[OddE]

  Alarm sensors and emergency lights (which can also emit ultrasonics ) are prescribed to be ON by the law - at least whenever people are in the building.

 
-Burglar alarms; not fire alarms. (Which, for obvious reasons, tend to be disabled whenever people are in the building.

 

[maverickronin]

download the entire Bach organ works in AAC256 I posted link there - for free - and listen to them straight and as converted DSD128 and higher - and THEN tell me what SOUNDS more realistic to you.

 
Would you jump off a bridge before listening to Bach if I told you it would make things sound better afterwords?  I'm assuming you won't.
 
For similar reasons I refuse to spend money on a DSD DAC before someone can demonstrate that they're actually better.
 
Even if money isn't at stake, time is also limited, which is one reason why "you need to try it yourself first before you can make a judgement" is a useless argument.  The other reason is that it can apply to everything which means it is specific to nothing.  If you tried every silly idea regardless of prior probability you'd never have time to do anything else.  I'm pretty sure that you accept that there's a limit to what's even worth testing somewhere since I doubt you'll be to eager to see if impromptu BASE jumping will improve the sound of your stereo.
 
If there is a limit then we methodology to determine that.  What methodology would you recommend?

 

[StanD]

   
Would you jump off a bridge before listening to Bach if I told you it would make things sound better afterwords?  I'm assuming you won't.
 
For similar reasons I refuse to spend money on a DSD DAC before someone can demonstrate that they're actually better.
 
Even if money isn't at stake, time is also limited, which is one reason why "you need to try it yourself first before you can make a judgement" is a useless argument.  The other reason is that it can apply to everything which means it is specific to nothing.  If you tried every silly idea regardless of prior probability you'd never have time to do anything else.  I'm pretty sure that you accept that there's a limit to what's even worth testing somewhere since I doubt you'll be to eager to see if impromptu BASE jumping will improve the sound of your stereo.
 
If there is a limit then we methodology to determine that.  What methodology would you recommend?

Faith in trolling.

 

[KeithEmo]

At this point it would just be guessing, but I can see how it could be a rodent or insect repellor, or even some sort of equipment noise (like an air conditioner). However, I'm inclined to think that most microphones wouldn't record frequencies that high and, if they did, anything like that would have been filtered out by the recording engineer.
 
Another possibility I can see would be if it was some sort of filtering or processing artifact. For example, DSD recordings have a very high and rising ultrasonic noise floor. If you were to take a DSD recording, and convert it to 24/96 PCM, and apply the required 40 kHz low pass filter necessary for 24/96 recording, but OMIT the low-pass filter that should be used to get rid of the ultrasonic noise associated with the DSD format itself first, I suspect you would end up with something rather like that. I can also see where aggressive noise shaping, which deliberately "pushes" noise out of the audio band, and up into the ultrasonic range, could either create or aggravate such a situation.
 
Honestly, however, since it seems to be there in the original file, as a consumer you have little choice except to treat it as "part of the master". It doesn't look to me like it's at a very high or dangerous level, but, if you're worried, just throw a 25 kHz low-pass filter on it in your favorite audio editor program and get rid of it.
 
Quote:

  With 2 different analyzers.. the same recording as before 96/24 from ECM...
 
any suggestions of where this large spike come from?
 
this begins with the ending of file then to the beginning... both very silent passages...
 
could it be a mosquito repellent? as someone suggested?
 
 

 

[MacacoDoSom]

 

I'm not worried at all I just think it's strange, to see these kind of artifacts in different recordings made in different conditions and studios...
I have came across with these several times in the so called HD files but not all, maybe 1/4 of them, 3/4  are as expected.
Usually when this happens, happens throughout the album, but not always...
What I usually do, is re-sampling to 44.1/16, the ominous Red Book standard and I'm very happy with the results...
analogesurvior can call me names and see if I care... 

 

 

[KeithEmo]

If I was being cynical, I might suggest that some of these are anomalies that were there in the master, but were simply not noticed before. (For example, if you were mastering at 24/96, but distributing at 16/44, applying an aggressive boost in the high treble could add a nice sparkle to some instruments, but cause all sorts of HF noise... but the extra HF noise would then disappear when you down-sampled to put your final cut onto a CD. (But it wouldn't disappear when you decided to pull out that 24/96 file and sell it at 24/96.)
 
Quote:

 
I'm not worried at all I just think it is strange, to see these kind of artifacts in different recordings made in different conditions and studios...
I have came across with these several times in the so called HD files but not all, maybe 1/4 of them, 3/4  are as expected.
Usually when this happens, happens throughout the album, but not always...
What I usually do is re-sampling to 44.1/16, the ominous Red Book standard and I'm very happy with the results...
analogesurvior can call me names and see if I care... 

