailed by bfreedma about SACD debate whether it can provide superior sound quality and he demanded me for data about SACD giving better sound quality ended up having topic locked because none of you guys in here can tell anything meaningful about it. I found the answer from facebook comment instead telling the origin of this feature and it's ambience generation DSP.
 
Well, what done is done. There's still SACD topic lingering there because bfreedma stated
 

Gregorio is correct, the validation for my claim about CD/SACD are so well and ubiquitously documented here that I didn't think it was necessary to post them yet again.

 
I decided to post another topic to clear up this misunderstandings, to help educating fellow head-fiers understanding about SACD better because it seems some people took CD/SACD stuff that guy said before as a matter of fact.
 

  OP says this was published a few years ago.  Actually it was two years ago to the month.  You likely will find the veracity of his comments go down hill from there judging from recent experience. 

 
All I can see is commenting about using incorrect grammar and personal insult. Is this still sound science forum?

 

[gregorio]

 
[1] I decided to post another topic to clear up this misunderstandings, to help educating fellow head-fiers understanding about SACD better because it seems some people took CD/SACD stuff that guy said before as a matter of fact.  
[2] Is this still sound science forum?

 
Firstly, how is quoting a passage about why higher sample rate DSD is "said" to be better than standard sample rate DSD clearing up any misunderstandings about SACD vs CD? Your quote doesn't even mention CD!
 
Secondly, if we won't take what you say as a "matter of fact", why do you think we take what that other guy said as a matter of fact? You think maybe it's because we just like him more than you? We took what he said as a matter of fact because what he said agrees with the already known scientific facts, whereas what you're saying disagrees with the known scientific facts and you've presented not a shred of actual evidence to refute those scientific facts!!
 
How many times has this been explained to you? It's inconceivable that you could have such a poor understanding of science
 
G

 

[WindowsX]

   
Firstly, how is quoting a passage about why higher sample rate DSD is "said" to be better than standard sample rate DSD clearing up any misunderstandings about SACD vs CD? Your quote doesn't even mention CD!
 
Secondly, if we won't take what you say as a "matter of fact", why do you think we take what that other guy said as a matter of fact? You think maybe it's because we just like him more than you? We took what he said as a matter of fact because what he said agrees with the already known scientific facts, whereas what you're saying disagrees with the known scientific facts and you've presented not a shred of actual evidence to refute those scientific facts!!
 
How many times has this been explained to you? It's inconceivable that you could have such a poor understanding of science
 
G

 
1. Where is documentation about CD and SACD bfreedma should have posted? I don't seem to find it. I disagreed on his statement without any documentation to backup his subjective comment. You keep blaming me for not providing evidence yet you didn't post anything but personal insults. If you disagree with DSD giving better audio performance, state your claim why and show evidence to support

 

[Brooko]

  In some posts before, there's a guy stating he couldn't hear difference between CD and SACD, leading to discussion whether SACD will really give any measurable benefits comparing to CD. Today I'd like to present the paper that was published last few years ago about benefits of DSD below.
 
http://www.aes.org/technical/documentDownloads.cfm?docID=507
 
 
There's also other interesting topics about other high resolution audio formats to read too so enjoy reading and happy listening.

 
Not sure if you actually read (or understood) the paper you quoted.  it has nothing to do with what you were initially discussing.  the paper talks about the trends in consumer audio, and the reference you quoted :

 The original DSD oversampling rate of 64 Fs (64 x 44.1 kHz, or 2.8224 MHz) has now been expanded to include both 128 Fs and 256 Fs. The main advantage of the higher rates is that the rise in shaped noise which occurs as a consequence of dynamic range processing in sigma delta modulators can be pushed considerably further out beyond the audio band (> 60 kHz), and with less quantization noise remaining in the audio band, than is possible with 64 Fs. The DSD signal is said to sound cleaner and more transparent at the higher data rates.

actually has nothing to do with PCM audio at all.  What it was stating (in Laymans terms) was that the original 64 Fs DSD was inherently noisy/flawed (quantisation errors) and by moving to DSD128/DSD256 they could push the shaped noise filters into higher audio bands.
 
So its actually saying that original DSD / SACD had inherent issues - and they are being solved by even larger files.
 
Again though - the real quality is in the mastering, not in the container.  The reason that there aren't a lot of comparisons (ABX) is that there are so few original recordings where the master was recorded in both DSD and PCM (remember you can't edit a pure DSD stream).  Anyway - the article you quoted doesn't really state anything useful.
 
This does though - as the same arguments can be applied to DSD/SACD as to 24/192 audio - https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
 
Its an incorrect answer to a question that doesn't need to be asked.  If we were able to get exactly the same master in both DSD and PCM - there would be no audible difference.  Except the resultant noise with the higher res files would theoretically be worse - even if it wasn't audible.
 
But in short - the reason why some direct to DSD or SACD recordings are so good - is purely because of the quality of the recording set-up.  It'll probably amuse to know that many of the early SACDs were actually taken from 24/96 PCM masters.  There is irony for you  How could they possible be better than the source material? 

 

 

[gregorio]

   
1. Where is documentation about CD and SACD bfreedma should have posted? I don't seem to find it. I disagreed on his statement without any documentation to backup his subjective comment. You keep blaming me for not providing evidence yet you didn't post anything but personal insults.
[2] If you disagree with DSD giving better audio performance, state your claim why and show evidence to support

 
1. All asked previously and answered previously.
 
2. Have you even read the header page of this forum? The burden of proof. The accepted fact is that 16/44.1 encompasses all that is humanly audible, if you want to (repeat the marketing) claim that SACD is audibly better, the burden of proof is yours to make. So present your valid evidence or drop your claim!!!
 
