HiRes makes no sense?

[levimax]

You can't use Foobar for DSD playback.

Actually you can but you need to convert the SACD to a .ISO or individual .DSF files, here is a guide, there are others. https://diyaudioheaven.wordpress.co...-part-3-new-experimental-sacd-plugin-v-0-9-x/

 

[Sokel]

You can't use Foobar for DSD playback.

Foobar can play DSD but it needs the SACD (at older setups the 1.6xx version may play better than the newer ones) and ASIO+DSD components to do it.
(both here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/sacddecoder/ )
It can also re/down/up sample, etc to any rate with the right add-ons (it can pretty much do anything, just not without add-ons)

 

[kyuu]

"Vastly better" is subjective. The difference can be quite small but for an audiophile hugely important and insightful.

No, there is literally no difference in the audible frequency range. A higher sample rate just enables the capture of higher frequency sound (which is really noise in almost all cases). This is not a matter of opinion, this is how digital audio works.

 

[krabapple]

I have a SACD player and a CD player and dual-layer SACDs where the Red Book (CD) layer is digitally derived from the DSD layer.

I can clearly hear a difference, mostly in the width and depth of the sound stage, but also in the reproduction of certain instruments. And that with dynamic speakers.

I also own electrostatic speakers and these can clearly reproduce sounds that no dynamic speaker can. Same difference.

Which SACDs are you talking about specifically? Some SACD have been produced with more 'mastering' to the CD layer, even though it is 'derived from the DSD layer'.

If it isnt that, then check for a player output level difference between DSD and PCM. Even a half dB could make a perceived difference in 'quality', when in fact, its the same as moving you volume knob.

If not that, you are imagining it.

 

[krabapple]

"Vastly better" is subjective. The difference can be quite small but for an audiophile hugely important and insightful.

Ah, a 'golden ears' type. In this day and age, on ASR! For two years!

 

[krabapple]

Foobar can play DSD but it needs the SACD (at older setups the 1.6xx version may play better than the newer ones) and ASIO+DSD components to do it.
(both here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/sacddecoder/ )
It can also re/down/up sample, etc to any rate with the right add-ons (it can pretty much do anything, just not without add-ons)

The question is, can fooABX accommodate a pure DSD vs PCM comparison?

 

[Bleib]

On of the funniest thing is buying 24/96-192 high-res releases from certain pages only to find out that it's based on an older master than the newly released 16/44.1 which blows it out of the water

I have only one example where the SACD is superior to the redbook CD release. Depeche Mode's Playing the Angel (2005), and this again is because the SACD mastering isn't ruined by loudnesswars

Fairly sure high-end hifi shows could all use 320kbit mp3 and no one would notice unless they'd be told. Instead people would see the design and price tags and be superbly impressed

 

[Redacted]

Don't give us the jibber jabber!
DSD is pointless and dead.
It's the mastering that counts, not how you present the bits. And almost all mastering and mixing is in PCM.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

I have a SACD player and a CD player and dual-layer SACDs where the Red Book (CD) layer is digitally derived from the DSD layer.

I can clearly hear a difference, mostly in the width and depth of the sound stage, but also in the reproduction of certain instruments. And that with dynamic speakers.

I also own electrostatic speakers and these can clearly reproduce sounds that no dynamic speaker can. Same difference.

I’m not sure if it’s anecdotal but I have read that the CD layer on those dual-layer discs is often delicately hobbled so that the SACD layer sounds better

EDIT: while “delicate” hobbling sounds like it might be enjoyable, I actually meant to say deliberately hobbled

 

[krumpol]

Foobar can play DSD but it needs the SACD (at older setups the 1.6xx version may play better than the newer ones) and ASIO+DSD components to do it.

Topping driver package for D10S goes with its own *.fb2k components and also *.pdf guide how to configure it btw, their foo_dsd_asio output mode works fine in Foobar.

 

[LTig]

I have a SACD player and a CD player and dual-layer SACDs where the Red Book (CD) layer is digitally derived from the DSD layer.

I can clearly hear a difference, mostly in the width and depth of the sound stage, but also in the reproduction of certain instruments. And that with dynamic speakers.

