[diamondears]

  @diamondears Have you considered that perhaps the DAC you're testing with does not have the same performance between PCM and DSD? There are many different methods of implementing DSD.

Probably. And frankly, I don't know the answer FOR SURE. And, IMHO, neither do any of us. History has always told us that some things we know, and thought we know for sure, MAY and CAN and IS ACTUALLY be disproved or improved later on due to supervening events, techniques, science, geniuses, by chance, aliens, etc...

 
But for now, I HEAR the difference, and its substantial, and I did everything I can within my resources (limited) to get everything else constant. The guys that has the MONEY within the industry I'm sure have tested this. The problem is, its not getting to us (public) if its gonna hurt their current business/investments/etc.

 

[RRod]

 
I will load tomorrow 1 kHz square wave recorded from analog signal generator with DSD128 recorder and compare PCM made from this in 44.1, 88.2 and 176.4 sampling rate, as these can be ABXed in foobar 2K. Or I can make direct recording in above three resolutions of PCM - will report how it will go. For comparison with DSD I would have to ask another person to operate the switch etc.
 
 
Bats always creep up whenever talking of beyond 20 kHz response in audio. And I have no desire of killing any innocent beings.
 

I didn't think you were a bat killer. If you do ABX square waves, you have to make sure they are volume matched and upsampled to the same bit-depth/frequency, lest your DAC give you any cues due to spec switching. You should technically record at 176.4 and then down and re-upsample for the other two.

 

[bfreedma]

The old "the earth is round" canard. Also not appropriate for sound science.

Yes, I'm saying that legitimate controlled testing to date has demonstrated that humans cannot hear any differences between red book and any of the hi res formats.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Are you stating that you believe there are "night and day"/"substantial" audible differences in formats that can't be measured with modern instruments?

As I said, I don't know about the objective measurements, so I don't have any evidence except my own hearing.
 
I agree, based just on my ears again, that hi-res formats doesn't have difference vs red book. But not with DSD, and I hear the difference as very substantial.
 
So, forget other hi-res formats, but with regards to DSD128 or up only, you don't hear any difference vs red book/16/44? I seriously think you need to have your ears checked.

  
Subjective perception can and does lie, depending on the circumstances. Several examples have already been posted (probably more than once) in this same thread.
 
 
It is ironical that the "flat earth" belief is actually the result of naive subjectivism (after all, it obviously looks flat from where one is standing, so it must be true, right ?), yet keeps getting brought up in its defense.

 You didn't get the point at all. The point is---don't conclude that DSD128+ is not better than red book 16/44...keep an open mind, study it more...that's what scientists are for...time to exit for me...not a scientist...lol

My ears are fine. You need to stop with the accusations and platitudes.

Again I ask - you believe there are "very substantial" audible audio differences between red book and DSD that are not measurable by current instrumentation?

 

[diamondears]

My ears are fine. You need to stop with the accusations and platitudes.

Again I ask - you believe there are "very substantial" audible audio differences between red book and DSD that are not measurable by current instrumentation?

Huh? Did I say your ears are not fine?

Yes, I think so. But I COULD be wrong, as all of us here.

You didn't get the point still.

 

[bfreedma]

 
As I said, I don't know about the objective measurements, so I don't have any evidence except my own hearing.
 
I agree, based just on my ears again, that hi-res formats doesn't have difference vs red book. But not with DSD, and I hear the difference as very substantial.
 
So, forget other hi-res formats, but with regards to DSD128 or up only, you don't hear any difference vs red book/16/44? I seriously think you need to have your ears checked.
 You didn't get the point at all. The point is---don't conclude that DSD128+ is not better than red book 16/44...keep an open mind, study it more...that's what scientists are for...time to exit for me...not a scientist...lol

 
 

Huh? Did I say your ears are not fine?

Yes, I think so. But I COULD be wrong, as all of us here.

You didn't get the point still.

 
Yes, you did tell me to get my ears checked - see above.  There's some irony that you can't remember what you posted and didn't fact check, yet are so sure those who have are wrong about this.
 
I get the point - it's you who don't.  You're stating that you believe that there are "very substantial" differences in audio that you can hear but that we can't yet measure.  The slightly modified quote below seems appropriate as you seem so doubtful about established audio science theory.

