Watts Up...?
Jan 24, 2019 at 7:01 AM Post #1,262 of 2,770

Muataz

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Posts
266
Likes
159
Location
Saudi Arabia
Interesting.

I wonder if the sound waves beneath or above our current measurable hearing impact the waves we can discern...
Me too, Moreover I believe we don't know everything and I dislike how some people think that because they can measure some aspect of something they can generalize the result and this happen all the time in audio industry
 
Jan 24, 2019 at 8:53 AM Post #1,263 of 2,770

jarnopp

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Posts
1,836
Likes
1,070
Interesting.

I wonder if the sound waves beneath or above our current measurable hearing impact the waves we can discern...

It would seem that for music recorded by microphone, live, any effect would be recorded. So, for example, if a lower frequency were interacticting with say 500-1000 Hz, and you recorded that, even if your playback system only played 500-1000 Hz, the effect should be there. For mixed music or electronic music, where the effect would only be present when you played it on your system, you would be missing it if you didn’t have full range of the original.
 
Jan 24, 2019 at 8:58 AM Post #1,264 of 2,770

Peter Hyatt

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Dec 23, 2015
Posts
1,972
Likes
1,913
Me too, Moreover I believe we don't know everything and I dislike how some people think that because they can measure some aspect of something they can generalize the result and this happen all the time in audio industry


We know so much less than we pride ourselves.

The older I get, the less I know.

I think of John & Rob’s video interviews; particularly on hearing perception.

Good post.
 
Jan 24, 2019 at 10:35 AM Post #1,266 of 2,770

ZappaMan

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Posts
2,201
Likes
1,366
Location
dynamo hum
Filter 1 (TT2) is white (H2)
Filter 2 is green
Filter 3 is orange
and Filter 4 is red....
Thanks, should anything mscaled really be listened to on green, to remove the artifacts potentially introduced?
 
Jan 24, 2019 at 1:12 PM Post #1,267 of 2,770

Rob Watts

Member of the Trade: Chord Electronics
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Posts
2,666
Likes
8,210
The M scaler will perfectly preserve distortion and noise that's on the recording, within the bandwidth of the recording. So the ADC noise from a 192kHz recording, which increases above 20kHz and peaks at 96kHz will still be there M scaled or not; and this noise will increase noise floor modulation in the DAC, so it sounds better to remove the noise, and that's the purpose of the HF filter. So M scaling or not makes no difference to the benefits of the HF filter. As too the 16FS or 256FS WTA filter 2 choice, then the warmer sound of the M scaler would make selection of the WTA 2 even more attractive; also being able to hear starting and stopping of notes with WTA 2 is more apparent too with the M scaler.
 
Jan 24, 2019 at 1:27 PM Post #1,268 of 2,770

JaZZ

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
May 9, 2002
Posts
9,712
Likes
1,712
Location
Zürich, Switzerland
The M scaler will perfectly preserve distortion and noise that's on the recording, within the bandwidth of the recording. So the ADC noise from a 192kHz recording, which increases above 20kHz and peaks at 96kHz will still be there M scaled or not; and this noise will increase noise floor modulation in the DAC, so it sounds better to remove the noise, and that's the purpose of the HF filter. So M scaling or not makes no difference to the benefits of the HF filter. As too the 16FS or 256FS WTA filter 2 choice, then the warmer sound of the M scaler would make selection of the WTA 2 even more attractive; also being able to hear starting and stopping of notes with WTA 2 is more apparent too with the M scaler.
Which begs the question: What if the ultrasonic «noise» consists of ultrasonic harmonics from the recorded instruments? Are they also detrimental to the sound quality, or is it just the characteristic of the ADC noise – limited to 96 kHz in either case – that does the harm (to the noise floor)?
 
Jan 24, 2019 at 1:46 PM Post #1,269 of 2,770

ecwl

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
695
Likes
622
Location
Winnipeg, MB, Canada
The M scaler will perfectly preserve distortion and noise that's on the recording, within the bandwidth of the recording. So the ADC noise from a 192kHz recording, which increases above 20kHz and peaks at 96kHz will still be there M scaled or not; and this noise will increase noise floor modulation in the DAC, so it sounds better to remove the noise, and that's the purpose of the HF filter. So M scaling or not makes no difference to the benefits of the HF filter. As too the 16FS or 256FS WTA filter 2 choice, then the warmer sound of the M scaler would make selection of the WTA 2 even more attractive; also being able to hear starting and stopping of notes with WTA 2 is more apparent too with the M scaler.
Ah. I just realized I should always leave my DAVE with HF filter On (instead of Off) because if I'm playing 44.1kHz material with Blu2, sonically, it won't make a difference. But if I'm playing hi-res recording, the HF filter would remove/reduce the high-frequency ADC noise.
 