 

[MacacoDoSom]

 

If I was being cynical, I might suggest that some of these are anomalies that were there in the master, but were simply not noticed before. (For example, if you were mastering at 24/96, but distributing at 16/44, applying an aggressive boost in the high treble could add a nice sparkle to some instruments, but cause all sorts of HF noise... but the extra HF noise would then disappear when you down-sampled to put your final cut onto a CD. (But it wouldn't disappear when you decided to pull out that 24/96 file and sell it at 24/96.)

 

You may be right... at least it's the best explanation so far... I don't believe much in the alarms, lights, dimmers, rodent repellents...etc

 

[analogsurviver]

   
Would you jump off a bridge before listening to Bach if I told you it would make things sound better afterwords?  I'm assuming you won't.
 
For similar reasons I refuse to spend money on a DSD DAC before someone can demonstrate that they're actually better.
 
Even if money isn't at stake, time is also limited, which is one reason why "you need to try it yourself first before you can make a judgement" is a useless argument.  The other reason is that it can apply to everything which means it is specific to nothing.  If you tried every silly idea regardless of prior probability you'd never have time to do anything else.  I'm pretty sure that you accept that there's a limit to what's even worth testing somewhere since I doubt you'll be to eager to see if impromptu BASE jumping will improve the sound of your stereo.
 
If there is a limit then we methodology to determine that.  What methodology would you recommend?

 

   
Would you jump off a bridge before listening to Bach if I told you it would make things sound better afterwords?  I'm assuming you won't.
 
For similar reasons I refuse to spend money on a DSD DAC before someone can demonstrate that they're actually better.
 
Even if money isn't at stake, time is also limited, which is one reason why "you need to try it yourself first before you can make a judgement" is a useless argument.  The other reason is that it can apply to everything which means it is specific to nothing.  If you tried every silly idea regardless of prior probability you'd never have time to do anything else.  I'm pretty sure that you accept that there's a limit to what's even worth testing somewhere since I doubt you'll be to eager to see if impromptu BASE jumping will improve the sound of your stereo.
 
If there is a limit then we methodology to determine that.  What methodology would you recommend?

No, you assume right I would remain on that bridge. 
 
For the nature of work I do, I was naturally interested in DSD DAC. And have one on veeeery extended and overdue loan, the other one is going back to its owner ...  soon. Couple of days.
 
I had absolutely no doubt that MP3 "upsampled" to DSD64 - or better yet, DSD128 sounds better - tried that years ago with my Korg DSD recorders. The only practical limitation of the Korg units is the fact that they can not be used as DACs - everything has to be uploaded to its internal HDD. And that is limited in capacity - stock units from 20 or 40 GB, software limitation for the HDDs being in either case 100 GB. That is NOT much when running DSD128 and over 2-3 TB of my own recordings. Plus downlads...
No DSD capable DAC I have tried can touch - for now, yet - the performance of my modified Korg MR-1000 recorder. But they get better than stock Korg unit.
 
Similar can be said about the software required to do the conversion. It made tremendous advance in just few years - Korg Audigate as initially introduced bears little sonically resemblance to the present latest incarnation. Audibly so. And so do competitive products. 
 
So I am obviously not speaking about something I do not know or have not tried. 
 
Now - how in the world I can prove anything if there is not an ABX comparator (it IS - but is propritary of Berliner Insitute from Berlin and not (freely? ) available) that can do the ABX of both PCM and DSD native ? Foobar2000 has to convert the DSD into PCM in order to be able to perform ABX - negating the whole point before it begun.
This ABX thing is going so far that almost only computer statistics is being accepted - and at present, no available software can furnish that for native ABX between DSD and PCM.
 
But foobar2K can play DSD native - on about the same quality as latest incarnation of Korg Audiogate V2.x.y, but below the level achieved by jRiver or Audiogate V.3.x.y. All using the same outboard DSD capable DAC.
 
I admit bungee jumping and BASE jumping have tickled my imagination a bit - but not enough to jeopardize my music listening for hopefully considerable time to come. Even if solely from the CD.

 

[analogsurviver]

 
I'm not worried at all I just think it's strange, to see these kind of artifacts in different recordings made in different conditions and studios...
I have came across with these several times in the so called HD files but not all, maybe 1/4 of them, 3/4  are as expected.
Usually when this happens, happens throughout the album, but not always...
What I usually do, is re-sampling to 44.1/16, the ominous Red Book standard and I'm very happy with the results...
analogesurvior can call me names and see if I care... 