I also own electrostatic speakers and these can clearly reproduce sounds that no dynamic speaker can. Same difference.

No one disputes your genuine experience. Science though has shown that listening tests without proper controls (blind/double blind, level matched to less than 0.1 dB) lead to unreliable result all over the place - human hearing is not made for testing, sadly (or luckily). That's the reason why the science based minds here at ASR are very sceptical - me included.

I own a standalone AD/DA-EQ/Converter which takes itsself out of the audio chain if power is lost. I used it between preamp and active speakers. When I switched the converter on or off with no EQ active I could not hear a difference, regardless of the sample rate (44/48/96).

 

[krabapple]

I’m not sure if it’s anecdotal but I have read that the CD layer on those dual-layer discs is often delicately hobbled so that the SACD layer sounds better

The one case I know of personally (and it was confirmed independently) is one of the grandaddys of SACDs, and the best selling one of all time: Dark Side of the Moon.

The CD layer has added dynamic range compression.

But I don't routinely check my SACDs for this (or even bother to rip the CD layers). Life is too short.

 

[Beave]

If you look at OP's posting history - and responses to the posts - you will see that this has all been hashed out before. And, it seems, none of it mattered, because here we are again.

 

[Chrispy]

This article states that HiRes makes no sense and is only useful for mastering and production.

"the SACD version of a recording can sound substantially better than the CD release. It's not because of increased sample rate or depth but because the SACD used a higher-quality master. When bounced to a CD-R, the SACD version still sounds as good as the original SACD and better than the CD release because the original audio used to make the SACD was better."

IMHO this is rubbish. DSD sounds vastly better than Red Book CD and can reproduce sounds CD simply cannot.

This post seems a bit off just on the statement in the last sentence, which is just silly.

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

Perhaps the OP has better hearing than I do. Actually given its current state, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. Regardless, there have been a lot of double blind tests that indicate that hires and "standard" are indistinguishable to the human ear.

 

[CDMC]

Perhaps the OP has better hearing than I do. Actually given its current state, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. Regardless, there have been a lot of double blind tests that indicate that hires and "standard" are indistinguishable to the human ear.

I think the OP may have a hearing issue: He doesn’t like the responses he is hearing.

 

[bigpilot]

I have to ask what kind of sounds can they reproduce ( that no dynamic speakers can ) ?
Keith

Electric guitars, synthesizers that sound completely different compared to dynamic speakers, voices which sound like there's someone in the room with you.

The dynamics of many instruments simply cannot be faithfully reproduced by dynamic speakers, only with electrostatic (and possibly magnetostatic but I've never listened to one of those so I don't really know).

I believe we've become accustomed to the sound of dynamic loudspeakers. Some sound better than other but they don't sound "real" or realistic. Only electrostatic loudspeakers make you feel there's someone standing in the room singing to you and there's a band in your living room.

I rarely listen to my electrostatic speakers because every time I do I weep from joy. It's so realistic it's simply uncanny.

The only thing I dislike about electrostatic speakers is that they're ultra-directional. You literally can't move an inch or the realism vanishes. That makes listening a real chore.

 

[bigpilot]

Which sounds are those? Wondering what instruments and sounds don’t play through my cone speakers.

They do make sound through your dynamic loudspeakers. Just not the same sound that an electrostatic loudspeaker can reproduce.

But sometimes the medium itself also makes a difference. The snare drum at the start of Michael Jackson's "Billy Jean" (MFSL SACD) sounds unlike anything you've ever heard coming from CD.

On Heart's "Dreamboat Annie" MFSL SACD the eponymous track projects a sound stage hundreds of meters in width and kilometers deep. It's like you're really standing near a lake. Nothing on CD I ever heard could produce an effect like that.

 

[pablolie]

I respect the quest for great audio. We are on this website because of that.
But anyone that claims they can't enjoy their music because it isn't 24/192 is an ignorant pretentious poser.

 

[HalSF]

I have a bunch of SACDs that sound fantastic. I also have a big old pile of CDs that sound absolutely marvelous.

Q: What is the most important factor determining the relative sound quality of these two ways of listening?

A: No disputatious sea lions droning on about why it’s crucial to understand that one format is always magically superior to the other or why they’re always exactly the same.