DSD64 Noise Issue?
Aug 15, 2021 at 5:17 AM Post #91 of 119

old tech

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Posts
817
Likes
405
Location
Sydney, Australia
1. CD has a cleaner sound but it doesn't sound natural. Vinyl has more noise but it sounds more like actual instruments.

2. Science has still along way to go to explain digital sound problematic. The sampling theorem is not sufficient. Applying this theorem does not provide a high level of
audio fidelity.

44.1/16 PCM is far from achieving high fidelity. If you compare it to DSD256, you can hear that DSD sounds much more natural and true. This should make us admit that capturing frequencies above 22 KHz is necessary to achieve high fidelity audio, as DSD256 is at least equivalent to 2000 KHz PCM, in spite of a lower signal to noise ratio in high frequencies.
However, I'm not sure that non acoustic genres, based on electric guitars or synthesizers, require such a level of fidelity
1. I call BS on the actual instruments part (in fact, laughing my head off) It is only your biased opinion that is certainly not supported by any measurement of fidelity nor by the majority of listeners, particularly classical music lovers who ditched their direct to disk vinyl and never returned as soon as CDs were available. It is also unsupported by the controlled listening tests between CD and analogue recordings of live concerts such as the one below.

Geringer, J., Dunnigan, P. "Listener Preferences and Perception of Digital versus Analog Live Concert Recordings." Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education. 1 Jul. 2000, Number 145: 1-13.

"Music majors were subjects who listened to CD digital and analogue tape recordings [and analogue tape is superior analogue to vinyl) of the same concert performances, recorded unequalized and unmixed (to control EQ variables and level matched. It was a double blind test and the listeners were able to switch back and forth between the two at will. Overall, the digital version was preferred in all ten scoring areas.

The researchers concluded that music major listeners rated the digital versions of live concert recordings as higher in quality than the corresponding analogue versions. The listeners gave significantly higher ratings to the digital presentations in bass, treble and overall quality, as well as separation of instruments and voices. The ratings were consistent across loudspeaker and headphone listening conditions."

Can you show me a similar controlled study showing the opposite? And remember, the plural of anecdote is anecdotes not data.

2. As Gregorio would say, why would something invented by science be unexplained by science? It may be a mystery to you but not others with a technical understanding.

3. No, to me and every controlled test demonstrates no sound difference between these formats. Our technical understanding and knowledge of human anatomy should make you admit that a difference in a controlled environment is very unlikely (but it won't because you're biased and subscribe to pusedo theories of digital audio).
 
Aug 15, 2021 at 10:07 AM Post #92 of 119

gregorio

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Posts
4,127
Likes
2,245
1. CD has a cleaner sound but it doesn't sound natural. Vinyl has more noise but it sounds more like actual instruments.

2. Science has still along way to go to explain digital sound problematic. The sampling theorem is not sufficient. Applying this theorem does not provide a high level of
audio fidelity.

3. 44.1/16 PCM is far from achieving high fidelity. If you compare it to DSD256, you can hear that DSD sounds much more natural and true. This should make us admit that capturing frequencies above 22 KHz is necessary to achieve high fidelity audio ...

1. Beyond the actual reliable evidence presented by Old Tech, think about what you're saying from a purely logical point of view. Analogue vinyl distortions are not natural, analogue sound is a man-made invention that doesn't exist in nature. So logically, how does adding unnatural tape hiss, wow/flutter, poor HF response, Etc., make an acoustic instrument sound more natural?

2. The Sampling Theorem is not only sufficient, it's provably perfect. By definition, as there is nothing better than perfect, then there isn't anywhere for science go, let alone a "long way to go"! Where, beyond perfect, do you suggest science goes? Your last sentence is correct though, applying this theory does not provide a high level of audio fidelity, it provides a virtually perfect level of fidelity! Unlike vinyl, which struggles to provide even just a high level of fidelity.

3. Firstly, your statement is false. Numerous controlled tests have been done and in fact no one could hear any difference between a DSD256 and the same recording downsampled to 16/44.1. Mayer and Moran is probably the most famous of these tests (available here: https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195). Secondly, you don't seem to realise that DSD256 is also an application of the Sampling Theorem and therefore, according to you, is also not capable of providing "a high level of audio fidelity". And lastly, as your statements are both false and self contradictory, they obviously CANNOT "make us admit that capturing frequencies above 22kHz is necessary to achieve high fidelity audio". In fact, the reliable evidence MUST make us admit the opposite!

