Octave Music Don Grusin High Resolution Music Analysis (Video)

[NTK]

Poor implemented DAC, similar to the one Amir uses everyday?

If you say there is nothing wrong with it, why show the graph?

 

[Music1969]

If you say there is nothing wrong with it, why show the graph?

Check the link for better graphs of same DAC

 

[NTK]

Check the link for better graphs of same DAC

I don't have that device to verify your miska's results, giving you miska the benefit of the doubt, it just shows that for this DAC, its 44.1/32 PCM is poorly implemented.

 

[Music1969]

I don't have that device to verify your results, giving you the benefit of the doubt, it just shows that for this DAC, its 44.1/32 PCM is poorly implemented.

Ok so please tell Amir, who uses the very similar V2 RME ADI-2 everyday , that PCM44.1 is poorly implemented with his DAC.

The irony is you are then in agreement with @Miska so I'm not sure why you accused him of FUD?

Amir described the DAC part of ADI-2 Pro as "near perfect":

Measurements of RME ADI-2 DAC and Headphone Amp

I reviewed and measured the RME ADI-2 DAC a year ago. That was just prior to getting my new Audio Precision APx555 so the measurements don't directly compare to what I publish now. So a local member kindly loaned me his ADI-2 DAC to get fresh measurements. If you are not familiar with RME...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I use ADI-2 V2 myself

 

[dc655321]

Ok so please tell Amir, who uses the very similar V2 RME ADI-2 everyday , that PCM44.1 is poorly implemented with his DAC.

You mean the chip is common between the RME and SMSL DACs?

Why be concerned about that? It’s one component (critical, surely) of many.

And why, “please tell Amir…”? Utterly irrelevant.

The “issue” begins 300kHz above the audioband for the instance shown.

 

[Music1969]

You mean the chip is common between the RME and SMSL DACs?

No his comment about the image at approx 353kHz with PCM44.1kHz inputs - is the RME a poorly designed DAC?

Of course not but it looks even cleaner with PCM705k and moreso with DSD256

 

[Miska]

Now, we are back to the original scheduled programming of most of the story can be told by SINAD.

What bandwidth?

But anyway, that's where the DSD is clearly winner.

So .... FUD on phase shift problem: Debunked

What FUD? Debunk what? I was just discussing alternatives of reconstruction filters to correctly reconstruct RedBook.

This you showed in post #956 is just a poor implemented DAC. Not that it matters much in real life as very few audio amplifiers has frequency bandwidth to a 300 kHz, no transducer reproduces them, and we can't hear them. It is shown that a bottom tier device sold >15 years ago did not have this problem. Another FUD debunked.

And on same argument, any FUD on DSD noise is also debunked. So we can end the thread here. But OTOH you DAC looks like a regular DSD128 DAC anyway, so you are obviously not concerned about this in first place.

Although this same discussion will return again in two years time. Like it has been for the past 20+ years.

 

[NTK]

What bandwidth?

But anyway, that's where the DSD is clearly winner.

I'll let you enjoy your (inaudible) "high bandwidth" contents buried in the (also inaudible) high frequency noise.

I'll keep my ability to apply DSP.

 

[Miska]

I'll let you enjoy your (inaudible) "high bandwidth" contents buried in the (also inaudible) high frequency noise.

I'll keep my ability to apply DSP.

Yeah, me too. I happily apply all the same DSP regardless if the content source is PCM or DSD. It doesn't affect my ability to do DSP.

Output format is always what ever is best for the particular DAC, it also doesn't depend on what format the source content happens to be.

 

[Music1969]

Although this same discussion will return again in two years time. Like it has been for the past 20+ years.

Yes this what will happen:

This thread will fizzle out - everything has been said from both sides.

In 12 months Amir will eventually muster some energy to purchase a high quality DSD256 recording and analyse it.

And all the same people of this thread will be back to make all the exact same arguments again.

And the one man army of Miska will valiantly attempt to defend each 1-bit of each attacking post

 

[amirm]

In 12 months Amir will eventually muster some energy to purchase a high quality DSD256 recording and analyse it.

Oh, you mean didn't already have enough of bad DSD recordings? I already have some:

Doesn't make your case now, does it?

 

[amirm]

No his comment about the image at approx 353kHz with PCM44.1kHz inputs - is the RME a poorly designed DAC?

You worry about something at 353 kHz? Are you serious?

 

[amirm]

What bandwidth?

But anyway, that's where the DSD is clearly winner.

If you want it filled with noise, sure.

 

[Music1969]

You worry about something at 353 kHz? Are you serious?

NTK was hinting that this is evidence of a poorly designed DAC so I simply asked, does that mean the RME is also a poorly designed DAC.

I use an RME everyday myself.

 

[Music1969]

Doesn't make your case now, does it?

What is my case?

I simply made a joke that the discussion will continue to go in circles in 12 months.

But it seems the discussion is ready to go in circles right now

 

[Miska]

Oh, you mean didn't already have enough of bad DSD recordings?

I have no shortage of bad PCM recordings. Fake hires. Over compress loudness wars things. Content driven to heavy digital clipping.

Yeah, great noise-free PCM recording from 2L!


Let's play a game. Show me one native DSD production with heavy digital clipping. And I show you two PCM recordings with heavy digital clipping.

 

[Ricardus]

I have no shortage of bad PCM recordings. Fake hires. Over compress loudness wars things. Content driven to heavy digital clipping.

View attachment 195809

Yeah, great noise-free PCM recording from 2L!


Let's play a game. Show me one native DSD production with heavy digital clipping. And I show you two PCM recordings with heavy digital clipping.

What does that have to do with the topic at hand? You can distort any recording format. But the "loudness wars" aren't baked into PCM by design. That's just ridiculous.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I have no shortage of bad PCM recordings. Fake hires. Over compress loudness wars things. Content driven to heavy digital clipping.

View attachment 195809

Yeah, great noise-free PCM recording from 2L!


Let's play a game. Show me one native DSD production with heavy digital clipping. And I show you two PCM recordings with heavy digital clipping.

What is the ratio of PCM recordings to DSD? Maybe 10,000 to one or maybe more. So okay play your game. Just make it a 10,000 display of the bad PCM recordings to keep it proportional.

 

[NTK]

NTK was hinting that this is evidence of a poorly designed DAC so I simply asked, does that mean the RME is also a poorly designed DAC.

I use an RME everyday myself.

This was what I said. It doesn't matter in real life. But since it can clearly be avoided, there is simply no good reason not to.

This you showed in post #956 is just a poor implemented DAC. Not that it matters much in real life as very few audio amplifiers has frequency bandwidth to a 300 kHz, no transducer reproduces them, and we can't hear them. It is shown that a bottom tier device sold >15 years ago did not have this problem. Another FUD debunked.

[Edit] Did you notice any problem with your RME DAC before you see those graphs? If not, what is there to worry about?

 

[Music1969]

This was what I said. It doesn't matter in real life. But since it can clearly be avoided, there is simply no good reason not to.

Exactly - it can be avoided, as graphs by Miska showed with the same DAC.

[Edit] Did you notice any problem with your RME DAC before you see those graphs? If not, what is there to worry about?

Who said I am worried about anything? You are the one that hinted it was poor DAC design not me?

I simply pointed to measurements Miska showed in this thread, that make the ultrasonic plots look nicer. Nothing more than that.

If you think the RME should do a better job in ultrasonics without PC software upsampling, then you should mention it to @MC_RME