It makes a slight difference to my ears A/Bing with filters (which are automatically volume matched through HQPlayer's headroom management). I wouldn't necessary say TPDF is worse than 5th order noise shaper, but the 5th order noise shaper NS5 (at 768 KHz sample rate) sounds more pleasing to my ears than the TPDF (playing at 44.1 KHz)
One thing I've noticed now by interacting with veterans, the golden ears is also dependent on visual queues of waveforms. I've noticed the adage, if there's any difference in signal noise....it must mean it's affecting the digital audio experience.
Please go to his blog at look closely to the pictures he made. The one you linked and the next one. I suggest specifically looking at the legends. Did he have to use a "Hi-res" file to take advantage of the noise shaper or not? Because it looks a lot like he was using standard sampling rates in both cases. If you are unsure about the bit depth, I can guarantee you that the noise shapers would work well not only with 24/44k files but also with 44/16 files as well. Maybe try to read through and absorb his blog, because at no point he claims that "hi-res is needed for more complex noise shaping". You could maybe even get a reply if you asked him whether you need to download hi res files for the sake of getting more use out of the more aggressive noise shapers or not.
Upsampling is employed in virtually all audio DACs (apart from some exceptions in audiophile lala lands), in fact, they commonly oversample well into the MHz range, are these DACs suddenly somehow hi-res because of that? I don't know what exactly you mean by that word but you clearly use it different than I and the rest of the world which is funny because how vaguely hi-res is defined at the first place but somehow you still manage to stretch it too far.
When you oversample, you essentially create hi-res files on the fly! Standard DACs have their own built in filters that ALSO oversample so that the computational power to remove the imaging artifacts are down to minimum. However, my point is you NEED hi-res whether it’s on-the-fly or created as LPCM file (wave) for more complex noise shaper to actually achieve their purpose which is to gain more SNR while pushing the noise far away from 20KHz and into ultrasonics
One thing I've noticed now by interacting with veterans, the golden ears is also dependent on visual queues of waveforms. I've noticed the adage, if there's any difference in signal noise....it must mean it's affecting the digital audio experience.
When you oversample, you essentially create hi-res files on the fly! Standard DACs have their own built in filters that ALSO oversample so that the computational power to remove the imaging artifacts are down to minimum. However, my point is you NEED hi-res whether it’s on-the-fly or created as LPCM file (wave) for more complex noise shaper to actually achieve their purpose which is to gain more SNR while pushing the noise far away from 20KHz and into ultrasonics
The screenshot itself is from archimago's blog. The rest is from somewhere else because archimago understands the basics of of digital audio and DACs so he wouldn't post something like this.
You took my comment too literally. He answered my question though. He cherry picks, ignoring everything that doesn’t support his bias. That’s a particularly 21st century habit. It’s what holds back a lot of people from being able to think and figure things out.
You took my comment too literally. He answered my question though. He cherry picks, ignoring everything that doesn’t support his bias. That’s a particularly 21st century habit. It’s what holds back a lot of people from being able to think and figure things out.
Well if we get to this sub forum of science: you need to do blind tests. The main thing I think I've noticed with your assertion in hearing a difference, is that you've first seen a difference in noise floor or reading about others impressions.
I am not sure if you stumbled on it but in a different conversation a few days or so back our man Veterans literally stated that seeing the electronic equipment, DAC in that specific case I recall, provided information that completed the sound that he heard.
A massive error in correlation versus causation.
With that sort of mindset I am not sure there is ever going to be a conversation that makes any difference to his beliefs.
I am not sure if you stumbled on it but in a different conversation a few days or so back our man Veterans literally stated that seeing the electronic equipment, DAC in that specific case I recall, provided information that completed the sound that he heard.
My revelation of veterans central idea was when I brought up the silliness of audiophile internet, and his counter was some random measurements of noise with his DAC with standard ethernet vs upcharged audiophile. Not concerned about establishing a baseline measurement or asking if any random differences in measurement will affect the DAC's processing. The short of it was "I see a difference in noise here....therefore science may not recognize it now, but I should also be able to hear this difference. Science will also prove me right in the future".
Speaking of the devil: I knew my hunch about square waves is CORRECT. I now have an ANECTDOAL correlation of a poorly measuring square wave to poor sound quality:
Speaking of the devil: I knew my hunch about square waves is CORRECT. I now have an ANECTDOAL correlation of a poorly measuring square wave to poor sound quality:
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
