JWolf
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 3, 2005
- Posts
- 1,118
- Likes
- 155
Examples?
R.E.M - Fables of Reconstruction
That one is well brick-walled at DR8. Tracks are either DR8 or DR9.
Examples?
I've been reading Steve Hoffman's forum for two days. I also check a lot of reviews before I buy.The ideal reconstruction of a PCM signal is perfectly compatible with a frequency-view; that we can't attain the ideal doesn't mean suddenly the view is thrown out the window.
I'll agree with you that it's missing the point a bit to talk about what a resample of a hi-res track sounds like if you can't get the master on anything but hi-res. That's the results of the sad cycle of loudness, where companies started to make things loud, people started to accept it and then expect it, and now good sound is considered a "niche." Still, that you can take a hi-res master and take it down to Redbook with no audible issues just shows how unnecessary the intertwining of hi-res downloads and good mastering really is.
To @s0ny
: Find a master you like and get it. If having it in hi-res is a pain for your hardware/software setup, it is quite easy to take it down to CD and have it sound just as good. Do searches for your albums on sites like Steve Hoffman's forum and the loudness database to help you find masters you might want.
I apologize as I just read the bulleted list that you posted. Now, I've read the entire interview and the part you quoted comes at the very end without any explanation or reasons why it is better. Siau does say it, so I am wrong in my post.
The vast majority of the article was spent pretty much saying DSD is a horrible format but that Benchmark makes the best DSD DAC to handle its playback. I didn't know that DSD pretty much filters out everything from 47kHz and up or how limiting DSD is for playback usability. As a user, a DSD file pretty much has to be converted to PCM before crossfades/fadeouts/fadeins/gapless playback can be implemented from our music players, but they can't if that DSD file has DRM, like for SA-CD. Even if you could, "consumer" DSD is 1-bit so any manipulations introduces artifacts. Another horrible attempt by Sony to lock-in users into a format that is extremely (edit: NOT) user-friendly and only offers stronger DRM as a benefit (Memory Sticks, UMD, SecureROM even on audio CDs!, etc).
Totally agree with you here. Releasing better mastered music is right now the most important thing. The sample rate and bit rate wars are just a distraction.
Edit: LOL, I originally wrote that DSD was user-friendly...
A version of Countdown to Extinction available from a certain hi-res retailer sounds a total mess compared to either the original release or the MoFi version. Bloated bass, sibilant voices, bleh.
The poor reditions appear to be copies of the 2012 25th anniversary CD which also had those bad dr nimbers. The sites can only sell what the record companies give them.
And we'd love to have you dispute this interview with arguments. (and by we I mean I)
Well here is another interview, this time with Roger Sanders, and Audio Engineer and musician who designs and builds what is arguably the best electrostatic speakers/amp combination you can buy. Not only does he dismiss that 16/44 <<< 24/96 for playback, he also argues that PCM >>> DSD. What do think are the flaws in his arguments?
http://www.monoandstereo.com/2013/11/interview-with-roger-sanders.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+monoandstereo%2FHOym+%28MONO+AND+STEREO+Ultra+High+End+Audio+Magazine%29
Well here is another interview, this time with Roger Sanders, and Audio Engineer and musician who designs and builds what is arguably the best electrostatic speakers/amp combination you can buy. Not only does he dismiss that 16/44 <<< 24/96 for playback, he also argues that PCM >>> DSD. What do think are the flaws in his arguments?
http://www.monoandstereo.com/2013/11/interview-with-roger-sanders.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+monoandstereo%2FHOym+%28MONO+AND+STEREO+Ultra+High+End+Audio+Magazine%29
Well here is another interview, this time with Roger Sanders, and Audio Engineer and musician who designs and builds what is arguably the best electrostatic speakers/amp combination you can buy. Not only does he dismiss that 16/44 <<< 24/96 for playback, he also argues that PCM >>> DSD. What do think are the flaws in his arguments?
http://www.monoandstereo.com/2013/11/interview-with-roger-sanders.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+monoandstereo%2FHOym+%28MONO+AND+STEREO+Ultra+High+End+Audio+Magazine%29
Well here is another interview, this time with Roger Sanders, and Audio Engineer and musician who designs and builds what is arguably the best electrostatic speakers/amp combination you can buy. Not only does he dismiss that 16/44 <<< 24/96 for playback, he also argues that PCM >>> DSD. What do think are the flaws in his arguments?
http://www.monoandstereo.com/2013/11/interview-with-roger-sanders.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+monoandstereo%2FHOym+%28MONO+AND+STEREO+Ultra+High+End+Audio+Magazine%29
Our test results indicate that all of these recordings
could be released on conventional CDs with no audible
difference.
Brad Meyer and David Moran from the Audio Engineering Society did such a study. Subjects sat at a chair and listened to a SACD/DVD-A sound source directly vs piping through a 16bit/44.1kHz A/D/A device. Subject were asked which source was superior.
Out of 554 trials, 276 picked the pure SACD/DVD-A source. That is 49.82%, and is pretty much 50/50 chance.
The study concluded,
Our test results indicate that all of these recordings
could be released on conventional CDs with no audible
difference.
Source: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195
http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
When you're looking at sample rates above 44.1kHz, there won't be any audible difference. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying, or deluded.
HOWEVER, it's worth noting that sample rates above 44.1kHz are still important when it comes to recording/production/engineering, simply due to potential aliasing issues when editing/bouncing/rendering. But this is the only reason that they are important, and they hold no value in the consumer market.
Another test: http://archimago.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-ii.html?m=1
So, it's all placebo effect. Stuff like AK380 is marketing bs. I mean you could spend all that money on a high end headphone/amp etc. 16 bit/44.1 is all you need unless you want your dogs/cat or bats to listen. It's funny because I was going to buy Ak380. Not anymore.
This is at least the second time you have said this. The first time I ignored it, but you are spreading misinformation. It does not matter how complex a waveform is as long as none of the component frequencies are above fs/2 then it can be reconstructed perfectly well with a DAC operating at a given fs. the argument that a complex wave is harder to render is incorrect. Please visit here Jim leSurf on Waves
A lot of those articles/blog posts say how well 16/44.1 reproduce sine waves. I don't disagree there. But music is more complex.
Ignore those articles that say that 16/44.1 is all you need. What you should do is listen for yourself. Personally,I do hear a difference in favor of Hi-Res. But you need to make that choice/distinction for yourself. A lot of those articles/blog posts say how well 16/44.1 reproduce sine waves. I don't disagree there. But music is more complex.