The sound quality of DSD?

[analogSurviver]

Actual controlled tests to provide any support?

Otherwise, Imagining is all I imagine anyone could do.

No. I do not have the resources to put up such a test. Neither do big companies. Objectivist camp put up such high demands ( double blind ABX, all the statistics jazz, etc - to which, in theory, I have no objections ) to be met practically no one interested can possibly fulfill them. IT WOULD COST TOO MUCH . Akin to throwing a person with both hands and feet tied up in the ocean and expecting him/her to swim across the pond. No matter how good a swimmer that person might be, he/she will - under such circumstances - go to the bottom.

Both the microphones and digital gizmos capable of recording up to 100 kHz are only a few ( < 5 ) years old. If you are familiar with the "speed" in recording world, it will take few more years before the first commercially available recordings featuring this technology will become available.

 

[BDWoody]

I do not have the resources to put up such a test. Neither do big companies. Objectivist camp put up such high demands ( double blind ABX, all the statistics jazz, etc - to which, in theory, I have no objections ) to be met practically no one interested can possibly fulfill them. IT WOULD COST TOO MUCH .

Wow... Seems almost mean and unfair.

So, it's too expensive to conduct a proper test... For anyone.

I see...

 

[analogSurviver]

Does anything of this really has anything to do about DSD, high bandwith can be achived with PCM as well ? 192/24 pcm for example

Afaik freuency response and impulse response are eqvavilent , so if we cant hear past 20k we cant percive transient faster than that either , its two sides of the same coin ? is it not ?
(please dont respond with 1/44,1k argument and "timing" , to show basic missunderstanding of sampling please )

You are making the classic mistake in this case of ultrasonics PERCEPTION. It is not yet entirely clear HOW we perceive ultrasonics - but, it is definitely not through hearing with our ears alone. Please see a couple posts back - where are links to few studies outside strict sound, but human PERCEPTION. It is an interdisciplinary problem - involving medicine, biology, etc - not acoustics alone per se.

Although carried to the extreme while being forced through complete deafness, one real example of human being "listening" through her feet is a musician (!) - percussionist Evelyn Glennie. Similar like blind people are forced to sharpen their hearing - but if the sensitivity ( or whatever one wants to call it ) wasn't there in the first place, no matter how neglected normally, these people would have no chance surviving in real world trough sharpening on the sense (s) still left to them. Now please don't say you never met a blind person who told you he/she gets by mainly trough touch and listening - both of these senses developed FAR above what sighted people normally use.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Absolute nonsense.

Fantastical nonsense.

 

[Blumlein 88]

You are making the classic mistake in this case of ultrasonics PERCEPTION. It is not yet entirely clear HOW we perceive ultrasonics - but, it is definitely not through hearing with our ears alone. Please see a couple posts back - where are links to few studies outside strict sound, but human PERCEPTION. It is an interdisciplinary problem - involving medicine, biology, etc - not acoustics alone per se.

Although carried to the extreme while being forced through complete deafness, one real example of human being "listening" through her feet is a musician (!) - percussionist Evelyn Glennie. Similar like blind people are forced to sharpen their hearing - but if the sensitivity ( or whatever one wants to call it ) wasn't there in the first place, no matter how neglected normally, these people would have no chance surviving in real world trough sharpening on the sense (s) still left to them. Now please don't say you never met a blind person who told you he/she gets by mainly trough touch and listening - both of these senses developed FAR above what sighted people normally use.

And you are making the classic mistake of grading your own work. Shows us in a simple test you can pick between two recordings with and without ultrasonics without knowing which is playing and someone might believe you. And no it isn't beyond your means to do such a test.

You've shown little knowledge of how such things work. Like saying using high bandwidth microphones are very obvious even on a CD versus normal bandwidth microphones. As already said, utter non-sense.

 

[PaulD]

No. I do not have the resources to put up such a test. Neither do big companies. Objectivist camp put up such high demands ( double blind ABX, all the statistics jazz, etc - to which, in theory, I have no objections ) to be met practically no one interested can possibly fulfill them. IT WOULD COST TOO MUCH . Akin to throwing a person with both hands and feet tied up in the ocean and expecting him/her to swim across the pond. No matter how good a swimmer that person might be, he/she will - under such circumstances - go to the bottom.

