Octave Music Don Grusin High Resolution Music Analysis (Video)

[Billy Budapest]

2) We always talk of the extra over 22KHz but isn't the real point of high res to give finer gradations in the audio band?

Increasing the sample rate does not result in any extra information being captured between 0-22kHz. The additional samples only plot data following the waves that can be perfectly reconstructed at 44.1kHz. So, there are no finer gradations.

Increasing bit depth allows for greater dynamic range and higher SNR, but the music recorded on CD’s doesn’t even require the 96dB or so dynamic range that is theoretically available.

 

[stevenswall]

Wouldn't it sound find with wide dispersion speakers as you'd get room ambiance? Maybe in headphones and nearfield it wouldn't sound "normal."

 

[Geert]

Does Octave Records have interfaces/ ADCs that are specifically made for DSD or do they just record PCM and convert it to DSD?

They record in DSD, to suggest they're providing exceptional quality.

 

[Geert]

I've downloaded a couple of the Octave Records albums and to me they sound like music which would be playing while you're waiting for your latte at Starbucks.

In yesterday's video he argued he's ready for Stevie Wonder or Beyonce. Guess why that will never happen.

 

[amper42]

PS Audio has a private music label called "Octave Music." I got a request yesterday to look into their high-resolution offering and see what they are doing in that regard. So I downloaded the Don Grusin "Out of thin air" album ($29) and performed analysis both on the DSD version and PCM. There is also some technical explanation of the formats and explanation for what we see:

What's the return policy on this PS Audio music?

 

[Ralph_Cramden]

After Paul lifted hifi to new highs he's now acting like he's reinventing the recording industry. The facts is that's he's totally clueless.

Not clueless - he's making a ton of money off of fools.

 

[Geert]

What's the return policy on this PS Audio music?

Doesn't exist. You shouldn't have bought it if you don't have a resolving audio system or golden ears.

 

[Spkrdctr]

Well, to be fair to PS Audio, Amir did not like the music selection or the price. So that was two negatives right there before looking at the DSD format failure. So the review "seems" more negative than it really should be. Now, on the DSD format, it seems to me to be a non-starter. The old why bother? I bet that 98% of the human race can't tell a regular CD from a DSD recording in a blind test. Adding a bunch of 25khz and up into your speakers does NOT make the sound you actually hear (most likely below 15khz for music) sound any better. Using music and the same speakers, I bet no one can tell the difference. It is just another audiophiles way to spend more money on getting everything in DSD now.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert on digital formats at all. I just know how little anyone can hear differences of formats and equipment in blind tests. So, I think I have a very safe bet in no one passing a blind test on this stuff with music of any type.

 

[Count Arthur]

Thought I'd try it out on my one DSD256 file:

Looks like I got a similar result and what I'm guessing is some ultrasonic noise:

Reference Recordings?

 

[amirm]

Hey Amir, great work as always, couple of questions.

1) I suppose Octave would make the point that not having filters involved would improve the audio quality, any logic to that?
2) We always talk of the extra over 22KHz but isn't the real point of high res to give finer gradations in the audio band?

1) They would have to show that random noise piped into our systems is a good thing. I think they will fail on such an assignment or else, we would just put random noise generator in our players ourselves.

2) Yes and I assumed that was the case even though it may not be in the specific. If you note in the video, I said that 24 bit was better than 16.

So it is not that everything is terrible there. But rather, they are making decisions like using DSD64 and telling the world it is the best recording format. It is not till you see the extra noise pumped in there that a PCM encode would not have that you realize this is not the case.

 

[ThatM1key]

Recently I called PS Audio a well-respected company. But this is it.. First it turns out that much of their hardware is pure snakeoil, and now that their software is crap too. PS Audio should be dubbed “Paul’s Shitty Audio” from now on.

Pure Shit Audio

 

[dougi]

+1

High rez audio isn't higher resolution, it should be called high bandwidth audio. But marketing of the idea has such a history that will never happen.

But most "hi-rez" would also have a bit depth of 24 or more, which does give it more amplitude resolution, no?

 

[Billy Budapest]

But most "hi-rez" would also have a bit depth of 24 or more, which does give it more amplitude resolution, no?

Sure, but no hardware today has an SNR high enough to resolve all 24 bits (21-22 bits is the current state of the art) and no musical recordings take advantage of the maximum 144dB dynamic range theoretically available in 24-bit recordings. Plus, does the recording hardware itself (mics, mixing boards, A/D converters, DAW interfaces, etc.) have the ability to capture 24-bits worth of dynamic range?

 

[ThatM1key]

I don't know why companies don't use WavPack DSD, could've been 175mb for a song instead of 350mb. Imagine if lossless online stores only offered WAV files.

 

[Blumlein 88]

But most "hi-rez" would also have a bit depth of 24 or more, which does give it more amplitude resolution, no?

In theory yes. Pretty hard to even use all 96 db of 16 bit however. In any case if hirez only referenced 24 or 32 bit it would be in some sense correct. Saying higher sample rates gives higher resolution is just wrong.

 

[Astoneroad]

Wow... it's like the old joke... "How can you tell when Paul is lying? His lips are moving".

 

[Spkrdctr]

In theory yes. Pretty hard to even use all 96 db of 16 bit however. In any case if hirez only referenced 24 or 32 bit it would be in some sense correct. Saying higher sample rates gives higher resolution is just wrong.

Yup!

 

[Apesbrain]

It is often marketed to suggest that, and kind of intuitively makes sense in a stairstep/connect the dots kind of way (which is part of the problem imho for many as sampling theory isn't exactly intuitive), but no.

Whenever someone trots out that "stairstep" illustration to justify "hi-res", you can safely conclude that they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[Geert]

Not clueless - he's making a ton of money off of fools.

Pied Piper of Hamelin - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[jsm]

I've made same conclusion last year, analysing HD files (192khz/24bit) with a nice free software : spek
When I saw all this emptiness in 192khz files (sometimes with surprises like your file, a band of noise appears), I decided to stop my choice on 96khz/24bit at best. This software can also be usefull to test the quality of the file, if there is a regular gap below 22khz, there is certainly a problem with the file. And it's interesting to compare 24bits with 16bits file, you see a reinforcement into low freq (yellow became orange).

Another thing, you can download a freq generator onto your phone, generate high freq (20khz) and reduce until you really hear it... make your own conclusions , make the test with younger people, it's "funny" (or not).

I suppose that there is snake-oiled audiophile explanations to justify this numbers, a "technical" link between ultrasounds (by definition inaudible) powering normal sounds freq