Octave Music Don Grusin High Resolution Music Analysis (Video)

[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

 

[kongwee]

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.

It is comparing Billboard download to audiophile recording download. Could be 1,000,000 to 1. CD and Vinyl are still alive. A bunch of audiophile keeping DSD alive.

 

[JSmith]

From what I can see the premise of PCM vs DSD has not changed since this study found;

“These listening tests indicate that as a rule, no significant differences could be heard between DSD and high-resolution PCM (24-bit / 176.4 kHz) even with the best equipment, under optimal listening conditions, and with test subjects who had varied listening experience and various ways of focusing on what they hear. Consequently it could be proposed that neither of these systems has a scientific basis for claiming audible superiority over the other. This reality should put a halt to the disputation being carried on by the various PR departments concerned.”

You can take what you will from this study. It was done over 14 years ago and many things have changed…improved…over that span of years, but the essential premise of this study has remained the same. When audiophiles, equipment manufacturers, reviewers, and publications say that they can tell the difference between DSD 64 and high-resolution PCM recordings, chances are it’s not the format that they’re hearing but the nature of the production process associated with each version.

Perhaps there is no sonic difference between DSD (at any multiple) and high-resolution PCM. If that’s true, then I believe that PCM deserves the spotlight because it doesn’t suffer from the lack of tools, the ultrasonic noise, and file size inflation. It might be time to relegate DSD to “also ran” status and get back to making better sounding records.

DVD-Audio vs. SACD: A 2004 AES Paper Sheds Light – Real HD-Audio

www.realhd-audio.com

There seems to be no reason to continue with this archaic format as it provides no audible benefits over PCM.

There's nothing wrong with holding onto a defunct format for nostalgia purposes, but to claim it is superior in any way seems like a journey in falsity.


JSmith

 

[Miska]

There seems to be no reason to continue with this archaic format as it provides no audible benefits over PCM.

PCM is more archaic and there are no native PCM music recording ADCs on the market anymore. And same people who bash DSD also bash the few native PCM DACs that are still on the market.

So 10000:1 of the PCM recordings and playback are digital transformations from/to DSD-type data.

There's nothing wrong with holding onto a defunct format for nostalgia purposes, but to claim it is superior in any way seems like a journey in falsity.

Applies to PCM exactly...

 

[Miska]

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.

So are not things some people are trying to show here. Including showing "analysis" from broken tools like the one from now bankrupt company.

 

[Miska]

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

View attachment 195805

Doesn't make your case now, does it?

By the way, that looks quite a bit like edited recording made using RME ADI-2 Pro or similar AKM chip based ADC. And then some spurious tone at 50 kHz likely coming from some SMPS PSU.

For editing such recording, I would personally put some EQ notches at the spurious tones and then maybe a second order LPF at 50 kHz if you want to EQ out the slight remainder noise hump.

So I would say it is perfectly fine recording made using such ADC.

ADI-2 Pro running at DSD256:

If you run ADI-2 Pro at 705.6/32 PCM, it looks precisely same:

 

[Purité Audio]

Miska’s threads ought really to be in the ‘desperate dealers’ section.
Keith

 

[Blumlein 88]

Miska’s threads ought really to be in the ‘desperate dealers’ section.
Keith

Desperate Software Dealers or DSD.

 

[Miska]

On ES9038PRO chip, noise hump with PCM sources begins from 400 kHz and peaks at 700 kHz. IOW, it looks just like DSD512. Too bad it doesn't support native DSD to analog conversion, it could perform very nicely if it would, it could easily implement 64-tap analog FIR with it's conversion section.

 

[Purité Audio]

DSD flawed thirty years ago flawed now.
Keith

 

[Miska]

Miska’s threads ought really to be in the ‘desperate dealers’ section.

And yours in "bitter dealers" section, since you are selling very expensive yet cut-the-corners resource constrained hardware/software DSD DACs (Mola-Mola).

 

[Miska]

DSD flawed thirty years ago flawed now.

Yet you sell such stuff yourself.

I just run the "PCB 1" part in software, and the "PCB 2" part I published as Open Hardware design for free which other people have continued to improve.

 

[Purité Audio]

Don’t sell many of those Mis as I advise potential customers that there will be no improvement in sound quality and the money would be better saved or spent on something that will bring a real, audible improvement.
You appear to be a clever chap, invent something that actually improves sound quality, it will be much easier to sell.
Keith

 

[Miska]

You appear to be a clever chap, invent something that actually improves sound quality, it will be much easier to sell.

I do, better digital oversampling filters that you need for PCM sources (these wouldn't be needed if all content would be DSD). Better delta-sigma modulators. Tools to do such things as process digital room correction, digital headphone correction, multichannel-to-stereo mix-down, headphone cross-feed, RIAA correction, etc for analog sources, PCM sources and DSD sources (without rate conversions). All this along with support for playing PCM and DSD files and streaming from Qobuz and HRA services.