Subjectivists "make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.” ― Isaac Asimov

 

[liamstrain]

Diamondears (and analogsurvivor) - in addition to bfreedma's point, you still haven't done anything to ensure that the DSD and Redbooks you are comparing used the same master. It's entirely possible they are not - so hearing differences would be natural, even if they were both at the same resolution/format, the different masters would ensure you hear differences. 
 
Several people have proposed very basic tests you can do, to ensure you are comparing apples to apples, and I see no attempts on your part to even acknowledge that, much less attempt it. 

 

[analogsurviver]

  Diamondears (and analogsurvivor) - in addition to bfreedma's point, you still haven't done anything to ensure that the DSD and Redbooks you are comparing used the same master. It's entirely possible they are not - so hearing differences would be natural, even if they were both at the same resolution/format, the different masters would ensure you hear differences. 
 
Several people have proposed very basic tests you can do, to ensure you are comparing apples to apples, and I see no attempts on your part to even acknowledge that, much less attempt it. 

Sorry - I can not accept this post.
 
I have stated numerous times I use live music, live mic  feed etc as "master"  ( to make sure it is the same "input" for everything downstream ) - and can set recorder(s) to anything from MP3 192KBPS to DSD128 (and can convert the recordings into any format supported by Korg Audiogate), can parallel use up to 4 (or 8 if I borrow from friends ) recorders each set for different resolution fed from the same microphone - 
and YOU have the nerve to ask if I am sure the master is the same ?????
 
Please do read my posts - because I regard this post of yours as the very last ditch attempt by the "perfect sound forever" brigade to linger along any longer. 
And please do get the idea regarding what can be  master for DSD or CD absolutely straight - master is per definition something in best possible quality, in the above  case master can be raw recording in DSD from which one can bounce it down to CD - using one of several available software - NOT the other way around.
 
At http://www.2l.no/hires/ you can download test files that started life mostly as DXD recordings ( 352kHz/24bit ) and were bounced down to the the stereo96/24 as the lowest resolution - and there are few that started life as 96/24 and were bounced up.  With a DXD capable DAC, you can ABX these in ABX comparator of Foobar2000.
The fact that 2L did not bother to include 44.1/16 speaks volumes ... - but if you really must, can bounce any of these files down to 44.1/16 to hear for yourself with what you have decided to satisfy yourself.
 
While at it, you should notice reason #3 why computer audio is hard - various softwares used for conversion from one format to another do produce audibly different results. And one has to subjectively decide which sounds best - science up or down.
 
Because of these vagaries, I have postponed promised recordings of square waves from a vast range of analog and digital devices - because there is absolutely no way to ascertain that each and every software on each and every computer will play them back equally. 

 

[diamondears]

Yes, you did tell me to get my ears checked - see above.  There's some irony that you can't remember what you posted and didn't fact check, yet are so sure those who have are wrong about this.

I get the point - it's you who don't.  You're stating that you believe that there are "very substantial" differences in audio that you can hear but that we can't yet measure.  The slightly modified quote below seems appropriate as you seem so doubtful about established audio science theory.

[COLOR=000000]Subjectivists "make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.”[/COLOR] [COLOR=000000]―[/COLOR] [COLOR=000000]Isaac Asimov[/COLOR]

Sorry to offend and disagree with you. And pardon me for forgetting that I said you need to get yours ears checked, which I forgot.

So, your ears don't notice any difference between red book and DSD128 of a recording from the same Masters?

I said I don't know about objective measurements. And yes you still miss the point.

 

[bfreedma]

Yes, you did tell me to get my ears checked - see above. There's some irony that you can't remember what you posted and didn't fact check, yet are so sure those who have are wrong about this.

I get the point - it's you who don't. You're stating that you believe that there are "very substantial" differences in audio that you can hear but that we can't yet measure. The slightly modified quote below seems appropriate as you seem so doubtful about established audio science theory.

[COLOR=000000]Subjectivists "make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.”[/COLOR] [COLOR=000000]―[/COLOR] [COLOR=000000]Isaac Asimov[/COLOR]

Sorry to offend and disagree with you. And pardon me for forgetting that I said you need to get yours ears checked, which I forgot.

So, your ears don't notice any difference between red book and DSD128 of a recording from the same Masters?