G
 
Aug 15, 2021 at 4:08 PM Post #93 of 119

audiokangaroo

Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 26, 2021
Posts
70
Likes
2
Location
France
1. Beyond the actual reliable evidence presented by Old Tech, think about what you're saying from a purely logical point of view. Analogue vinyl distortions are not natural, analogue sound is a man-made invention that doesn't exist in nature. So logically, how does adding unnatural tape hiss, wow/flutter, poor HF response, Etc., make an acoustic instrument sound more natural?

2. The Sampling Theorem is not only sufficient, it's provably perfect. By definition, as there is nothing better than perfect, then there isn't anywhere for science go, let alone a "long way to go"! Where, beyond perfect, do you suggest science goes? Your last sentence is correct though, applying this theory does not provide a high level of audio fidelity, it provides a virtually perfect level of fidelity! Unlike vinyl, which struggles to provide even just a high level of fidelity.

3. Firstly, your statement is false. Numerous controlled tests have been done and in fact no one could hear any difference between a DSD256 and the same recording downsampled to 16/44.1. Mayer and Moran is probably the most famous of these tests (available here: https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195). Secondly, you don't seem to realise that DSD256 is also an application of the Sampling Theorem and therefore, according to you, is also not capable of providing "a high level of audio fidelity". And lastly, as your statements are both false and self contradictory, they obviously CANNOT "make us admit that capturing frequencies above 22kHz is necessary to achieve high fidelity audio". In fact, the reliable evidence MUST make us admit the opposite!

G
1. Vinyl has a lot of imperfections. I have stopped listesting to it for some time, but I have a few files made from vinyl discs digitized at 96 and 192 KHz and some of them deliver an extremely good sound. The reoduce the texture of notes in a way that I never heard with a CD.
The frequency band of a vinyl is limited around 15 KHz at a level of - 3dB, but it probably can exceed 100 KHz at a level around -40 dB, which is audible. Thus, we have to consider that the actual frequency response of a brand new vinyl is much larger than what a CD can provide.

3. We must be very cautious with audio blind tests, because 44.1 PCM is not bad and it sounds very clear although a bit inaccurate. Most people can't hear the difference between a CD and a DSD256 file at first sight. However, if you give them a few hours of training before the test, most people should be able to hear the difference.
 
Last edited:
Aug 15, 2021 at 4:19 PM Post #94 of 119

sander99

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Posts
1,258
Likes
535
Location
The Netherlands
However, if you give them a few hours of training before the test, most people should be able to hear the difference.
And after their training, can they pass a blind test then?
And if so, why didn't any of them go for the $1,000,000.- reward during the time it was offered by the James Randy intitute?
 
Aug 15, 2021 at 4:28 PM Post #96 of 119

sander99

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Posts
1,258
Likes
535
Location
The Netherlands
And after their training, can they pass a blind test then?
And if so, why didn't any of them go for the $1,000,000.- reward during the time it was offered by the James Randy intitute?
Listening is something that can be learnt and comparative listening are always helpful.
That I know, but you did not answer either of my questions.
 
Aug 15, 2021 at 5:07 PM Post #97 of 119

vergesslich2

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Posts
41
Likes
12
Location
world
Audiokangaroo, I still wonder what's so important about sound plus ultrasound (the "waveform" without any loss), when the frequency response of headphones and speakers and rooms is actually very hard to control, towards objective or subjective goals. And one should notice it more easily, when something is wrong with this. Do people who want to preserve ultrasonic content have almost perfectly treated rooms? Or do they listen to expensive or customized, EQ'd headphones, where really nothing is wrong? How comes that everything left over is the question if there is ultrasound or not, or any perception of sound that is not band-limited by any means?

At some point I thought, you would find the sound field or surround sound interesting (the Floyd Toole book btw is so comprehensive and entertaining with fun facts in it). But I'm only partially interested in surround sound myself, as I don't want to have more than two speakers in my flat.

My guess is that the industry has the option to sell a byproduct, that is, the ultrasound DACs or whatever they do. And it's not costly, or if so, not costly enough. So... have fun.

If I have given the illogical content too much attention, sorry to everyone that I did so. I'm interested in economics or psychology to some extent. It's not part of sound science, so I'll go on doing something else with my free time. I'll stop watching these threads.
 