Both the microphones and digital gizmos capable of recording up to 100 kHz are only a few ( < 5 ) years old. If you are familiar with the "speed" in recording world, it will take few more years before the first commercially available recordings featuring this technology will become available.

That is just more BS. I have proved that this is false (as have plenty of others). I listened to the instrument in the room (infinite bandwidth), then in the control room through the mics, (bandwidth to 80odd KHz) and it sounds the same, and then after the ADA process (BW limited to 20KHz) and it sounds the same. Proof that more bandwidth is not needed.

You could presumably do this yourself, cheaply enough, but be aware of biases and conduct the experiment properly - I confidently predict that the extra bandwidth cannot be heard in a properly engineered system.

 

[analogSurviver]

And you are making the classic mistake of grading your own work. Shows us in a simple test you can pick between two recordings with and without ultrasonics without knowing which is playing and someone might believe you. And no it isn't beyond your means to do such a test.

You've shown little knowledge of how such things work. Like saying using high bandwidth microphones are very obvious even on a CD versus normal bandwidth microphones. As already said, utter non-sense.

Have you heard these CDs ?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Have you heard these CDs ?

Don't need to hear them. If the only difference is ultrasonic bandwidth vs the 20 khz of CD, then the CD becomes a bottleneck through which higher bandwidth will not be able to make a difference. Unless you used an ADC with a very poor anti-aliasing filter in which case the difference is lower fidelity with the higher bandwidth microphones due to aliasing.

 

[analogSurviver]

That is just more BS. I have proved that this is false (as have plenty of others). I listened to the instrument in the room (infinite bandwidth), then in the control room through the mics, (bandwidth to 80odd KHz) and it sounds the same, and then after the ADA process (BW limited to 20KHz) and it sounds the same. Proof that more bandwidth is not needed.

You could presumably do this yourself, cheaply enough, but be aware of biases and conduct the experiment properly - I confidently predict that the extra bandwidth cannot be heard in a properly engineered system.

Simply bounce down a high sampling frequency recording to 44.1/16 - and everything in between. And, for PCM, you can even use Foobar2000 ABX.
Please note Foobar2000 does not support native DSD to be ABXed with any PCM - because both files to be compared have to be in PCM.
In any case, you have to use for listening transducers that do support at least 40 kHz-ish bandwidth.

 

[mansr]

I had to stop my electric monk reading this thread since it was about to explode.

 

[Mnyb]

*sigh* , no blind people dont have superhuman powers they use what we all have a little bit better .

This reminds of using radar/hf transmissionline theory on speaker cables , a second tier effect at best even if it exists .

Literally every other problem that exist in audio has to be solved firts before this can be of any interest , for example room acuostics and speaker distorsion .

I have another theory that i have not tested iether , sorry about that , but its just as plausible as the other fantasies posted .

It's sometimes possible to detect hirez recordings when listeningto hifi because of all the problems amps and speakers etc have with ultrasonic junk.
And for some reason diffrent is always better in hifi ? It's even more plausible with high end equipment developed with exentric filters and unusual circiut solutions that have problems we all thougth was gone in the 70's

 

[analogSurviver]

Don't need to hear them. If the only difference is ultrasonic bandwidth vs the 20 khz of CD, then the CD becomes a bottleneck through which higher bandwidth will not be able to make a difference. Unless you used an ADC with a very poor anti-aliasing filter in which case the difference is lower fidelity with the higher bandwidth microphones due to aliasing.

Although it is perfectly true what you say about aliasing I do not think anybody - particularly company wanting to promote their product - would be using poor ADC in their own promo material.

Question - do all loudspeakers that cover well up to 22050 Hz sound the same to you if they reproduce CD - or there is a change for the better with a transducer with multiples of 20 kHz covered ? Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration, with low SPLs pressure ( force spread across surface ) is given/defined - would you say that more massive speaker can respond to tiny accelerations as precisely as a lighter one ?