I said I don't know about objective measurements. And yes you still miss the point.

Not much of an apology. And I've already directly answered that question, which I assume you have forgotten as well.

Just because YOU don't understand objective measurements doesn't invalidate them.

Last word can be yours, debating this further with you is pointless.

 

[RRod]

  Sorry - I can not accept this post.
 
I have stated numerous times I use live music, live mic  feed etc as "master"  ( to make sure it is the same "input" for everything downstream ) - and can set recorder(s) to anything from MP3 192KBPS to DSD128 (and can convert the recordings into any format supported by Korg Audiogate), can parallel use up to 4 (or 8 if I borrow from friends ) recorders each set for different resolution fed from the same microphone - 
and YOU have the nerve to ask if I am sure the master is the same ?????
 
Please do read my posts - because I regard this post of yours as the very last ditch attempt by the "perfect sound forever" brigade to linger along any longer. 
And please do get the idea regarding what can be  master for DSD or CD absolutely straight - master is per definition something in best possible quality, in the above  case master can be raw recording in DSD from which one can bounce it down to CD - using one of several available software - NOT the other way around.
 
At http://www.2l.no/hires/ you can download test files that started life mostly as DXD recordings ( 352kHz/24bit ) and were bounced down to the the stereo96/24 as the lowest resolution - and there are few that started life as 96/24 and were bounced up.  With a DXD capable DAC, you can ABX these in ABX comparator of Foobar2000.
The fact that 2L did not bother to include 44.1/16 speaks volumes ... - but if you really must, can bounce any of these files down to 44.1/16 to hear for yourself with what you have decided to satisfy yourself.
 
While at it, you should notice reason #3 why computer audio is hard - various softwares used for conversion from one format to another do produce audibly different results. And one has to subjectively decide which sounds best - science up or down.
 
Because of these vagaries, I have postponed promised recordings of square waves from a vast range of analog and digital devices - because there is absolutely no way to ascertain that each and every software on each and every computer will play them back equally. 

 
The fact that 2L didn't bother to include 16/44.1 speaks to the fact that they cater to an audience that doesn't objectively assess sound formats, nothing more.
 
The resampler comparisons I've seen done have never been auditory. They usually involve measurements and graphs thereof, to make objective decisions about the actual performance for a given task. Any resampler that creates audible artifacts would not be considered a viable solution to the problem at hand.
 
You hide behind vagaries you create because it's the only way to avoid the truth. I see nothing stopping you from recording your favorite analogous square wave at 176.4 and comparing that file to resampled files at lower rates, other than reluctance. But we know how it will turn out. Theoretically, the 88.2 file would differ from the 44.1 file in frequencies above 22.05kHz, and those are already at 4% of the amplitude of the fundamental. How audible do you think a 10bit/21kHz sine wave is? I can't even hear a full-bore 16bit one at 18kHz with the volume all the way up on my amp.
 
But theory doesn't matter. You'll just say there's some special sauce the ADC drops out and thus comparisons are useless. Even if we generated tones ideally in software, you'd say something like "well if we were using DeaDBeeF on *another* computer, I'd be able to tell the difference." Enjoy your DSD while it exists, and be glad the hipsters are keeping vinyl alive.

 

[bigshot]

DSD is audibly transparent... just like HD Audio, Redbook and most high bitrate lossy. It's all the same, just with different amounts of stuff you can't hear.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
The fact that 2L didn't bother to include 16/44.1 speaks to the fact that they cater to an audience that doesn't objectively assess sound formats, nothing more.
 
The resampler comparisons I've seen done have never been auditory. They usually involve measurements and graphs thereof, to make objective decisions about the actual performance for a given task. Any resampler that creates audible artifacts would not be considered a viable solution to the problem at hand.
 
You hide behind vagaries you create because it's the only way to avoid the truth. I see nothing stopping you from recording your favorite analogous square wave at 176.4 and comparing that file to resampled files at lower rates, other than reluctance. But we know how it will turn out. Theoretically, the 88.2 file would differ from the 44.1 file in frequencies above 22.05kHz, and those are already at 4% of the amplitude of the fundamental. How audible do you think a 10bit/21kHz sine wave is? I can't even hear a full-bore 16bit one at 18kHz with the volume all the way up on my amp.
 