I can run HRTF 3D audio from 5.1 channel PCM and DSD sources to my headphones using my software.

So full "streaming DAC/pre-amp/power amp" firmware stack.

If you want to output PCM to a real native PCM DAC, it can also linearize and correct those as well and make those perform much better too.

This way you can get much more performance out of less expensive hardware, by utilizing resources of your already existing computers. IOW, you save money.


I don't care what kind of input or output format you like to use. I can do any-to-any without limitations of DSP capabilities. But I don't like ignorant people spreading FUD about DSD either.

 

[Dogcoop]

But I don't like ignorant people spreading FUD about DSD either.

I would say that obfuscation, gaslighting, trolling, ‘what-about-ism,’ the production of dubious measurements, and other claims without any objective measurements to substantiate them are all forms of ignorance. You rely on a relatively small number of ‘golden ears’ to substantiate your claims of improved performance. What kind of improved performance? The kind that only dogs can hear? You mention Mola Mola and I assume you believe running hqplayer in conjunction with the Mola Mola would yield improvement in sound quality. Please substantiate that. That would also imply that running your software with a current dac that measures well on Amir’s tests would also yield a significant sound improvement; please substantiate. Once again, I understand that if you are unable to substantiate your claims without obfuscation, gaslighting, ‘what-about-ism,’ and dubious measurements, that there would be no audible improvement for me by installing your software.

 

[pkane]

I do, better digital oversampling filters that you need for PCM sources (these wouldn't be needed if all content would be DSD). Better delta-sigma modulators. Tools to do such things as process digital room correction, digital headphone correction, multichannel-to-stereo mix-down, headphone cross-feed, RIAA correction, etc for analog sources, PCM sources and DSD sources (without rate conversions). All this along with support for playing PCM and DSD files and streaming from Qobuz and HRA services.

I can run HRTF 3D audio from 5.1 channel PCM and DSD sources to my headphones using my software.

So full "streaming DAC/pre-amp/power amp" firmware stack.

If you want to output PCM to a real native PCM DAC, it can also linearize and correct those as well and make those perform much better too.

This way you can get much more performance out of less expensive hardware, by utilizing resources of your already existing computers. IOW, you save money.


I don't care what kind of input or output format you like to use. I can do any-to-any without limitations of DSP capabilities. But I don't like ignorant people spreading FUD about DSD either.

That is great, but all these points you're making are for your software, not for DSD, Miska. That's why you really come across as constantly trying to push your wares. Look, DSD as a recording file storage and exchange format is not better than PCM, and in some cases demonstrated here -- worse. That's the point of this thread, and whether you realize it or not, you're arguing about something completely different, all the while accusing others of spreading FUD about DSD. Are you that desperate to sell HQPlayer?

 

[dualazmak]

Although quite belated, I just noticed this thread. Thank you amirm, for your repeated reminder of this issue.

Just for reference, the "ultra high frequency noises; UHF noises" frequently included in poorly QC-ed HiRes music files have been already fully discussed by amirm and many people including myself;
- "Near ultrasound - ultrasound" ultra-high frequency (UHF) noises in improperly engineered/processed HiRes music tracks, and EKIO's XO-EQ configuration to cut-off such noises: #362-#386

As I wrote here, the issue has been also discussed around 2015 in Japan, like in this page even though in Japanese;
https://sandalaudio.blogspot.com/2015/09/blog-post_17.html
I hope your web browser would properly translate it into English; where, "Niserezo (偽レゾ、ニセレゾ)" means "sham HiRes".
The article is really nice and delivers almost the same messages as amirm just gave to us.

Recently, I also posted this;
- Again, "Near ultrasound - ultrasound" ultra-high frequency (UHF) noises in HiRes music tracks, and EKIO's XO-EQ configuration to cut-off such noises: #518

I now feel very much happy and relieved that I have decided to always have low-pass (high-cut) -48 dB/Oct filters at 25 kHz for my protective measure (also to protect our beloved pets from UHF noises) , as shared here.

 

[BDWoody]

But I don't like ignorant people spreading FUD about DSD either.

That's enough of your 'clarifications' for this thread. You'll have to survive without having the last word.

Exhausting...

 

[Ricardus]

So are not things some people are trying to show here. Including showing "analysis" from broken tools like the one from now bankrupt company.

So you choose to emulate the people you think are not providing good evidence?

Do better.

 

[amirm]

But I don't like ignorant people spreading FUD about DSD either.

You mean you rather confuse them with graphs that go to 5 Mhz, hoping they don't know better and buy your software. You have proven that over and over again.