Aug 15, 2021 at 5:50 PM Post #98 of 119

sander99

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Posts
1,258
Likes
535
Location
The Netherlands
I'm interested in economics or psychology to some extent. It's not part of sound science
Psychology is definitely part of Sound Science. Human sound perception is mostly done by the brain, and influenced by many things going on in the brain.
Also exacly there is the key to understanding how it is possible that let's say "public opinion" can deviate so much from scientific facts about audio related matters, how so many audiophile myths can be so widely spread. And of course economics drive the maximisation and full exploitation of this by the audio industry and audio business.
 
Aug 15, 2021 at 6:26 PM Post #99 of 119

vergesslich2

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Posts
41
Likes
12
Location
world
Psychology is definitely part of Sound Science. Human sound perception is mostly done by the brain, and influenced by many things going on in the brain.
Also exacly there is the key to understanding how it is possible that let's say "public opinion" can deviate so much from scientific facts about audio related matters, how so many audiophile myths can be so widely spread. And of course economics drive the maximisation and full exploitation of this by the audio industry and audio business.
I guess this is based on hope. I assume that the other technicalities in their homes are saturated, so they buy the thing that could in theory improve the sound. No one will persuade them that they cannot be the chosen individuals who perceive the promised improvements. For giving up their hope, they expect others to prove the inexistence of what they expect, and one can't prove an inexistence. And one also can't change their mind about being quite a bit nit picky. Also, I have relatives who argue like "but it helps a cow". So, it's somewhat entertaining, but I'm pretty sure these things will not change.
 
Aug 16, 2021 at 4:25 AM Post #100 of 119

71 dB

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Posts
1,697
Likes
561
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Vinyl has a lot of imperfections. I have stopped listesting to it for some time, but I have a few files made from vinyl discs digitized at 96 and 192 KHz and some of them deliver an extremely good sound. The reoduce the texture of notes in a way that I never heard with a CD.
The frequency band of a vinyl is limited around 15 KHz at a level of - 3dB, but it probably can exceed 100 KHz at a level around -40 dB, which is audible. Thus, we have to consider that the actual frequency response of a brand new vinyl is much larger than what a CD can provide.
Try downsampling those 96 and 192 kHz vinyl rips to 44.1 kHz. You might discover it still sounds the same. Of course you need to remove placebo, so it needs to be some sort of blind test.

Whatever 100 kHz stuff you have on a vinyl, it is noise and to say it is audible (to humans) is absolutely crazy! Maybe if you are a dolphin. You really need to calibrate your thinking! You have let bad sources of information together with placebo mess with your head. Young children can hear 20 kHz, but even then the sound pressure level must be really high. The frequency response of CD is enough. Do the test above and hear it yourself!

3. We must be very cautious with audio blind tests, because 44.1 PCM is not bad and it sounds very clear although a bit inaccurate. Most people can't hear the difference between a CD and a DSD256 file at first sight. However, if you give them a few hours of training before the test, most people should be able to hear the difference.
So you admit CD is good enough? According to your own words CD is fine if you don't train your ears a few hours with DSD256. That's a relief for me, because that means the large CD collection I own serves me well and I don't need to buy all of the music AGAIN as DSD256.

I have trained my ears countless of hours with SACDs, but CDs still sound perfect for me. Then again SACDs are only DSD64...
 
Last edited:
Aug 16, 2021 at 4:47 AM Post #101 of 119

gregorio

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Posts
4,127
Likes
2,245
1. Vinyl has a lot of imperfections. I have stopped listesting to it for some time, but I have a few files made from vinyl discs digitized at 96 and 192 KHz and some of them deliver an extremely good sound. The reoduce the texture of notes in a way that I never heard with a CD.
[1a] The frequency band of a vinyl is limited around 15 KHz at a level of - 3dB, but it probably can exceed 100 KHz at a level around -40 dB, which is audible. [1b] Thus, we have to consider that the actual frequency response of a brand new vinyl is much larger than what a CD can provide.