But theory doesn't matter. You'll just say there's some special sauce the ADC drops out and thus comparisons are useless. Even if we generated tones ideally in software, you'd say something like "well if we were using DeaDBeeF on *another* computer, I'd be able to tell the difference." Enjoy your DSD while it exists, and be glad the hipsters are keeping vinyl alive.

For the resamplers - yes, I did look what the measurements ( on What is the best forum http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3534-Weiss-Saracon  and http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/04/analysis-comparison-of-dsd-encoders.html) were - and decided what is definitely NOT the way to go - Weiss Saracon software that filters anything above 30 kHz.  Besides costing an arm and a leg ( several K$ ).
What is the point in taking the care and trouble and then filtering practically all hard won advantage out ?
 
Since then, Korg Audiogate V 3.0.x ( I think x is by now 2 ) has made such audible progress over V 2.X.Y that has been compared to Saracon that it doe$ not make any $en$e to even con$ider Saracon. Audiogate V 2.X.Y. with High Quality setting  was comparable to foobar2000 -  but v 3.0.x High Quality is FAR better. All this refers to DSD converted to PCM of 192/32float or lower - my only gripe with current Audiogate is that it can play native DSD only with Korg DACs - with anything else the DSD playback does not even appear as an option in the menu.
 
I have absolutely no reluctance to record analogue square wave to 176.4 or any other within my capability and comparing it to resampled files at lower rates. If not today, I will do it tomorrow - I do not particularly enjoy the fact that a certain vintage accessory for turntables that is extremely hard to get came today in unusable condition and will require LOTS of dedication to get it going again. This ( shipping? ) damage is the last thing I need at the moment...
 
Believe me, I am more interested than you what it is that does draw me to DSD more than anything else - and my pure sine wave kHzs are even less impressiver than yours ...
 
Vinyl never really went away and hipsters are not the only ones keeping it alive. I know the biggest thanks goes to DJs - despite it is vynil at its lowest form of quality, spawning "needlz" - in official Shure catalogue ( ! ).  DSD fortunately is not software limited ( at least if you record your own recordings ) nor there are parts made out of Unobtainium ( such as phono styli or - why not by now - lasers for CD players ) - so I do not see it defunct in a way of say Sony Elcasette - which was doomed the moment there were no more Elcasette tapes to be found. And I would not be so sure about DSD's nonexistance in the market say in 20 years from now - which I can not say about 44.1/16, particularly as physical disc. Although few, there are CDs that can no longer be played ( porous plastics > oxidation - THE END ) - vynil has proven to be MUCH more longer lasting if taken care of properly.
 
And yes, there is no more practical thing than a good theory - if properly applied and interpreted .

 

[bigshot]

What the heck does vinyl have to do with DSD? This conversation wanders more than the Lost Tribes of Israel.

 

[Wizz]

  OK, guys, that does it. This post is CLEARLY meant to imply that anything above 44.1/16 is meaningless.

 
Cause it is.
 
For end product, that is.
Audio processing / production / mastering is a whole different thing of course.
 
But for final listening/reproduction, until there's actual evidence to the contrary (instead of the usual technicoid-factoid based subjectivist/obscurantist/sophomoric arguments about how many angels can dance on the pin of a needle - something you're VERY good at BTW, lol....), more than 44.1/16 is, indeed, entirely meaningless.
 
Bring on evidence (REAL-WORLD evidence, not your factoid-based codswallop)  to the contrary and I'll change my mind.
I've been waiting for such evidence for years now.... still waiting... waiting... waiting....
 
Indeed this discussion is going nowhere, as usual. I quoted Paul (from eponymous movie ...): "you can't win with these people". They are BELIEVERS. Their brain is wired in a totally different way than ours. They don't question their perceptions. They trust their ears, their eyes, and loathe everything that question their beliefs. They think their representation of the world is a map of reality.
 
And the worst part is, they don't play fair in discussions. Always using the same old rethoric tricks and logical fallacies.
 
This whole audiofools thing would be a great subject for a Social Psychology study!

 

[RRod]

  What the heck does vinyl have to do with DSD? This conversation wanders more than the Lost Tribes of Israel.

 
Because many DSD advocates feel that the extra sampling rate makes it "analogous enough" to "sound better" than Redbook. Stairsteps and all that you know.