G

 

[WindowsX]

I asked bfreedma to show evidence to backup his claim about no audible difference between cd and sacd. He said its accepted fact so no need to show the proof. I asked again in this topic and they avoided again with burden of proof forcing on me who disagreed with bfreedma'd claim. And mod missed the point of whole discussion since previous threads too.

This is going circle for the sake of arguing without valid point anymore. I thought I made myself clear that I atarted this thread to show audible difference in sacd. Mod himself is aware that dsd has different issues to handle yet he didn't get the point of this thread, weird?

And now mod is throwing me off topic with sacd mastering from 24/96 asking how can it be better wirh dsd. Cool this forum is full of.....people who love to derail topic.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I asked bfreedma to show evidence to backup his claim about no audible difference between cd and sacd. He said its accepted fact so no need to show the proof. I asked again in this topic and they avoided again with burden of proof forcing on me who disagreed with bfreedma'd claim.

[2] This is going circle for the sake of arguing without valid point anymore.

[3] I thought I made myself clear that I atarted this thread to show audible difference in sacd.

 
1. Asked and answered!!!!
2. Really? Can't say I've noticed!

 
3. How can you think you're making yourself clear when none of the evidence you posted had anything to do with audible differences between SACD and CD?
 
G

 

[bfreedma]

I asked bfreedma to show evidence to backup his claim about no audible difference between cd and sacd. He said its accepted fact so no need to show the proof. I asked again in this topic and they avoided again with burden of proof forcing on me who disagreed with bfreedma'd claim. And mod missed the point of whole discussion since previous threads too.

This is going circle for the sake of arguing without valid point anymore. I thought I made myself clear that I atarted this thread to show audible difference in sacd. Mod himself is aware that dsd has different issues to handle yet he didn't get the point of this thread, weird?

And now mod is throwing me off topic with sacd mastering from 24/96 asking how can it be better wirh dsd. Cool this forum is full of.....people who love to derail topic.

 
The Meyer and Moran AES study has been posted in response to your CD vs.. SACD claims multiple times.  Does it really require me to repeat it?
 
Nevertheless, there you go.  Not that you will bother to read it or attempt to understand it.  As usual, you will ignore it and plow ahead.
 
Something to think about - it can't be everyone else all the time.  Have you ever stopped for a second to consider why you are struggling here?

 

[WindowsX]

   
The Meyer and Moran AES study has been posted in response to your CD vs.. SACD claims multiple times.  Does it really require me to repeat it?
 
Nevertheless, there you go.  Not that you will bother to read it or attempt to understand it.  As usual, you will ignore it and plow ahead.
 
Something to think about - it can't be everyone else all the time.  Have you ever stopped for a second to consider why you are struggling here?

 
Yeah show it so I can read it and see if it sounds acceptable in his scenario. I didn't have any struggle here. It's more like the other way around to me. And I don't have trouble talking with objectivists outside sound science forum either.

 

[bfreedma]

   
Yeah show it so I can read it and see if it sounds acceptable in his scenario. I didn't have any struggle here. It's more like the other way around to me. And I don't have trouble talking with objectivists outside sound science forum either.

 
The full paper is available on the AES web site.  If you aren't a member, it's $33 to purchase.  Reposting the document here is not possible given the licensing/access fee.  With the number of industry insiders you stated you meet with, I'm sure one of them can help you access it.  Or you could invest $33.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195
 
Details of the test hardware, room, and music can be found here:
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm
 
As many times as this study has be referred to in your various threads, I'm surprised (not really) that you remain unaware of how to access it.

 

[Brooko]

This is going circle for the sake of arguing without valid point anymore. I thought I made myself clear that I atarted this thread to show audible difference in sacd. Mod himself is aware that dsd has different issues to handle yet he didn't get the point of this thread, weird?

And now mod is throwing me off topic with sacd mastering from 24/96 asking how can it be better wirh dsd. Cool this forum is full of.....people who love to derail topic.

 
If you want to refer to me - do it by name please.
 
Topic of thread - your original post - referred to differences of DSD (or SACD) to PCM.  You then posted a link to a paper that had nothing (zero) to do with the subject of your own thread, and asked for opinions on it.
 
I gave my opinion - and you failed to respond to a single point I raised.  Every point was on topic to your original questions.
 
Last time we had someone come in here and do what you are currently doing:

1. raise a topic, ask for opinions, and then avoid addressing the replies
2. blame others for being off topic

he was eventually removed from the forums.
 
You are heading in that direction.
 
So if you want to debate - debate.  But start by answering the point I raised.  Where in that paper is their any references to SACD or DSD vs PCM?  Where in that "paper" is there any data?  Where in that paper is there anything actually relevant to your original post?
 
You are trying my patience.  I have tried to allow you to have your fair say.  I have also cautioned others when they are making things personal.  I have given you a lot of leeway so far.  If your current trend continues - then my future choices will be limited.  You can take this as an official warning.

 

[spruce music]

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1105/0b42c641807bbcf24ba7f6e11af49f135e8f.pdf
 
A version of the Meyer Moran paper here.