[audiokangaroo]

DSD64 doesn't sound airy. Frequencies above high medium are not well reproduced. DSD256 does not have this problem.
If DSD64 was perfect, there would not have been any reason to release double and quad rate DSD.

 

[sander99]

If DSD64 was perfect, there would not have been any reason to release double and quad rate DSD.

There always is this reason: companies wanting to make money. And many companies don't care whether you get a real improvement, an imagined improvement or even nothing at all for the extra money you spend.

 

[Tjj226 Angel]

Well then the part about some sounding like crap was confusing me because it doesn't follow your point, and since it was the last thing you say, I assumed that was your summary of your point. I was agreeing with you then. The fact that it's possible to transcode with perfect transparency shows there is nothing wrong with the format. And the fact that some chips transcoded poorly isn't the fault of the format either. It is the fault of the chip doing the transcoding.

I can kind of see what you are talking about. My point wasn't in the first part of my post. My point was entirely in the second point. The first half of that post is simply explaining which kind of chips I am talking about without naming 20 different part numbers.

 

[audiokangaroo]

There always is this reason: companies wanting to make money. And many companies don't care whether you get a real improvement, an imagined improvement or even nothing at all for the extra money you spend

Most engineers who use DSD to record classical music have moved from DSD64 to DSD256. I don't think that they were only motivated by money.

 

[old tech]

Most engineers who use DSD to record classical music have moved from DSD64 to DSD256. I don't think that they were only motivated by money.

True, just as most engineers use 24/96 for recordings and production rather than 16/44 by the turn of this century. There are specific and valid reasons why they do so for production but it makes no difference for end product for playback.

 

[bigshot]

Most engineers use 24/96, not DSD. DSD can't be edited or manipulated. Even if it's recorded DSD, it's usually bounced to 24/96 to be mixed. That gives them enough latitude to make corrections. There are a few releases targeted at audiophiles that are pure DSD, but they don't sound any better because of it.

The engineers that record with DSD don't do it for sound quality nor money. They do it because there are audiophiles who judge sound quality by the numbers and letters on the cover. Some people assume DSD with big numbers sounds better. It doesn't. For playback in the home 16/44.1 sounds the same.

If DVD sound is good enough, why did they create DSD in the first place? Now we're back to Sanders99's point. How do you differentiate your product in the marketplace and charge a premium price if there isn't a "NEW AND IMPROVED!" label on it? The high end audio market is almost entirely stuff that sounds the same being sold by the numbers on the spec sheet. It doesn't matter if you can't hear a difference. If it has big numbers you can point to on a piece of paper, you'll BELIEVE there is a difference. And that is all it takes to get you to pull out your wallet.

The truth is that most audiophile classical music consists of warhorses played by second rate regional orchestras. If you want the best music-making, you don't judge by the number of zeros and ones.

 

[audiokangaroo]

True, just as most engineers use 24/96 for recordings and production rather than 16/44 by the turn of this century. There are specific and valid reasons why they do so for production but it makes no difference for end product for playback.

Pop Music Engineers now use 24/96 rather than 16/44 because they have noticed that the playback product they get after downsampling sounds better.
If you take a piece of music recorded on an analogue tape or a vynil disc and digitize it using 16/44 and then 24/96, you should be able to hear that they don't sound the same, if you listen carefully.

 

[bigshot]

Everything you said there is wrong. 24/96 is indistinguishable from 16/44.1. Analog tapes and disks have a higher noise floor and a narrower frequency response than CD. And they have MUCH higher distortion and random impulse noise. Even a 24 track master tape doesn't compare with CD sound. You are getting your information from the wrong sources. Ask someone who works in production sound, not home audio salesmen.

 

[audiokangaroo]

Everything you said there is wrong. 24/96 is indistinguishable from 16/44.1. Analog tapes and disks have a higher noise floor and a narrower frequency response than CD. And they have MUCH higher distortion and random impulse noise. Even a 24 track master tape doesn't compare with CD sound. You are getting your information from the wrong sources. Ask someone who works in production sound, not home audio salesmen.

Noise floor and frequency response alone don't make the sound. I have compared a few tracks that I have in 16/44 and in 24/96 and the 96 kHz version sounds significantly better. The sound is warmer and more natural.

 

[bigshot]

What aspect of fidelity do you attribute that to? Warmer and more natural are subjective descriptions that are often used to describe expectation bias. Can you point to some sort of measurements or blind listening tests that support your claim or is this just based on anecdotal uncontrolled subjective impressions?

 

[71 dB]

Noise floor and frequency response alone don't make the sound. I have compared a few tracks that I have in 16/44 and in 24/96 and the 96 kHz version sounds significantly better. The sound is warmer and more natural.

If you believe 24/96 sounds better than 16/44.1 then it will, because our expectations of the sound affects how we hear it. If you know they sound the same (to human ear) then they will sound the same. That's placebo, the explanation for why people claim to hear clear differences, but these differences tend to go away in proper blind tests.

 

[audiokangaroo]

If you believe 24/96 sounds better than 16/44.1 then it will, because our expectations of the sound affects how we hear it. If you know they sound the same (to human ear) then they will sound the same. That's placebo, the explanation for why people claim to hear clear differences, but these differences tend to go away in proper blind tests.

Blind tests are not easy to practice because the people who participate need to receive some training in order to focus on differences between standard and high resolution files. Differences between 44.1 and 96 kHz are not obvious, but they are real. It's easier to hear the difference between 44.1 and 192.
When you know where the difference are, then the more you compare and the more you hear them.

 

[bigshot]

Once you are "trained" it's easy to pass an ABX test, right? Are you trained? Can you pass a controlled ABX test? Many published tests have had professional sound engineers, musicians and golden eared audiophiles. They consistently fail. Does that mean that they aren't trained?

 

[sander99]

I have compared a few tracks that I have in 16/44 and in 24/96 and the 96 kHz version sounds significantly better.

And are you sure they came from the same master?
For example just comparing the same title on CD and DVD-Audio (or SACD to compare 16/44 to DSD) doesn't work because generally different master are used for the different formats.
Best is to take a good 24/96 track, and downconvert it to 16/44, and actually - to exclude the possibilty that the playback equipment fauls the test by somehow treating 16/44 differently from 24/96 - convert that back up again to 24/96. And then compare that last 24/96 file to the original 24/96 file (in a controlled ABX test).

[Edit: and make sure the tracks are level matched of course...]

 

[71 dB]

Blind tests are not easy to practice because the people who participate need to receive some training in order to focus on differences between standard and high resolution files. Differences between 44.1 and 96 kHz are not obvious, but they are real. It's easier to hear the difference between 44.1 and 192.
When you know where the difference are, then the more you compare and the more you hear them.

There is no difference that human ear can hear. The difference is placebo created by expectations.