DSD Vs. 1536kHz

[Rialta]

Has anyone listened to the Denafrips Ares II (or another DAC) in the super high PCM frequencies like 1410 or 1536kHz? How would that compare
(if at all) to DSD frequencies? I think that would be a great blindfold test - "can you hear the difference between 1536kHz or DSD 256/512."

I'm not sure most people would be able to tell the difference. I guess your ear would have to be very highly trained.

 

[Χ Ξ Σ]

Jeez, we have 1536kHz now?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Yeah, where are your 1536 khz audio ADC's?

 

[Martin]

A bat may be able to hear the difference.

Martin

 

[dfuller]

Considering basically nobody can tell the difference between MP3 320 and 44.1/16 WAV... I'm not convinced at all of the value of high sample rates or DSD as release formats.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I guess your ear would have to be very highly trained.

I guess, also, that your mind would have to be even moderately concerned.

 

[Jim Matthews]

If the source material is recorded at a lower sampling rate, what difference does this make?

 

[Frgirard]

Jeez, we have 1536kHz now?

1,536 Mégahertz

 

[Rialta]

Considering basically nobody can tell the difference between MP3 320 and 44.1/16 WAV... I'm not convinced at all of the value of high sample rates or DSD as release formats.

After tens of thousands of hours listening to both CD's, FLAC, and 320 MP3, I am very, very sure I could tell the difference. I have noticed that MP3's 320 seem to have better treble than the FLAC file (among other differences). One well-known music producer, (name escapes me), said 'anyone who cannot tell the difference between FLAC and a CD needs to have their ears examined.'

 

[Blumlein 88]

After tens of thousands of hours listening to both CD's, FLAC, and 320 MP3, I am very, very sure I could tell the difference. I have noticed that MP3's 320 seem to have better treble than the FLAC file (among other differences). One well-known music producer, (name escapes me), said 'anyone who cannot tell the difference between FLAC and a CD needs to have their ears examined.'

Uh huh!

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

One well-known music producer, (name escapes me), said 'anyone who cannot tell the difference between FLAC and a CD needs to have their ears examined.'

being a music producer, even a well known one, doesn’t make you less prone to sighted bias

 

[LTig]

After tens of thousands of hours listening to both CD's, FLAC, and 320 MP3, I am very, very sure I could tell the difference. I have noticed that MP3's 320 seem to have better treble than the FLAC file (among other differences). One well-known music producer, (name escapes me), said 'anyone who cannot tell the difference between FLAC and a CD needs to have their ears examined.'

Do you know that a FLAC file contains exactly the same bits as the CD if it is ripped from said CD?

I really would expect that any music producer should know the difference between lossless and lossy compression and which file types are lossless or lossy. One more failed expectation ...

 

[Rialta]

Yeah, where are your 1536 khz audio ADC's?

Denafrips Ares II, at least and that one has DSD1024.

 

[Rialta]

Do you know that a FLAC file contains exactly the same bits as the CD if it is ripped from said CD?

I really would expect that any music producer should know the difference between lossless and lossy compression and which file types are lossless or lossy. One more failed expectation ...

I know people say 'it's bit-for-bit', but to my ears, a CD has a more 'liquid' sound - hard to explain. It's almost as if some of the imaging was taking away. Just slightly, nothing dramatic. And as I said before, MP3 320 does seem to have more of a treble response.

 

[charleski]

A bat may be able to hear the difference.

Martin

Actually, that's too high even for a bat, since they top out at 212kHz.

 

[dfuller]

'anyone who cannot tell the difference between FLAC and a CD needs to have their ears examined.'

Considering FLACs and WAV have the exact same bitstream (you know, that's what lossless means) that's total nonsense.

 

[LTig]

I know people say 'it's bit-for-bit', but to my ears, a CD has a more 'liquid' sound - hard to explain. It's almost as if some of the imaging was taking away. Just slightly, nothing dramatic.

You hear those differences when your brain knows what's playing. Do a level matched double blind test to find out what the brain says when only the ears deliver information.

And as I said before, MP3 320 does seem to have more of a treble response.

MP3 is lossy (Edit: fixed from lossless) and depending on bit rate and your ears may sound different compared to FLAC. However:

• FLAC is lossless and hence the truth even if you prefer lossy MP3.
• If any change in treble is audible I would expect MP3 to have less treble and air, at least for lower bitrates, where all content above 16 kHz is thrown away,

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Denafrips Ares II, at least and that one has DSD1024.

It's an ADC, is it?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Denafrips Ares II, at least and that one has DSD1024.

That is a DAC. You need an ADC to record at those elevated rates.

 

[Rialta]

That is a DAC. You need an ADC to record at those elevated rates.

Or the Tascam DA-3000, which can record at double-DSD 5.6 mHz