 

 

 
I'm not worried at all I just think it's strange, to see these kind of artifacts in different recordings made in different conditions and studios...
I have came across with these several times in the so called HD files but not all, maybe 1/4 of them, 3/4  are as expected.
Usually when this happens, happens throughout the album, but not always...
What I usually do, is re-sampling to 44.1/16, the ominous Red Book standard and I'm very happy with the results...
analogesurvior can call me names and see if I care... 

 

The last thing I want to do is calling someone names.
 
I can not wait to see the results for my own recordings made in the last 6 or so years ....

 

[lamode]

  I don't believe much in the alarms, lights, dimmers, rodent repellents...etc

 
This is the "sound science" forum. Your "beliefs" should not come into it. No offence.
 
I don't post things without good reason. See this paper regarding an ultrasonic recording system and the ultrasonic noise from fluorescent lighting which they measured: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10739149.2014.971329?af=R&journalCode=list20
 
It also gets a brief mention in this study: http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

 

[maverickronin]

  Now - how in the world I can prove anything if there is not an ABX comparator (it IS - but is propritary of Berliner Insitute from Berlin and not (freely? ) available) that can do the ABX of both PCM and DSD native ? Foobar2000 has to convert the DSD into PCM in order to be able to perform ABX - negating the whole point before it begun.
This ABX thing is going so far that almost only computer statistics is being accepted - and at present, no available software can furnish that for native ABX between DSD and PCM.

 
If the difference is as obvious as you claim then you won't need any fancy switchboxes or software, just two DACs and someone behind the curtain switching cables.
 
If it's not as obvious as you claim then why should we care?  How many people want to spend several times more on their music and DAC to hear a difference so tiny it's only perceptible if you repeatedly switch two tracks back and forth mid-playback when the difference a new pair of headphones or speakers makes is obvious to just about anyone?
 

  So I am obviously not speaking about something I do not know or have not tried.

 
Unfortunately, whether or not you've tried it and what you've experienced when you did try it are known not to be reliable evidence in this kind of situation.  Based on everything we know about audio reproduction and the humans who listen to that reproduced audio it is far more likely that your experience has a psychological explanation rather than an acoustic, anatomical, or electrical one.
 
It still might turn out to be true, but I'm not going to change my mind until someone actually demonstrates it.

 

[MacacoDoSom]

   
This is the "sound science" forum. Your "beliefs" should not come into it. No offence.
 
I don't post things without good reason. See this paper regarding an ultrasonic recording system and the ultrasonic noise from fluorescent lighting which they measured: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10739149.2014.971329?af=R&journalCode=list20
 
It also gets a brief mention in this study: http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

also right... "beliefs" should not come into it.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
This is the "sound science" forum. Your "beliefs" should not come into it. No offence.
 
I don't post things without good reason. See this paper regarding an ultrasonic recording system and the ultrasonic noise from fluorescent lighting which they measured: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10739149.2014.971329?af=R&journalCode=list20
 
It also gets a brief mention in this study: http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

But this "beliefs" obviously are real enough to be, at least partly, documented by science.
 
Thank you for the first link, was not familiar with it. The second I have posted before - quite numerous times by now.
 
Please note I am an individual trying to get reproduction of the recorded sound as good as possible, I am not an university or organization with incomparably more vast resources - that has the staff, equipment etc to perform any of the measurements they might have wish to explore. Without such "beliefs", there would be no - or far less - initiative to measure them - in the first place. 

 

[maverickronin]

  Please note I am an individual trying to get reproduction of the recorded sound as good as possible, I am not an university or organization with incomparably more vast resources - that has the staff, equipment etc to perform any of the measurements they might have wish to explore.

 
Pretty much everyone else on this forum is too.  We just add one more thing.  We look into what kind of tests have already been done in order to inform our purchasing decisions regarding what is likely to improve the sound and what won't.

 

[MacacoDoSom]

   
The last thing I want to do is calling someone names.
 
I can not wait to see the results for my own recordings made in the last 6 or so years ....

...you calling me names was a figure of speech...
 
But about your own recordings I would like to have your feedback...
 
this kind of thing doesn't show in most of the old masters '50's, 60's at least that I have seen... I have been doing this kind of stuff for quite some time now, out of curiosity, with every HD file I could get my hands on... and I really would like to understand what's happening....
I have checked some Steven Wilson recordings and they don't have this, maybe because he doesn't do any mastering (as he says) just mix transfers?
Could this be a mastering artifact?