3. We must be very cautious with audio blind tests, because 44.1 PCM is not bad and it sounds very clear although a bit inaccurate. [3a] Most people can't hear the difference between a CD and a DSD256 file at first sight. However, if you give them a few hours of training before the test, most people should be able to hear the difference.
1. Yes exactly, you seem to be getting it! Vinyl adds distortion that affects the reproduction of "the texture of notes", CD does NOT add that distortion and therefore the texture of the reproduced notes is different, higher fidelity!
1a. It would be audible to bats and dolphins, not to human beings though. I say "would be audible to bats and dolphins" rather than "is audible to bats and dolphins" because even bats and dolphins cannot hear a 100Khz signal that does not exist! No music recording microphones record up to 100kHz and even if they did, consumer speakers cannot reproduce freq that high. So, please explain how a 100kHz sound that hasn't been captured and isn't being reproduced could be audible!
1b. If you "have to consider" that, then you also HAVE to consider the frequency response of what you're actually recording, the frequency response of the microphones and other equipment used to capture and mix it, the frequency response of the speakers and reproduction chain and the relatively huge amount of noise and distortion inherent with vinyl even in the high frequency band, that is even worse in the ultrasonic band!

3. How can 44.1 PCM sound a bit inaccurate when it's not at all inaccurate? Your statement indicates you have a hearing or listening problem.
3a. And you can supply some reliable evidence to support that claim can you? Or did you just make it up? The actual reliable evidence indicates that no one can hear the difference, regardless of whether they have no training at all, a few hours or many years!
Listening is something that can be learnt and comparative listening are always helpful.
True, so that should have been helpful in winning the $1,000,000 prize, so why didn't they?

G
 
Last edited:
Aug 23, 2021 at 11:50 PM Post #102 of 119

theaudiologist1

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 23, 2019
Posts
223
Likes
26
Location
Uranus
I'm just curious:

Is an analog to DSD recording more "DSD" than a PCM recording released as PCM? In other words, does an analog recording released as DSD go through less convertions and sound more analog and natural than a PCM recording released as DSD?

I always percieved it as: DSD-DSD > Analog-DSD > PCM-DSD
 
Aug 23, 2021 at 11:57 PM Post #103 of 119

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
23,127
Likes
4,759
Location
Hollywood USA
The most direct form of DSD is music recorded directly to DSD. But it can't be mixed and edited, so it has to be performed live.

Analog tape to DSD would be lower quality than 24/96 PCM to DSD because 24/96 has better specs than tape.

Most recordings are edited and mixed PCM, then to DSD for release on SACD. 24/96 is the standard for most music production.

It's unlikely that you would hear a difference between any of these three unless you go to extremes to figure out which is which. 24/96 has fantastic specs and is very flexible in the studio, so that is the most commonly used format. DSD is just for SACD release and audiophool downloads.
 
Last edited:
Aug 24, 2021 at 12:02 AM Post #104 of 119

theaudiologist1

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 23, 2019
Posts
223
Likes
26
Location
Uranus
The most direct form of DSD is music recorded directly to DSD. But it can't be mixed and edited, so it has to be performed live.

Analog tape to DSD would be lower quality than 24/96 PCM to DSD because 24/96 has better specs than tape.

Most recordings are edited and mixed PCM, then to DSD for release on SACD. 24/96 is the standard for most music production.

It's unlikely that you would hear a significant difference between any of these three unless you go to extremes to figure out which is which.
I was asking since I see so many old conductings for the 50s-70s that were released as SACDs and I perceived them to be better than PCM on DSD since converting PCM to DSD requires a lot of noise shaping that makes them less "smooth" than analog to DSD which just requires A/D convertion. I always stayed away from the PCM recordings but didn't mind buying the analog recordings.

Outside of classical I don't really care since I mostly just listen to old rock from the 60s to 90s so they're all analog and modern recordings suck anyway.
 
Last edited:
Aug 24, 2021 at 12:08 AM Post #105 of 119

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
23,127
Likes
4,759
Location
Hollywood USA
There are great sounding old classical recordings and there are great sounding new ones. They sound great because of the skill of the sound engineering, not because of the format. Analog tape is capable of sounding fantastic. So is digital. But if you look at the specs, digital has more dynamics and less noise and distortion than tape. That doesn't matter for playback, because analog tape is all you need for listening with human ears. But having that headroom in digital gives more flexibility in the mix for the engineers to optimize the sound.

One thing you need to remember is that the goal of a recording isn't a realistic copy of a performance. If you try to simply capture a performance, it will always be inferior to just standing in front of the orchestra and hearing them play live. Commercial recordings are engineered to optimize the sound to end up with something that sounds better than a basic capture.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top