Jan 24, 2019 at 2:30 PM Post #1,270 of 2,770

ZappaMan

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Posts
2,201
Likes
1,366
Location
dynamo hum
The M scaler will perfectly preserve distortion and noise that's on the recording, within the bandwidth of the recording. So the ADC noise from a 192kHz recording, which increases above 20kHz and peaks at 96kHz will still be there M scaled or not; and this noise will increase noise floor modulation in the DAC, so it sounds better to remove the noise, and that's the purpose of the HF filter. So M scaling or not makes no difference to the benefits of the HF filter. As too the 16FS or 256FS WTA filter 2 choice, then the warmer sound of the M scaler would make selection of the WTA 2 even more attractive; also being able to hear starting and stopping of notes with WTA 2 is more apparent too with the M scaler.
Rob, you’re a legend, but what is the wta2? As it sounds like something that I should select.
Ok - I’m silly, it’s the fourth filter?
But it’s a pity that green is preferred for high res, which is plentiful with qobuz, but red filter is preferred for transients ?
It’s been a long day, I presume I make no sense.
 
Last edited:
Jan 24, 2019 at 2:53 PM Post #1,271 of 2,770

x RELIC x

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Posts
12,012
Likes
7,648
Location
The West Coast, Canada
Rob, you’re a legend, but what is the wta2? As it sounds like something that I should select.
Ok - I’m silly, it’s the fourth filter?
But it’s a pity that green is preferred for high res, which is plentiful with qobuz, but red filter is preferred for transients ?
It’s been a long day, I presume I make no sense.

WTA1+WTA2 is 1 & 2 (2 being with the HF filter), and WTA1 without WTA2 is 3 & 4 (4 being with the HF filter).

1&2 are more accurate and are preferred for transients. 3&4 are there for a softer (warmer) sound if one would prefer that type of sound - choices for the customer is all. Rob was saying that because the M scaler adds some warmth that it’s good with filters 1&2 while still enhancing the more accurate filters (starting and stopping of notes).
 
Jan 24, 2019 at 3:00 PM Post #1,272 of 2,770

ZappaMan

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Posts
2,201
Likes
1,366
Location
dynamo hum
WTA1+WTA2 is 1 & 2 (2 being with the HF filter), and WTA1 without WTA2 is 3 & 4 (4 being with the HF filter).

1&2 are more accurate and are preferred for transients. 3&4 are there for a softer (warmer) sound if one would prefer that type of sound - choices for the customer is all. Rob was saying that because the M scaler adds some warmth that it’s good with filters 1&2 while still enhancing the more accurate filters (starting and stopping of notes).
Thank you, I had to read it a few times, but think I’ve got it.
 
Jan 26, 2019 at 4:54 AM Post #1,273 of 2,770

Rob Watts

Member of the Trade: Chord Electronics
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Posts
2,666
Likes
8,210
Which begs the question: What if the ultrasonic «noise» consists of ultrasonic harmonics from the recorded instruments? Are they also detrimental to the sound quality, or is it just the characteristic of the ADC noise – limited to 96 kHz in either case – that does the harm (to the noise floor)?

Good question. If you do an FFT of 192 recordings you don't see anything above 30kHz - it's just the gentle increasing noise floor of a DSM ADC.

Now I do not think any harmonics above 20k are audible at all; the benefit of HD recordings from the SR POV is the reduction in timing uncertainty, and this is just a function of the sample rate; bandwidth limiting is an entirely linear function, and does not create timing uncertainty.

Having said all that, it's an issue that I am currently looking into, for other reasons. And of course Davina's ADC noise starts above 500kHz, so won't be an issue, even with 768k recordings.
 
Jan 26, 2019 at 1:04 PM Post #1,274 of 2,770

maxh22

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 18, 2016
Posts
1,339
Likes
424
Question for you Rob:

If you record a musical piece at 768khz using your ADC and play it back on a Dave, would that make an M Scaler in the chain largely redundant or would there still be any benefit?
 
Jan 26, 2019 at 1:31 PM Post #1,275 of 2,770

514077

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Posts
3,711
Likes
1,560
Question for you Rob:

If you record a musical piece at 768khz using your ADC and play it back on a Dave, would that make an M Scaler in the chain largely redundant or would there still be any benefit?
I'm not Rob. But, I'd bet the MScaler would still matter, as the DAVE only uses about 164,000 taps and the MScaler uses 1,000,000 more or less.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top