[Zapp_Fan]

The most likely explanation for DSD albums sounding different is placebo, the second most likely is that the recordings are mastered differently.

 

[castleofargh]

third is different DAC chip or different treatment of the signal when that chip uses DSD. fourth is setting up the computer correctly for both plabacks.... and IMO, 99th might be something about the format itself.

 

[bigshot]

If the music contains super audible frequencies, that may cause the amplifier to distort the sound in the audible range if it hasn't been designed to deal with super audible frequencies.

 

[amirm]

But still - I am not convinced that there is literally nothing to be gained at least in theory, from high sampling rates. Anyone else looked into this?

I recently started to analyze spectral content of high-res music. It is eye opening what is there. For one thing, there is often musical information above 20 Khz. In one case it well extended to 70+ Khz! But there is also tons of junk there that is being shipped to us as music.

To best see these, you need to see the spectrum in motion as music plays. For that reason, I started a series of videos of this type of analysis, starting with content from some of the highest-end independent labels producing high-resolution music. The first episode which also includes a tutorial on how to read such graphs is here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nside-your-high-res-music-testing-1-2-3.1992/

If you look in that subforum, you will see three more episodes and I am working on more.

So far, it is quite disappointing to see so much lack of hygiene in production of high resolution music.

That aside, I prefer that we have access to the master. There is no need this day and age to limit music distribution to CD rates when we are not consuming that format. That way we can be in control of whether we want some or all of it -- for whatever reason.

 

[bigshot]

Is there any reason to focus on keeping inaudible frequencies clean? In most cases, that will all get filtered out anyway. I would imagine that most super audible sound in recorded music is probably just noise.

 

[danadam]

Is there any reason to focus on keeping inaudible frequencies clean?

Is there any reason to focus on keeping inaudible frequencies?

 

[RRod]

The most likely explanation for DSD albums sounding different is placebo, the second most likely is that the recordings are mastered differently.

Including just simple a difference in volume.

That aside, I prefer that we have access to the master. There is no need this day and age to limit music distribution to CD rates when we are not consuming that format. That way we can be in control of whether we want some or all of it -- for whatever reason.

I agree with this, arguments for transparency of 16/44.1 notwithstanding. A world where you pay a reasonable price for the original format master or an even more reasonable price for a lossy version (or streaming service) seems fine. This is not the current world, unfortunately. In the classical world, at least, certain companies are fine with charging incrementally more for various downsamplings of the master, as a means of justifying $30+ price tags for the original thing, stereo at that! Why should I pay more for the thing that requires, technically, less work to make!?

 

[amirm]

Is there any reason to focus on keeping inaudible frequencies clean? In most cases, that will all get filtered out anyway. I would imagine that most super audible sound in recorded music is probably just noise.

The DAC will reproduce them. So will a lot of amplifiers. And the tweeter may also play along depending on frequencies in question. So not much filtering will happen here.

I am doing more of this kind of analysis and in some cases I am finding these idle tones below 20 Khz!!! Clearly a spotlight needs to be shined to find and remove these tones. It is not like they provide some benefit otherwise.

As to audibility, random noise would rank lower than pure tone in my book. And regardless, the tones are far, far louder than their noise floor or they would not stand out as they are.

 

[RRod]

The DAC will reproduce them. So will a lot of amplifiers. And the tweeter may also play along depending on frequencies in question. So not much filtering will happen here.

I am doing more of this kind of analysis and in some cases I am finding these idle tones below 20 Khz!!! Clearly a spotlight needs to be shined to find and remove these tones. It is not like they provide some benefit otherwise.

As to audibility, random noise would rank lower than pure tone in my book. And regardless, the tones are far, far louder than their noise floor or they would not stand out as they are.

If by idle tones you mean the occasional straight line across the spectrogram, I have always assumed that was due to picking up tones from equipment lying around the recording venue. One risks adding filter artifacts when trying to notch-out such tones, so it's not evident to me that it's worth removing them if you can't hear them in the first place.

Re audibility of high res content, one must also consider that the high frequency components are more prone to absorption, so even if the mics are picking it up, who knows if the engineers are hearing them even if they can hear above 20kHz.

 

[amirm]

If by idle tones you mean the occasional straight line across the spectrogram, I have always assumed that was due to picking up tones from equipment lying around the recording venue. One risks adding filter artifacts when trying to notch-out such tones, so it's not evident to me that it's worth removing them if you can't hear them in the first place.

Filtering them? No way. They need to find the source and eliminate it so it doesn't get into the recording. It is not hard to do. You go around and turn off as much as you can and find the source. In many cases these are display monitor scan rate that is bleeding into the ADC. Turn them off or move them away and problem goes away. Ditto for building motion detectors, etc. And heaven forbid, if it is the ADC gear itself, then they need to pick something else. There is music that is free of all of this so it is not like I am asking for something unusual. We can't have content that has far more distortion spurs than any piece of electronics.

Re audibility of high res content, one must also consider that the high frequency components are more prone to absorption, so even if the mics are picking it up, who knows if the engineers are hearing them even if they can hear above 20kHz.

Clearly they are not hearing it or they would have fixed these issues. Until then, objective analysis of high-resolution content must be mandatory to catch these QC problems.

 

[RRod]

Filtering them? No way. They need to find the source and eliminate it so it doesn't get into the recording. It is not hard to do. You go around and turn off as much as you can and find the source. In many cases these are display monitor scan rate that is bleeding into the ADC. Turn them off or move them away and problem goes away. Ditto for building motion detectors, etc. And heaven forbid, if it is the ADC gear itself, then they need to pick something else. There is music that is free of all of this so it is not like I am asking for something unusual. We can't have content that has far more distortion spurs than any piece of electronics.


Clearly they are not hearing it or they would have fixed these issues. Until then, objective analysis of high-resolution content must be mandatory to catch these QC problems.

Ah, I mistook your meaning on the equip. tones. Yes, ideally everything is nice and quiet, but I can't think of an album where I've been aware of them audibly.

One should note that the lack of hygiene in HF content hasn't stopped people from fawning over perceived audible benefits. It reminds me of the famous SACD test where much of the material ended up being from non-HF sources anyway.

 

[headdict]

No DSD will increase audio quality, already 16/44.1 is capable if our full audible sound recording with the exact accuracy in the time domain.
The rest is placebo affect.

No DSD will increase audio quality, already 16/44.1 is capable if our full audible sound recording with the exact accuracy in the time domain.
The rest is placebo affect.

The rest is not necessarily placebo. The DSD version of a recording can be made to sound better than their 16/44.1 equivalents via better mastering.

 

[bigshot]

16/44.1 could be made to sound better in 16/44.1 with better mastering too.

 

[headdict]

16/44.1 could be made to sound better in 16/44.1 with better mastering too.

Of course it could. But it won't, unless it can be sold at a higher price. A "higher quality" data format is easier to sell (bigger numbers, you know) than a (rather intangible) higher quality mastering. Even though that "higher quality" can only be experienced in the form of wasted storage space and bandwidth.

 

[ev13wt]

Ha ha ha good luck on your 16/44.1.

Good luck with your expensive high res placebo dude

But if you buy great recordings, all formats can do it.

Even tape to DSD.