Please think twice on this one before responding - and much the same goes for the microphones, too. Basic physics.

 

[analogSurviver]

Makes no difference, OF COURSE I have tried that

So you say we need MHx bandwidth in amplifiers but only 40KHz in transducers? It is just illogical hearsay and BS.

And as for DSD, I covered that in post 2, check it out.

I said at least 40 kHz in transducers - because that is what is relatively easily achievable without having to resort to plasma tweters or similar exotica and also cost effective enough for most users.
MHz capable electronics can easily show its superiority over more bandwidth limited competition even with 40 kHz transducers at the end - if it is correctly done in the first place.

 

[PaulD]

I said at least 40 kHz in transducers - because that is what is relatively easily achievable without having to resort to plasma tweters or similar exotica and also cost effective enough for most users.
MHz capable electronics can easily show its superiority over more bandwidth limited competition even with 40 kHz transducers at the end - if it is correctly done in the first place.

Prove it or it's BS. I have already offered a proof in post #547 above that I have tried, and that concurs with a bunch of other research. If you are going to make claims against established evidence - prove it. If you cannot prove it, then stop making false claims with no proof. This is Audio SCIENCE review. Prove it or it does not exist.

 

[BDWoody]

MHz capable electronics can easily show its superiority over more bandwidth limited competition even with 40 kHz transducers at the end - if it is correctly done in the first place.

Anyone else starting to get that familiar whiff of troll?

 

[pkane]

Anyone else starting to get that familiar whiff of troll?

Why? Doesn't everyone enjoy short-wave radio mixed-in with their audio? I think there are even studies that show the brain goes into a relaxed state when you position your head next to a 500kW short-wave radio transmitter

 

[andymok]

Correct. Simple - the higher the frequency response, the better the transient.

The fastest audio device I have had the privilege to hear has been the prototype phono cartridge that later went into production as Benz Micro Switzerland Ruby. It had a really unusable output - 0.03mV/5cm/sec - and no phono input could manage to eek an usable S/N (particularly hum... ) out of it. But , its rise time has been 3 ( in a word : three ) microseconds.
Listening to music off normal analogue records with that prototype and then switching to any "normal" cartridge had about the same effect as switching between the same radio station - from FM to AM.
The speakers used have been Magnaplanar ??? - the big ones with the full height length ribbon tweeter and electronics with MHz bandwidth.
It was the only system I ever heard/felt/perceive capable of conveying the difference of speed of sound propagation in solids and gas; you could feel the whack on tympany with your feet/body BEFORE you could hear it ... - just as in real life. The sound namely travels much faster in solids (concrete floor, wood, carpet in this case ) than in the air.

interesting, I know a very respected Chinese acoustician and electronic designer, who designed the PA systems for the Great Hall, and was a Dolby Consultant back in the first Star Wars days, also an AP dealer, told me a story that one time he recorded a piano in studio with the microphone touching it, to capture the body / vibration that otherwise only the pianist could feel.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Although it is perfectly true what you say about aliasing I do not think anybody - particularly company wanting to promote their product - would be using poor ADC in their own promo material.

Question - do all loudspeakers that cover well up to 22050 Hz sound the same to you if they reproduce CD - or there is a change for the better with a transducer with multiples of 20 kHz covered ? Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration, with low SPLs pressure ( force spread across surface ) is given/defined - would you say that more massive speaker can respond to tiny accelerations as precisely as a lighter one ?

Please think twice on this one before responding - and much the same goes for the microphones, too. Basic physics.

Does a car weighing 5000 lbs with 500 hp accelerate as well as one weighing 2500 lbs with 250 hp? And does music sound the same in both cars? Probably no need to think before replying.

 

[Thomas savage]

@analogSurviver has been thread banned for continuing to make suspect claims without providing any substantial means to back them up .

The resulting content inspired by his postings all falls below what I want to see here .

You want to make extraordinary claims while presenting yourself as nothing more than another anonymous random person on the internet you need to bring something worth discussing or just drop the argument.

cheers

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The problem I see here was the "sponsorship" - by TEAC.

IIRC, Oohashi's work was originally supported by Panasonic.