castleofargh
Sound Science Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Posts
- 10,462
- Likes
- 6,091
I guess we more or less agree on the human side of things, that's pretty good already ^_^. I wish I could say that much everyday on Head-fi.See I find localization to be the easy part, a finite impulse response and first reflection algorithm and you have a good externalized stereo image or 7.1 sound field. Using measured room impulse responses better externalizes the virtualization but increases the naturalness of it 10 fold, and this is where the fidelity comes in, fast responsive transducers, fast non feedback circuits, to accurately render all of that extra information. Colorations from using a different hrtf are typically under 5db under 5khz, much less of an issue for what you hear compared to information being lost due to slower transducers and inadequate circuits. Ive done extensive testing with the most demanding 7.1 audio tracks over headphones and compared them directly to my surround system and actual localization has never been an issue, even when using a pair of budget dynamics and integrated motherboard audio, but the enjoyment and fidelity of that equipment is wholly unenjoyable. best way to put it, a neat effect vs using better equipment makes the binaural audio from a Realiser to sound like actual loudspeaker systems
As for dsd, idk, I dont have any personal experience yet, but everything I've read leans more towards pcm to analog actually being a lossy conversion and the one person who has converted prir binaural audio to dsd512 reports a transformative experience, which id attritubte to dsd converting to analog more accurately or fully. Measurements show interesting effects on square waves, and even the most hearty objectivists claim sonic benefits from dsd512.
DSD512 is just DSD at an even crazier sample rate. so the available resolution is indeed superior, if only because you can use a wider range of ultrasonic frequencies while noise shaping. but saying it's better is like saying that a higher PCM resolution is better. objectively we do increase the container's resolution, converting a lower resolution into that higher container only has fairly limited advantages. most of which are already taken advantage of by modern DACs. so on that I only repeat my previous opinion of not really getting the point of converting PCM to DSD or PCM into a higher resolution PCM for that matter as to me it's ultimately the same action.
and about whoever got that "transformative" experience, well, I'm a skeptical guy so I'd wait to see some sort of evidence. or even better a plausible reason why that operation should significantly change what's heard, beside the fact that we would probably end up using different devices that may or may not reach audible transparency.