[JWolf]

Examples?

 
R.E.M - Fables of Reconstruction
 
That one is well brick-walled at DR8. Tracks are either DR8 or DR9.

 

[s0ny]

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've been reading Steve Hoffman's forum for two days. I also check a lot of reviews before I buy.

 

[KeithEmo]

The DRM used in SACDs is much more extreme than just blocking certain things. An SACD player, by license, is not allowed to give you an "in the open" digital audio stream that is derived from that SACD content at full quality. This means that an SACD player can convert the DSD to PCM and give you a PCM output ONLY OVER HDMI - because the HDMI connection is encrypted. An SACD player is not allowed to give you a two-channel PCM output, for example, over Coax or Toslink, that you can connect to a two-channel PCM DAC. So, for example, if you play an SACD on an Oppo, it will give you an output that has been converted to PCM, or a DSD output, BUT ONLY VIA HDMI. (Any pre/pro will be able to play the PCM version, and any pre/pro that supports DSD, like the Emotiva XMC-1, will be able to play the DSD version; but there are only one or two DACs that will accept an HDMI input at all.)
  In other words, if you get a DAC that supports DSD playback, it can play DSD files that you download, played from a computer or something like an Oppo, and some illegal bootlegs, but there's no way you can use it as an external DAC to play your SACDs. (You can use an external DAC with your CD player, but, because of the DRM, you CAN'T use one with an SACD player. And you can use an external DSD DAC to play files from your computer, if both support DOP, but you can't play SACDs on your computer or RIP them with it.)
 
The general gist of Siao's article seems pretty clear..... Ignoring whether you can actually hear the difference or not, SACD is slightly better than 16/44, and 24/96 is better than 16/44, but DSD is NOT better than 24/96 in any meaningful way. (Or, to put it another way, when the choice was between CD and SACD, SACD was arguably better, but there is no logical reason to claim that SACD is better than 24/96 digital audio.)
 
 
Quote:

   
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...

 

[L8MDL]

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.

 

[RRod]

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.

Since the material is 24/96 and has content above 20k that isn't just noise or filter cruft, it can't just be a CD copy. Still sounds bad, though.

 

[old tech]

 
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

 

[spruce music]

  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

Don't think I see any flaws myself. 

 

[castleofargh]

   
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

he might just have summed up 90% of the sound science sub forum in one long interview.
 
I sure have zero love for DSD. not for the tech(hard to copy onto other supports, 1bit nonsense), not for the choice to make some masters exclusively available on DSD when most of the time they were mastered in PCM anyway. 

 

[aphex27]

  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

I don't see any..in fact the past few days I've been listening to the albums I downloaded in DSD, on Tidal at 16/44.1..I don't think I can tell a difference..
I will freely admit that the amazing recording quality had me fooled that it was the medium rather than the recording..
I urge anyone who is into classical to try some recordings from Pentatone records on Tidal..pretty amazing recording quality

 

[441879]

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

He sounds exactly like an engineer (which I am as well). The one thing that really bothers me about high end audio is how much pure BS there is and it's nice to see someone call it as such.

 

[icebear]

Very interesting interview. He obviously doesn't care about being polarizing. He has solid arguments for his positions although a lot of audiophiles will not like his stance against analog (tape and vinyl). Sure thing he is spot on about the recording being the most important part of the entire audio chain and not the data format. And also that high rez for consumer replay is a complete waste vs red book when all the recording and processing has been done with enough headroom the final consumer format can be 16/44.1 without any loss when done properly.
I am not sure if he has heard any First Watt amps or is familiar with Nelson's "home-brew" but for me 500+ watts into 8 ohms are definitely beyond overkill

 

[blade007]

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.

 

[JWolf]

  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.

 
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.

 

[Roly1650]

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.

@nick_charles gave a perfect explanation of why you are incorrect. He even linked to an excellent article on the why's and wherefores, which would have enlightened you, if you'd chosen to read it. The sampling theorem is as true for higher sample rates as it is for 16/44. You repeating this pile of crap won't magically make it right and at this stage you aren't doing anymore than trolling the thread with misinformation again.

 

[castleofargh]

  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.

 
yeah you told that to us almost word for word last page too. but you don't actually have any evidence of what you're saying. not for your opinion that highres sounds different(let me guess, sighted evaluation?), and not about music being any more difficult for 16/44 than redoing 1 single 20khz sine wave.
it could look counter intuitive to some, but that's how it is. the difficulty is not how many waves are recorded at once, because waves add up at one physical point into 1 single value of pressure in the air, and one single value of voltage in the analog path at a single instant T.  so the hard part is only ever to be able to move from one value to the next fast enough to redo the content before the direction changes(up or down). and what is the fastest changing content of music in the 20hz-20khz audible range? the 20khz sine wave!  all the music below is factually changing slower than one single 20khz sine.
so doing 20khz right is in fact evidence that we can do everything that is slower and your argument is false.
and this could be demonstrated(contrary to your statement).  take super complex music from 20hz to 15khz, you can redo it with let's say 35khz sample rate(some margin for the low pass filter). but you will fail to redo the 20khz sine wave correctly with that sample rate because you won't have 2 points per period and the low pass filter can't save that.
 
no DAC is drawing a signal by adding points one at a time and leave it at that. until you understand the purpose of band limiting, you won't get what the low pass filter really does to the analog signal and you will stay with your false instinctive concept of digital audio. it's ok, I was like you, everybody here was like you and thought like you at some point in life. you can't know what you don't know. but you sure could consider that maybe you don't know as well as you think, after you see so many people and read so many papers contradicting your idea of digital audio.
if you find that boring to read, or didn't do much math or physics at school, it's very ok not to bother. I can drive a car and don't understand 90% of how it works

. there is no need to be a rocket scientist to enjoy music. and there is nobody telling you to stop buying highres tracks if you want to.
but if you come here telling others how things are, you have to know your stuff !